The article could leave one with the impression that this is an 11th hour ad hoc improvisation, when nothing could be further from the truth. Using existing [Martian] satellites as relay stations for other satellites and landers has been part of the plans for at least a decade.
The recent proposal to send humans to Mars is idiotic. I.e. we send take months and god knows how many $$ to send a few humans to Mars and then bring them back. What kind of an idiotic idea is that? One should be engaged (and I hope the folks at NASA are reading this) in a serious discussion of what is the information retrieval rate of a space probe (robotic explorer, etc.) vs.a human being?
The discussion has long been engaged and has been over for almost as long - human explorers outperform robotic ones by a very wide margin. What either of the current rovers have accomplished in their three years on the surface could have been accomplished by a human geologists in three weeks or less.
[nods] I fly out of Sea-Tac and, as I said, have never encountered a real delay. When I fly to/from LA I fly through John Wayne, mostly because my sister lives 5mins away, and even there at Disneyland's unofficial airport the delays are minimal. Of course it also helps that I avoid peak travel days and hours when I can.
Based on reading Slashdot over the years, I'm still not convinced that a large portion of the gripes (here) aren't from being quasi-ADD.:):)
On a related note, I've never been able to figure out exactly why going through security in the US takes so long. As near as I can tell, the China and US airports do the exact same screening - the liquids in the bag, laptops out, no shoes, etc. - plus a passport check - and still it is on average 3x faster. So strange...
I'm simply curious as to where these folks complaining here are seeing these 'massive' security delays... Its never taken me longer than 10 minutes to clear security (other than the one time I was chosen for 'extra screening' and even then it was only five extra minutes), even at peak traveling hours. I know several people who routinely travel on business, and they report the same thing. [shrug] Maybe it's just that I, and my friends, are older and don't suffer from ADD.
Google Earth has had something like this for a long time now.
Not really - because Google Sky is a fixed map.
Is this any better or is it just an expression of Microsoft's fear of Google and need to "me too" everything Google does?
This a) much better and b) you really need to pay attention to who is "me too"ing. (Google Maps, for example, was a "me too" from Microsoft Terraserver.)
MS has been doing this kind of high concept demo's for years to provide real life examples of tech they hope to apply elsewhere - many people forget the first big mapping/aerial/satellite photography database on the web wasn't Google Maps, or Yahoo Maps, or any of the other big names today... It was Microsoft's Terraserver. (Which is still quite useful because one of it's layers is topo maps.)
Seems a silly question. Let me ask you this, would you rather have an original Nintendo signed by the people who made Super Mario Bros., or a long-since faded polaroid picture of a Nintendo with scrawl covering the picture?
Given that I have polaroids nearly four decades old that are as good as new...
There are plenty of good tools that exist today but aren't regularly used because no-knock is easier.
They are used plenty - when the situation warrants. But they take time, time which (in the scenario posited) doesn't exist.
And of course, your whole hollywood baloney completely ignores the effect of better procedures like simply surveiling the premises for a longer period of time to get more information about who is present, what rooms they are in and what they are doing.
Again - a technique commonly and widely used when the situation warrants. But they take time, time which (in the scenario posited) doesn't exist.
Of course you can hand-wave about some silly movie tech (which you haven't even bothered to name), but that's completely non-productive.
No, I'm not handwaving some silly tech, I'm discussing facts and reality.
111% percent certain - because gravity doesn't work like that. At a bare minimum, numerous asteroids as well as Pluto and multiple comets, go considerably above and below the ecliptic - we'd see the variations in their orbit if such a distribution of mass was present. We don't see any such variations.
No, I've just grown tired of trying to explain science to the scientific illiterates that populate Slashdot. Someone literate in science would know that the AU is an approximation - not a precise value. Someone literate in science would know that 7-10 meters is about a third of the current error known to exist in the approximation of the AU.
No, I haven't forgotten how science works. We've been observing gravity for centuries - we have a highly refined model tested and proven and tested and proven again. For this to be an effect of gravity doesn't mean refining the model - it means tearing it down all the way back to Newton and Galileo.
But understanding that requires not being scientifically illiterate.
Yes, there is a 'period' at that point. Gravity doesn't work like that. Period. If there were gravity effects at work, we'd see them on the planets. Period. If there were inconsistencies and paradoxes in how gravity work, we'd have long since observed it. Period.
