It's been done before. According to the book "Lost Moon" (Jim Lovel and Jeffrey Kluger), some of the equipment that Apollo 13 was going to leave on the moon was nuclear powered. Because of the tree huggers, the nuclear material was encased in ceramic "armor" in case the LEM crashed on Earth. Thanks to this "armor," the nuclear material was delivered safely to a very deep spot in the ocean (where the LEM wound up). It is presumably still there today.
The down side, of course, is that this technique probably doesn't scale very well. The aditional weight would probably double or triple the cost of the fuel as well. But, if we're going to try something like this, we may as well do it right.
Except for so-called "superstars," most bands make 85-90% of their income off of CD's. In fact, most bands (again, except for "superstars") actually *lose* money on concerts. The whole point of touring is to generate sales of CD's. Since record companies want to sell CD's, most record companies will actually compensate the band for their loss (this is called "tour support").
Go ahead and try a simple program, interspacing 8 spaces with tabs. Python doesn't complain.
Ok, now display your code on in an editor that thinks one tab = six spaces. Now you can't read the code because you can't tell where the block actually ends.
Or, worse, try to edit code in one of these editors. You hit tab to indent, but that only produces six spaces. So, you add two more spaces after the tab, making Python think that that particular line is in a new block.
Languages that force you to conform to one particular style went out with FORTRAN. Deal.
I tried to post the source to/., but formatting problems got in the way. So, if you'll contact me directly (at the above address), I'll be happy to send you a copy of the source. And, no, I don't have a home page right now, so I can't post it for you to download.
IANA Physicist, but if a person uses a lever to move a heaver object, he has done more work. The lever only enabled him to do more work. It didn't do some of the work for him. So, yes, the person moving the object should be paid more.
Back on topic now:
If a radio station starts an Internet broadcast, how much should they raise the pay of the DJ's? By your argument, the DJ's pay should be baised on the number of listeners. So, if this station, which had 10,000 listeners, reaches 20 people via the net, should the DJ's should get a.2% raise? What if the servers go down for a day? Should their pay be docked that.2% for just that day? After all, he's not reaching those 20 people that day.
The only justification for any company to not raise employee wages in response to an increase in revenue is sheer executive and stockholder greed.
Yes, that's the problem, isn't it? Does Internet broadcasting result in revenue increses? When I was in college, I took an afternoon job with a local radio station. During my stay there, we decided to create an Internet simulcast. We got it from some company (I forgot which) in trade for a certain number of commercials per day. After getting it running, we saw NO change in the amount of ad revenue generated. The fact is, Internet broadcasts simply do not attract enough listeners to justify an increase in ad prices. We couldn't replace ads in the Internet stream like you suggest, because no national company is going to pay to reach a grand total of five listeners. Thus, since it wasn't generating any extra revenue, none of the employees got raises because of it.
1. Radio stations derive revenue based on the number of listeners that they can bring to advertisors.
Granted.
2. Internet simulcasting and rebroadcasting allows a radio station to reach many more people, many of whom might live outside of their normal broadcasting radius, and who would not be reachable over the airwaves.
If I advertise on the radio, I'm trying to attract customers. If someone lives far enough away that they can't pick up the station on their car radio, they're certainly not going to be able to drive to my business. Therefore, I don't want to pay for advertising that's not going to attract more customers. Especially since only a very few people listen to Internet radio anyway.
3. Therefore it's not totally unreasonable to ask for more money if you're a DJ. The radio station management is certainly going to ask for more money from the advertisors; why shouldn't DJs see some of that money?
As I've already said, Internet simulcasting doesn't provide any more revenue. Radio stations that simulcast don't ask any more money than stations that don't simulcast. Even if they do, it's not going to be a 300% increase.
If the DJ's do extra work, and the station gets more money as a result, then the DJ's should share in a large part of that. Internet simulcasting doesn't bring in any more money, and doesn't require extra work on the part of the DJ's. So why should they be paid more?
