if there were full elephants on that small of an island, I doubt they just decided to eat less and only breed with the smaller ones.
You presume selective pressure to be of a voluntary nature. With a sapient species that could be true, but that would also imply they had some kind of rational views about size and survivability.
It is more reasonable to suppose they were merely living their lives and the larger were selected against, not merely by their need of larger amounts of energy during lean times, but also by the climate and humidity.
All kinds of mutations can come about from several generations of inbreeding.
Inbreeding is not a cause of mutations. Inbreeding merely reduces diversity within the gene pool. A small population with uniform selective pressure exerted on it might also exhibit more rapid genetic drift toward a new norm.
The problem is the solution? The Doppler effect isn't the problem, it is a part of the requirements specification, and a known quantity that has been dealt with before.
Except that in this case it wasn't: The engineered solution was for a land-based communication, which doesn't match the requirements specification. This fact was hidden by the NDAs NASA could not sign, and the company's perceived threat that providing the engineering details would give JPL a competitive advantage.
So the problem wasn't The Doppler Effect, the problem was NASA (and ESA) was developing with a blackbox they were told was engineered to the task that was not.
Re:Clever Solution
on
Saving Huygens
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
So instead they're altering the flightpaths so that Cassini is now far enough away from Huygens that the broadcast vector is mostly perpendicular, with minimal Doppler shift -- think about standing very far away from the racetrack instead of right in front of the car.
Today on slashdot I learned that angle of incidence is a function of distance. Thanks for the "informative" post.
THIS kind of stuff is what NASA needs to be held accountable for.
Yeah, shame on NASA for following its edict as a publicly held organization. Shame on them for reverse engineering the specifications of the receiver instead of just signing the NDA.
And, shame on them for being required to assume the contractor made something suitable to the job at hand, on a project run by the ESA.
Which doesn't make sense: did nobody at NASA have the brainpower to conceive of sending an emulated signal just like the one they actually ended up using?
It doesn't make sense because the pp gave a very facile explanation of the problem inviting misinterpretation.
NASA ran three tests, all of which passed, but none of which tested the internal correction of signal to carrier wave. Why this is true is due to a number of factors which were laid out in TFA.
The assumption that the receiver worked was in part due to the fact the (spanish) company that made it would not release the specifications without an NDA. Because NASA is a public organ they couldn't sign the NDA.
The hardware fault was not NASA's doing, however, despite what so many of the trolls around here would have you think. It isn't even NASA's probe.
Nader could have said he wouldn't have crusaded against a car that was proven to be as safe as any other car of its period.
I keep hearing that asserted, or it's variants. Do you mean to say the corvair was as unsafe as he said, but so were all the other cars? Who has funded this refutation of "Unsafe At Any Speed?"
If one should wish to understand why, one should refer to those media in which they develop their positions adequately.
I don't want to know why, but rather how. If they don't answer that I'm not interested, but if they can, or at least give clues that are acceptable to a skeptical inquiry, I am interested in any links you could provide.
If you reprocess Nuclear Wastes by removing the long-lived Radioactive Isotopes (U-235, Pu-238), and use them in reactors, you are left with stuff that is only radioactive for 10's - 100's of years.
Aren't you ignoring isotopes induced in the surrounding materials of the power plant itself?
The fact that you got midded up as "5 insightful" reveals the intellectual dishonesty and self-congratulatory wanking that that permuates through slashdot.
You have read far more into +5 insightful than is actually there. Maybe you are projecting?
In my experience (As a former born-again Christian with formerly-religious parents[1]), many Protestants don't consider Catholics to be Christian.
I was not a born-again christian, I was a protestant evangelical. And in the years of Bible study and years of "Catechism" (we went to classes for two years twice a week in order to observe the sacrament) I was never, ever, exposed to such intolerant doctrines against another church. This is a side of Protestantism I'm unfamiliar with, although I recognize that things have changed remarkably since I was in the fold.
We were merely taught that non-believers in Jesus who had not accepted Him as their savior were destined to go to an eternity of blinding pain and immense psychological tortures.
Regarding your fathers story, I had a similar one but not violent. When I was asked (after the public examination preceding my acceptance to the taking of the sacrament) if I would die rather than deny that Christ was a living force in my life, I said I had never been put in a life-threatening situation and could not honestly say if I would react in the way I thought I believed. He got his back up there and acted all upset and stood up to rail at me. He threatened me with public censure, what would my mom think. So I did what he wanted, just to calm him down. I suppose if I were consistent with my rationality I would have continued to defend it but I could also see that's exactly what he didn't want, so I backpedaled. There in the warm woody smell of his lush office, I sold out. I could have tried harder to have a discussion about it, I suppose.