No, the reason such equipment doesn't exist - is because such equipment isn't really practical. Physics in the real world doesn't work like it does in Hollywood.
You would think they have enough surveillance & snoop equipment to look into a house they've got a call on to find the house empty, or have no struggle going on.
You would think so - if your source of information is Hollywood or tinfoil hat websites. In reality, they don't.
Can't they just send one officer instead of a whole SWAT team, why not just send one officer in to kindly inquire?
You know what happens when they do that? People die. Either the cop, or people involved in the struggle, or innocent bystanders.
If such a source did exist, and was in fact the cause of the Pioneer anomaly - it wouldn't be be the Pioneer anomaly as we'd have seen it's effects on the outer planets decades ago. This goes 1x10^10 for NEAR which has barely left the inner solar system.
Solving it in freshman physics has very little to do with solving it with real world hardware that can built within the constraints of time, mass, volume, budget, reliability, etc...
Anchors are only heavy because they need to travel 'far' in a decent amount of time. The weight isn't there to help stop the boat, it's there to get to the bottom before you drift away from where you want to be.
ROTFLMAO. You actually believe this?
I can drive some 6" plastic spikes into the ground for a 10'x10' canopy that will resist a 50mph wind blowing it away. That's a hell of a lot more resistence than my weight would provide.
And how do you drive those spikes from the rover without encountering the recoil/resistance effects the spikes are supposed to anchor you against in the first place?
Of course it's not this simple, however it's closer to simple than it is some colosal achievment.
As I said, stuff is always simple when you pretend the messy bits of reality can simply be handwaved away.
It's not really integrated well with other Google applications, you have to have a separate domain and separate login (if you use an @gmail login) to use it.
The moon has one-sixth the gravity of Earth, so a lightweight rover will have a difficult job resisting drilling forces and remaining stable.
I really tire of all the sensationlism that needs to be tied to everything. Give me a break. This problem has been solved so many times it's not even funnny.
Right - then why don't you provide some solutions that work rather than handwaving nonsense?
How many helicopters which essentially have 0 gravitational force to keep them straight do you see spinning out of control?
Helicopters provide counter revolution forces in a wide variety of way, precisely none of which will work on the rover.
I think ships anchors are a pretty old tech that's been around a while. How about firing a few pilons into the ground for anchorage.
For the first, anchors are heavy - and spare weight allowance isn't something the rover has. For the second, how do drive the pitons without encountering the very problems you are driving the pitons to resist?
It isn't nearly as simply as you make out.
A group of 5th graders can solve this.
Everything is easy when all you have to do is handwave. It gets rather harder when you actually have to do it.
What I was trying to say was that the contents of your house (personal property) you don't pay tax on, but you have already been "taxed" once on the income you used to purchase them.
What part of "completely and utterly irrelevant" was so hard to understand? Do I need to link to dictionary definitions of the big words?
You already paid tax on the money you used to purchase the personal property.
Completely and utterly irrelevant.
If your personal property starts to produce income (money tree, anyone?), then that income when declared will be taxed.
I shouldn't have to point out that a tax on income is in no way a tax on property, but it seems you need it spelled out. Therefore: "a tax on income is in no way a tax on property".
Slashdot Mirror
The USN Submarine Service wasn't packed to the rafters, but they were pretty common.
Actually, a goodly number of my best friends (even the non gamer ones) I met ultimately because I started playing D&D.
The article could leave one with the impression that this is an 11th hour ad hoc improvisation, when nothing could be further from the truth. Using existing [Martian] satellites as relay stations for other satellites and landers has been part of the plans for at least a decade.
The discussion has long been engaged and has been over for almost as long - human explorers outperform robotic ones by a very wide margin. What either of the current rovers have accomplished in their three years on the surface could have been accomplished by a human geologists in three weeks or less.
[nods] I fly out of Sea-Tac and, as I said, have never encountered a real delay. When I fly to/from LA I fly through John Wayne, mostly because my sister lives 5mins away, and even there at Disneyland's unofficial airport the delays are minimal. Of course it also helps that I avoid peak travel days and hours when I can.
:) :)
Based on reading Slashdot over the years, I'm still not convinced that a large portion of the gripes (here) aren't from being quasi-ADD.