Actually I was referring to high quality *voice conversations.* Although being able to dial in to your home MP3 player from your cellular-equiped car stereo would be kind of cool...
Since these phones are capable of transmitting such a high data rate, part of this data could be used for high quality voice conversations. "Modern" phones (cellular or wired) filter out anything above about three or four kHz. This results in the caracteristic "telephone sound" you hear when someone calls in to a radio station. ALL phone conversations sound like that, but we're so used to hearing it that we don't notice it.
This phone could solve these problems. IIRC, real time CD-quality audio requires 0.7 Mbps. This would leave plenty of bandwidth left over for viewing (say) a shared presentation on a laptop plugged into the dataport on the phone.
The downside to this is that, if you're calling a regular cell phone or wired phone, you'll still have to put up with a low quality connection. However, if enough people start using the high quality voice feature (assuming Sprint offers this), it could be an incentive for other companies to start offering high quality audio connections.
Yes, actually I did major in Comp Sci for my first few semesters.
Just for fun, I ran the program overnight with 200,000,000 cases. The percentages were even closer to 75/25.
I realize that this method wasn't completely rigorous. With all of the arguments for and against this method, I just wanted to check to see if the methodology held up in a "(simulated) Real World" scenario.
So, is it possible to increase your odds or not? I wondered this, so I created a Perl script that chooses three hat colors at random. It then applies the technique mentioned in the article. The result? And I quote:
Out of 100000 tests:
75093 (75.093%) resulted in success.
24907 (24.907%) resulted in failures.
Has someone cracked the players so that they can be used to distribute free movies?
It might help if you'd actually read the article. "... DivX Networks is going to the people, opening up the code in its codec so that software developers all over the world can take a look and make their own additions or changes" (from part 1). Also from part 1, "DivX-encoded content -- hard to find and difficult to download nine months ago -- now appears all over the Net."
The algorithm to decode the ratio stored in the Crystal Rod must be extremely complex.
Not really. For example, to encode:
Convert encyclopedia into a single, large integer, x.
Choose two numbers, y and z, such that y/z = x and y + z = length_of_crystal_rod.
Place the mark a distance of y from one end (thereby making it distance z from the other end per step 2).
This scheme would be fairly simple to decode:
Measure the distance from the mark to either end, recovering y and z.
Divide y by z, recovering x.
Convert x back into the encyclopedia.
Of course, the alien mentioned would have to add an extra step: that of translating a human language into his/her/its language. But this is left as an exercise for the reader.
Do all the angles of copyright law still apply if I *don't* have that little line of text saying "copyright 2001 by moi"?
Yes.
Of course, if you don't put the copyright notice, you're basically saying "I don't mind if you copy this, even though I have a copyright." You, as the owner of the copyright, can decide who has permission to copy your works, and who doesn't. Just be aware that, if you don't defend your copyright and enough people copy your work, you can loose your copyright. Also, IANAL, so take this post with a grain of salt.
Of course, IANAMBA (I Am Not A MBA), so I may be just embarrasing myself. LLC may have another meaning that I'm not aware of. Anyone else care to comment?
I think people are getting the wrong idea about this e-paper. Everyone's complaining about CRT- and LCD-like eyestrain. The e-paper talked about in the article actually used ink. It's just that the ink they use changes color in response to a magnetic field. Once they get the resolution to an acceptable level, you would be hard pressed to tell a piece of e-paper from dead-tree paper by looking at it (it probably wouldn't feel like paper, but we're talking about eyestrain here).
Will e-paper ever replace regular paper? Probably not. But I for one wouldn't mind getting at least some of my reading material directly from the internet.
Let's say that the probe weighs 100kg. (I don't know the specifics on NEAR's design, so I'm making up a probe with nice round numbers for my example. You can extrapolate this to NEAR's design.) Further assume that the probe burned 200kg of fuel en route (not an unreasonable payload/fuel ratio), making the launch weight 300kg.