And just to troll, the catholics are technically the FIRST Christians.
The fact the other FIRST Christians were crushed into oblivion by the Catholic Church as heretical deviations from the One True Way isn't a distinction worth drawing attention to, it's true.
Personal - All candidates effectively ignored this question, Bush most prominently, but neither Nader nor Kerry actually had much to say about changing their own minds on any issue of any significance.
Kerry could have made reference to his trusting Bush to do the right thing when he voted to give him war powers regarding the Iraq debacle. "If I could do it again, knowing what I know now, I would not have ceded him the power. He lacks wisdom for such responsibility."
Nadar I could believe didn't have any mistakes. He's never held national office that I know of and all his positions favor individual rights and social responsibilities. For him it's just an uphill battle against the powers that be and any tactical errors he might have made along the way are in alignment with the principles he has maintained.
What if they replace the *entire* system with another binary that produces the same hash?
I'm not arguing your other points here, but that is orders of magnitude harder than what's currently available, and virtually impossible in a validated system if validation is done correctly.
Slashdot Mirror
Being larger doesn't give you more surface area, it gives you less! (at least in relation to your body mass, which is what matters).
:)
Well, assuming that larger people no more wrinkled than smaller people. Not unreasonable.
if there were full elephants on that small of an island, I doubt they just decided to eat less and only breed with the smaller ones.
You presume selective pressure to be of a voluntary nature. With a sapient species that could be true, but that would also imply they had some kind of rational views about size and survivability.
It is more reasonable to suppose they were merely living their lives and the larger were selected against, not merely by their need of larger amounts of energy during lean times, but also by the climate and humidity.
All kinds of mutations can come about from several generations of inbreeding.
Inbreeding is not a cause of mutations. Inbreeding merely reduces diversity within the gene pool. A small population with uniform selective pressure exerted on it might also exhibit more rapid genetic drift toward a new norm.
Sorry, I meant to imply that the hardcopy of SPECTRUM came out long before any of the other sources for this 'scoop'.
So yeah, feel good about it.
The problem - Doppler effect.
the solution exploited the Doppler effect
The problem is the solution? The Doppler effect isn't the problem, it is a part of the requirements specification, and a known quantity that has been dealt with before.
Except that in this case it wasn't: The engineered solution was for a land-based communication, which doesn't match the requirements specification. This fact was hidden by the NDAs NASA could not sign, and the company's perceived threat that providing the engineering details would give JPL a competitive advantage.
So the problem wasn't The Doppler Effect, the problem was NASA (and ESA) was developing with a blackbox they were told was engineered to the task that was not.
So instead they're altering the flightpaths so that Cassini is now far enough away from Huygens that the broadcast vector is mostly perpendicular, with minimal Doppler shift -- think about standing very far away from the racetrack instead of right in front of the car.
Today on slashdot I learned that angle of incidence is a function of distance. Thanks for the "informative" post.
THIS kind of stuff is what NASA needs to be held accountable for.
Yeah, shame on NASA for following its edict as a publicly held organization. Shame on them for reverse engineering the specifications of the receiver instead of just signing the NDA.
And, shame on them for being required to assume the contractor made something suitable to the job at hand, on a project run by the ESA.
Damn commies.
Sheesh.
I don't remember when I got the current Spectrum, but this is indeed old news.
[I don't work for IEEE Spectrum]
Which doesn't make sense: did nobody at NASA have the brainpower to conceive of sending an emulated signal just like the one they actually ended up using?
It doesn't make sense because the pp gave a very facile explanation of the problem inviting misinterpretation.
NASA ran three tests, all of which passed, but none of which tested the internal correction of signal to carrier wave. Why this is true is due to a number of factors which were laid out in TFA.
The assumption that the receiver worked was in part due to the fact the (spanish) company that made it would not release the specifications without an NDA. Because NASA is a public organ they couldn't sign the NDA.
The hardware fault was not NASA's doing, however, despite what so many of the trolls around here would have you think. It isn't even NASA's probe.
Before it became the Discover Motorcycles Channel
Just wait a few days: pretty soon now they'll start kicking eachother out of the garage.
Nader could have said he wouldn't have crusaded against a car that was proven to be as safe as any other car of its period.
I keep hearing that asserted, or it's variants. Do you mean to say the corvair was as unsafe as he said, but so were all the other cars? Who has funded this refutation of "Unsafe At Any Speed?"