I'm simply curious as to where these folks complaining here are seeing these 'massive' security delays... Its never taken me longer than 10 minutes to clear security (other than the one time I was chosen for 'extra screening' and even then it was only five extra minutes), even at peak traveling hours. I know several people who routinely travel on business, and they report the same thing. [shrug] Maybe it's just that I, and my friends, are older and don't suffer from ADD.
Not really - because Google Sky is a fixed map.
This a) much better and b) you really need to pay attention to who is "me too"ing. (Google Maps, for example, was a "me too" from Microsoft Terraserver.)
MS has been doing this kind of high concept demo's for years to provide real life examples of tech they hope to apply elsewhere - many people forget the first big mapping/aerial/satellite photography database on the web wasn't Google Maps, or Yahoo Maps, or any of the other big names today... It was Microsoft's Terraserver. (Which is still quite useful because one of it's layers is topo maps.)
Nope, color.
Given that I have polaroids nearly four decades old that are as good as new...
They are used plenty - when the situation warrants. But they take time, time which (in the scenario posited) doesn't exist.
Again - a technique commonly and widely used when the situation warrants. But they take time, time which (in the scenario posited) doesn't exist.
No, I'm not handwaving some silly tech, I'm discussing facts and reality.
111% percent certain - because gravity doesn't work like that. At a bare minimum, numerous asteroids as well as Pluto and multiple comets, go considerably above and below the ecliptic - we'd see the variations in their orbit if such a distribution of mass was present. We don't see any such variations.
No, I've just grown tired of trying to explain science to the scientific illiterates that populate Slashdot. Someone literate in science would know that the AU is an approximation - not a precise value. Someone literate in science would know that 7-10 meters is about a third of the current error known to exist in the approximation of the AU.
No, I haven't forgotten how science works. We've been observing gravity for centuries - we have a highly refined model tested and proven and tested and proven again. For this to be an effect of gravity doesn't mean refining the model - it means tearing it down all the way back to Newton and Galileo.
But understanding that requires not being scientifically illiterate.
Yes, there is a 'period' at that point. Gravity doesn't work like that. Period. If there were gravity effects at work, we'd see them on the planets. Period. If there were inconsistencies and paradoxes in how gravity work, we'd have long since observed it. Period.
No, the reason such equipment doesn't exist - is because such equipment isn't really practical. Physics in the real world doesn't work like it does in Hollywood.
Gravity doesn't work like that. If it is affecting the satellites, it will affect the planets as well. Period.
You would think so - if your source of information is Hollywood or tinfoil hat websites. In reality, they don't.
You know what happens when they do that? People die. Either the cop, or people involved in the struggle, or innocent bystanders.
Gravity doesn't work like that. If it is affecting the satellites, it will affect the planets as well. Period.
If such a source did exist, and was in fact the cause of the Pioneer anomaly - it wouldn't be be the Pioneer anomaly as we'd have seen it's effects on the outer planets decades ago. This goes 1x10^10 for NEAR which has barely left the inner solar system.
Remember this is a sampling drill - not a hole making drill. Thus counter rotating bits and auger bits are Right Out.
Solving it in freshman physics has very little to do with solving it with real world hardware that can built within the constraints of time, mass, volume, budget, reliability, etc...
ROTFLMAO. You actually believe this?
And how do you drive those spikes from the rover without encountering the recoil/resistance effects the spikes are supposed to anchor you against in the first place?
As I said, stuff is always simple when you pretend the messy bits of reality can simply be handwaved away.
It's not really integrated well with other Google applications, you have to have a separate domain and separate login (if you use an @gmail login) to use it.
Right - then why don't you provide some solutions that work rather than handwaving nonsense?
Helicopters provide counter revolution forces in a wide variety of way, precisely none of which will work on the rover.
For the first, anchors are heavy - and spare weight allowance isn't something the rover has. For the second, how do drive the pitons without encountering the very problems you are driving the pitons to resist?
It isn't nearly as simply as you make out.
Everything is easy when all you have to do is handwave. It gets rather harder when you actually have to do it.
What part of "completely and utterly irrelevant" was so hard to understand? Do I need to link to dictionary definitions of the big words?
Completely and utterly irrelevant.
I shouldn't have to point out that a tax on income is in no way a tax on property, but it seems you need it spelled out. Therefore: "a tax on income is in no way a tax on property".