Now, let's make it a round trip. At first, you would think that you could simply double the amount of fuel on board. But, remember that you've got to carry all of the fuel for the return trip, which becomes part of the payload for the outgoing trip. So, in order to carry all 300kg to the destination (100kg payload + 200kg fuel), you need 600kg of fuel. Thus, the total amount of fuel to move the 100kg payload is 800kg.
...the resistance that a superconductor offers is practically zero, but not exactly zero...
This is incorrect. Superconductors, when properly cooled, have 0(zero) resistance. If a current is flowing throught a loop of superconducting wire, the current will continue to flow until something else stops it, even if the source of the current is removed.
Other factors limit the amount of current a superconductor can carry. However, within these limits, the current coming out of a superconductor is exactly the same as the current going in, regardless of the length of the wire.
By law, all space shots (at least in the US) must launch over water, so any accidents wind up in the ocean, and away from populated areas. By the time the spacecraft is over land, it is high enought that the little cubes would burn up in the atmosphere. After all, the Earth is hit by hundreds of 10cm. asteroids every day, and none of them ever make it to the surface.
Slashdot Mirror
The down side, of course, is that this technique probably doesn't scale very well. The aditional weight would probably double or triple the cost of the fuel as well. But, if we're going to try something like this, we may as well do it right.
You're right, I appologize for posting before researching.
Except for so-called "superstars," most bands make 85-90% of their income off of CD's. In fact, most bands (again, except for "superstars") actually *lose* money on concerts. The whole point of touring is to generate sales of CD's. Since record companies want to sell CD's, most record companies will actually compensate the band for their loss (this is called "tour support").
Ok, now display your code on in an editor that thinks one tab = six spaces. Now you can't read the code because you can't tell where the block actually ends.
Or, worse, try to edit code in one of these editors. You hit tab to indent, but that only produces six spaces. So, you add two more spaces after the tab, making Python think that that particular line is in a new block.
Languages that force you to conform to one particular style went out with FORTRAN. Deal.
I tried to post the source to /., but formatting problems got in the way. So, if you'll contact me directly (at the above address), I'll be happy to send you a copy of the source. And, no, I don't have a home page right now, so I can't post it for you to download.
IANA Physicist, but if a person uses a lever to move a heaver object, he has done more work. The lever only enabled him to do more work. It didn't do some of the work for him. So, yes, the person moving the object should be paid more.
Back on topic now:
If a radio station starts an Internet broadcast, how much should they raise the pay of the DJ's? By your argument, the DJ's pay should be baised on the number of listeners. So, if this station, which had 10,000 listeners, reaches 20 people via the net, should the DJ's should get a .2% raise? What if the servers go down for a day? Should their pay be docked that .2% for just that day? After all, he's not reaching those 20 people that day.
Yes, that's the problem, isn't it? Does Internet broadcasting result in revenue increses? When I was in college, I took an afternoon job with a local radio station. During my stay there, we decided to create an Internet simulcast. We got it from some company (I forgot which) in trade for a certain number of commercials per day. After getting it running, we saw NO change in the amount of ad revenue generated. The fact is, Internet broadcasts simply do not attract enough listeners to justify an increase in ad prices. We couldn't replace ads in the Internet stream like you suggest, because no national company is going to pay to reach a grand total of five listeners. Thus, since it wasn't generating any extra revenue, none of the employees got raises because of it.
Granted.
If I advertise on the radio, I'm trying to attract customers. If someone lives far enough away that they can't pick up the station on their car radio, they're certainly not going to be able to drive to my business. Therefore, I don't want to pay for advertising that's not going to attract more customers. Especially since only a very few people listen to Internet radio anyway.
As I've already said, Internet simulcasting doesn't provide any more revenue. Radio stations that simulcast don't ask any more money than stations that don't simulcast. Even if they do, it's not going to be a 300% increase.
If the DJ's do extra work, and the station gets more money as a result, then the DJ's should share in a large part of that. Internet simulcasting doesn't bring in any more money, and doesn't require extra work on the part of the DJ's. So why should they be paid more?