If one should wish to understand why, one should refer to those media in which they develop their positions adequately.
I don't want to know why, but rather how. If they don't answer that I'm not interested, but if they can, or at least give clues that are acceptable to a skeptical inquiry, I am interested in any links you could provide.
It goes straight from solid to gas when it melts, so how do they make *liquid* CO2?
So what's that sloshing around in the CO2 tank I saw at the lab?
Look for a pressure-temperature graph of the triple point of CO2.
What CO2 does do, that nuclear waste does not, is roll down mountains as a cloud, smothering entire villages.
Storing it as a liquid is asking for trouble.
But fixing it to a mineral would be useful. And one could also use it as a carbon source in manufacturing where the carbon remains fixed.
As for the Rapture. Weather the president talks about it or not, it is still comming.
How can you say that without evidence? How can you say it with any sense of surety beyond "I believe...?"
Do you not have any value for your eyes and ears, for you reasoning skills?
If you reprocess Nuclear Wastes by removing the long-lived Radioactive Isotopes (U-235, Pu-238), and use them in reactors, you are left with stuff that is only radioactive for 10's - 100's of years.
Aren't you ignoring isotopes induced in the surrounding materials of the power plant itself?
And, that's a lot of recycling/processing.
There's a net gain of O2 from a given tree, assuming it is getting enough light.
do() || ! do() && try = NULL;
Yes, and at the same time we will eliminate our ability to progress scientifically.
That's probably the biggest ball of hokum I've heard in awhile (well, since 6-7:30pm PST last night.)
Wank? It sounds like... wank?
The fact that you got midded up as "5 insightful" reveals the intellectual dishonesty and self-congratulatory wanking that that permuates through slashdot.
You have read far more into +5 insightful than is actually there. Maybe you are projecting?
You seem to be ignoring 1a. in the list of meanings. That is the primary meaning. The others are colored by a need to describe the likes of Bush.
I have:
1. Of or pertaining to piety; exhibiting piety; reverential; dutiful; religious; devout; godly. "Pious hearts."
2. Practiced under the pretext of religion; prompted by mistaken piety; as, pious errors; pious frauds.
The United Church of Canada
Are you sure that isn't Unitarian/Universal?
In my experience (As a former born-again Christian with formerly-religious parents[1]), many Protestants don't consider Catholics to be Christian.
I was not a born-again christian, I was a protestant evangelical. And in the years of Bible study and years of "Catechism" (we went to classes for two years twice a week in order to observe the sacrament) I was never, ever, exposed to such intolerant doctrines against another church. This is a side of Protestantism I'm unfamiliar with, although I recognize that things have changed remarkably since I was in the fold.
We were merely taught that non-believers in Jesus who had not accepted Him as their savior were destined to go to an eternity of blinding pain and immense psychological tortures.
Regarding your fathers story, I had a similar one but not violent. When I was asked (after the public examination preceding my acceptance to the taking of the sacrament) if I would die rather than deny that Christ was a living force in my life, I said I had never been put in a life-threatening situation and could not honestly say if I would react in the way I thought I believed. He got his back up there and acted all upset and stood up to rail at me. He threatened me with public censure, what would my mom think. So I did what he wanted, just to calm him down. I suppose if I were consistent with my rationality I would have continued to defend it but I could also see that's exactly what he didn't want, so I backpedaled. There in the warm woody smell of his lush office, I sold out. I could have tried harder to have a discussion about it, I suppose.
Now, I live in apostacy.
And just to troll, the catholics are technically the FIRST Christians.
The fact the other FIRST Christians were crushed into oblivion by the Catholic Church as heretical deviations from the One True Way isn't a distinction worth drawing attention to, it's true.
Personal - All candidates effectively ignored this question, Bush most prominently, but neither Nader nor Kerry actually had much to say about changing their own minds on any issue of any significance.
Kerry could have made reference to his trusting Bush to do the right thing when he voted to give him war powers regarding the Iraq debacle. "If I could do it again, knowing what I know now, I would not have ceded him the power. He lacks wisdom for such responsibility."
Nadar I could believe didn't have any mistakes. He's never held national office that I know of and all his positions favor individual rights and social responsibilities. For him it's just an uphill battle against the powers that be and any tactical errors he might have made along the way are in alignment with the principles he has maintained.
What if they replace the *entire* system with another binary that produces the same hash?
I'm not arguing your other points here, but that is orders of magnitude harder than what's currently available, and virtually impossible in a validated system if validation is done correctly.