The smart people at NASA should be able to look beyond the black/white legal issues, and focus on the real dangers. In that case, there's no practical difference between weed and whiskey.
as in it's what we would classify as intelligent in the same way we might consider an animal intelligent
I don't think that's a useful standard. The government does not prohibit selling any kind of animal due to its intelligence, for instance. General purpose weak intelligence (such as in animals) isn't nearly as dangerous as highly intelligent in a narrow field.
The best reason to put humanity on another planet is that this one may eventually get hit by a big rock or dirty snowball.
I'll take my chances. Our ancestors have survived a few billion years, while the solar system had a lot more loose stuff spinning around. We have much more pressing problems to worry about.
If you need a significant amount of manufactured goods in space
We don't. We need relatively small amounts of stuff in space, mostly communication and observation satellites. It is much cheaper and simpler to launch those things directly from Earth than to launch all the equipment we would need to produce those things on the Moon.
Also, very importantly, this method yields a constant reference. The old kilogram could be losing or gaining weight, and you wouldn't really be able to tell for sure.
That was not my point. My point was that it's a balance with a magnetic force on one side, and a weight on the other. One side is independent of the gravitational field, the other side isn't. In order to use the Kibble balance, you need to first measure local gravity and calibrate that.
Slashdot Mirror
If you have to explain the joke, it means it didn't work.
There was no joke.
Crunchy water refers to the low nutritional value of lettuce, meaning that only developed countries would take the trouble to grow this product.
Can someone tell me why I only hear this kind of "E. Coli scare" only in developed countries?
If you have limited means of growing produce, you wouldn't want to waste it on crunchy water.
Obviously, Google has to bid on it as well.
This would be fair if Google Shopping was its own company, completely independent from Google Search. I don't know if that's the case.
why in hell anyone would think they should be forced to host their competitors in their place of business is a complete mystery.
Because that's what the law says ?
Did you try reading the article ?
The difference is that one is a federal crime.
The smart people at NASA should be able to look beyond the black/white legal issues, and focus on the real dangers. In that case, there's no practical difference between weed and whiskey.
as in it's what we would classify as intelligent in the same way we might consider an animal intelligent
I don't think that's a useful standard. The government does not prohibit selling any kind of animal due to its intelligence, for instance. General purpose weak intelligence (such as in animals) isn't nearly as dangerous as highly intelligent in a narrow field.
the ongoing mission costs are minuscule
We don't have the bandwidth to support 60 rovers at one time, nor the manpower to look at all the data and decide where to send it next.
Last but not least, exploration and pushing onward to new vistas is one of our defining traits
Plenty of empty deserts on Earth where virtually nobody's pushing onward to new vistas, Antarctica included.
No one can set up a mining colony, or start building permanent homes. No one. At all. International treaties prohibit it.
It's the other around: we respect international treaties only because there's too little value in mining or building permanent homes.
The best reason to put humanity on another planet is that this one may eventually get hit by a big rock or dirty snowball.
I'll take my chances. Our ancestors have survived a few billion years, while the solar system had a lot more loose stuff spinning around. We have much more pressing problems to worry about.
If you need a significant amount of manufactured goods in space
We don't. We need relatively small amounts of stuff in space, mostly communication and observation satellites. It is much cheaper and simpler to launch those things directly from Earth than to launch all the equipment we would need to produce those things on the Moon.
The difference is that you can build additional Kibble balances from scratch, without using the existing ones as reference.
Also, very importantly, this method yields a constant reference. The old kilogram could be losing or gaining weight, and you wouldn't really be able to tell for sure.
Believe or DON'T Belive in Climate Change. For enough $$$$$ you can get any outcomes you want in the "research."
And the fossil fuel interests don't have enough money to pay for studies ?
A theory is, in essence, a very high level pattern that you've discovered in observations.
That was not my point. My point was that it's a balance with a magnetic force on one side, and a weight on the other. One side is independent of the gravitational field, the other side isn't. In order to use the Kibble balance, you need to first measure local gravity and calibrate that.
Or you could measure current by counting electrons.
https://www.nature.com/article...
You would expect to see fewer and fewer big discoveries as we get closer to understanding nature.
In this case, the balance works by applying a magnetic field on one side, not a weight, so it's not independent of gravity.
There are techniques to measure local gravity field without calibrated weights. For instance, you can measure the time it takes for an object to fall.
How many times do you need a very precise absolute measurement in drug development or nanotech ?
A simple "hello world" application written in Rust and compiled generates a binary that is in the order of ~500-1000KiB in size
Do you look to see what was in there ?
They never show how they got those from the raw data. You post links to both, but nobody can show how they got from 2 to 1.
And you have read all the papers ?