Actually I was referring to high quality *voice conversations.* Although being able to dial in to your home MP3 player from your cellular-equiped car stereo would be kind of cool...
Since these phones are capable of transmitting such a high data rate, part of this data could be used for high quality voice conversations. "Modern" phones (cellular or wired) filter out anything above about three or four kHz. This results in the caracteristic "telephone sound" you hear when someone calls in to a radio station. ALL phone conversations sound like that, but we're so used to hearing it that we don't notice it.
This phone could solve these problems. IIRC, real time CD-quality audio requires 0.7 Mbps. This would leave plenty of bandwidth left over for viewing (say) a shared presentation on a laptop plugged into the dataport on the phone.
The downside to this is that, if you're calling a regular cell phone or wired phone, you'll still have to put up with a low quality connection. However, if enough people start using the high quality voice feature (assuming Sprint offers this), it could be an incentive for other companies to start offering high quality audio connections.
Yes, actually I did major in Comp Sci for my first few semesters.
Just for fun, I ran the program overnight with 200,000,000 cases. The percentages were even closer to 75/25.
I realize that this method wasn't completely rigorous. With all of the arguments for and against this method, I just wanted to check to see if the methodology held up in a "(simulated) Real World" scenario.
Out of 100000 tests:
75093 (75.093%) resulted in success.
24907 (24.907%) resulted in failures.
Seems pretty obvious to me.
- Download GPL'd software (i.e. Linux)
- Send the source code through a Pasport site
- Sue anyone who distributed said software without a M$ license?
I doubt that copyright law would allow this, but it is something to think about.Has someone cracked the players so that they can be used to distribute free movies?
It might help if you'd actually read the article. "... DivX Networks is going to the people, opening up the code in its codec so that software developers all over the world can take a look and make their own additions or changes" (from part 1). Also from part 1, "DivX-encoded content -- hard to find and difficult to download nine months ago -- now appears all over the Net."
--
The algorithm to decode the ratio stored in the Crystal Rod must be extremely complex.
Not really. For example, to encode:
This scheme would be fairly simple to decode:
Of course, the alien mentioned would have to add an extra step: that of translating a human language into his/her/its language. But this is left as an exercise for the reader.
--
Do all the angles of copyright law still apply if I *don't* have that little line of text saying "copyright 2001 by moi"?
Yes.
Of course, if you don't put the copyright notice, you're basically saying "I don't mind if you copy this, even though I have a copyright." You, as the owner of the copyright, can decide who has permission to copy your works, and who doesn't. Just be aware that, if you don't defend your copyright and enough people copy your work, you can loose your copyright. Also, IANAL, so take this post with a grain of salt.
--
Problem solved.
--
Of course, IANAMBA (I Am Not A MBA), so I may be just embarrasing myself. LLC may have another meaning that I'm not aware of. Anyone else care to comment?
--
Will e-paper ever replace regular paper? Probably not. But I for one wouldn't mind getting at least some of my reading material directly from the internet.
--
Let's say that the probe weighs 100kg. (I don't know the specifics on NEAR's design, so I'm making up a probe with nice round numbers for my example. You can extrapolate this to NEAR's design.) Further assume that the probe burned 200kg of fuel en route (not an unreasonable payload/fuel ratio), making the launch weight 300kg.
Now, let's make it a round trip. At first, you would think that you could simply double the amount of fuel on board. But, remember that you've got to carry all of the fuel for the return trip, which becomes part of the payload for the outgoing trip. So, in order to carry all 300kg to the destination (100kg payload + 200kg fuel), you need 600kg of fuel. Thus, the total amount of fuel to move the 100kg payload is 800kg.
--
This is incorrect. Superconductors, when properly cooled, have 0(zero) resistance. If a current is flowing throught a loop of superconducting wire, the current will continue to flow until something else stops it, even if the source of the current is removed.
Other factors limit the amount of current a superconductor can carry. However, within these limits, the current coming out of a superconductor is exactly the same as the current going in, regardless of the length of the wire.
--
--