You're not wrong. But Please! Get over it people! Your teachers lied. Santa Claus isn't real. Your parents had sex. Your children will have sex. Let's just get our heads out of our asses and be grown ups about this. Space exploration and science literacy has nothing to do with dubious fashion sense. Why don't I see outrage over the fact that Kim Kardashian doesn't know her amino acids from her Armani hand bags or whatever.
How accurate is it for the media to say a "complete" genome was sequenced? I know a little molecular biology and have been lead to believe that certain types of DNA, (centromeres, telomeres, other such regions with lots of repetitive sequences or "fragile sites") are very hard to sequence reliably. Are these "swept under the rug" in a "complete" sequence? Perhaps a related question, how are non-coding regulatory portions of chromosomes handled in whole genome analysis?
I won't speculate on the intentions of OC. But bringing up oil does raise a very legitimate item of concern. For much of the 20th century, petroleum has been the critical resource that drove or enabled much of our civilization and technical infrastructure. If we are going to look skyward, we have *GOT* to start thinking differently about the resource(s) that we are going to use. Unless big oil is willing to shell out the cash for researching the exploration and mining of hydrocarbons in the Jovian system, our government has got to step up and look at what we need to power space travel on an industrial scale.
Too late. Death eaters already routinely cast the Imperius Curse on unsuspecting muggles world leaders to further their agenda for an anti-Christian world empire.
I don't think we're talking about the same things. Post-9/11, plenty of cool things have been done by talented IT professionals for the government in the name of national security. If it was desired badly enough, it was made to happen. I don't think cultural differences was much of an impediment that got us to the point we are today.
Having skimmed through the article, it seems to me the elephant in the room is being ignored. A much more compelling case can be made for the fact that too *much* information technology already at the disposal of the government is making it way too easy to abuse the American public. It isn't a question of funding, it is a question of priorities.
I stand corrected. I remembered most vividly reading that Paul Dirac was somewhat of a mentor figure for the young Feynman at Cornell. But I'd somehow forgotten he was no longer a student at that point.
The videos of Feynman speaking at Cornell that Gates acquired and released are NOT the more popularly known "Feynman Lectures on Physics". It was part of the Messanger Lectures series where Feynman was a guest at his alma mater. Entitled "The Character of Physical Law", they are lesser known, but more accessible to someone who isn't intent upon a complete college lecture course.
The discussion is *absolutely* necessary. Because we should expect better from our lot. For the impatient "tl;dr", Chu ends with the words "He [Elliot] needed to grow up. We all do." Some of us need to talk it out in order reach that maturity. I, for one, feel that if we are intelligent enough to parse knowledge incomprehensible to that majority of non-technical human masses, we should be intelligent enough to understand that some things, like the way you think about and treat others, are just NOT FUCKING COOL!
One side won, the other defeated. But it did not feel settled until someone admitted defeat. Someone has to go on record saying its dead, Jim.
This is utter B/S! What's with this black/white way of looking at things? By this line of reasoning, Copernicus was a hack for being too obsessed with the Sun. Galileo failed for not anticipating Newton. Newton failed for not anticipating Einstein. Einstein is a looser for being unable to handle QM. And we're all Dumbasses for not knowing the answer to every question ever asked. Seriously?
Whatever the case may be, BICEP should be acknowledged for taking a gutsy and ingenious shot at a daunting question. The approach is laudable and should be appreciated as modern, cutting-edge scientific research at its best: the meticulousness and dedication of working out of the South Pole, the engineering effort that went into such precise equipment design, the camaraderie and team spirit mustered among all the professional collaborators.
People who are eager to smear the project are doing a great disservice to science literacy by perpetuating low-brow stereotypical notion of what scientific research is about in this day and age. It is unsettling that the tendency toward sensationalism has somehow become a legitimate way of thinking and talking about these things. We're all becoming brain-dead National Inquirerers. This is shameful for a modern civilized society.
Hold on there, Nellie. Aren't we being just a bit quick to point fingers? It is entirely appropriate to stand your ground if it is firmly rooted in solid evidence and good reason. Let the data be subjected to scrutiny and defend itself to the extent possible. More likely than not, it isn't as conclusive or accurate as some may hope, but it doesn't automatically make it bad science. Whatever short-coming is uncovered this time around is another stepping stone toward getting it right. No one is wrong simply because you or anyone else arbitrarily say so.
After I was turned onto Babylon 5, I looked you up and found out you were involved in TV shows I enjoyed as a kid. For example, "The Real Ghostbusters" often had compelling plots and dialogue that were noticeably different from your average cartoon. But my curiosity was really piqued when I read you played a large part in creating the short-lived live-action "Captain Powers" series. Assuming the rights could be secured, is there any interest on your part in either continuing/rebooting the story in some form or wrapping things up for those of us who are still dying to find out what happened after the good guys' home base was destroyed?
Progress is fundamentally a different vehicle from the more massive, more complex, man-rated Columbia. Comparing propellant potential is meaningless if you don't talk about the associated load that propellant is used on. That is why most of this discussion refers to delta-V - the change in trajectory. Gains would still be achievable without a round trip. The article specifically discussed the most limiting resource on Columbia being the CO2 scrubbers. If either the Progress or Soyuz can make a one way delivery of replacement scrubbers (along with more oxygen/food/whatever), you've just bought your stranded crew some additional time with which to ready a proper, AND SAFE, rescue mission.
I believe you. But if there was ever a sliver of a chance for a one way trip by either of the two vehicles.....
..... even if you do happen to make it... what then?
* Use the capacity of the Progress to transfer over whatever supplies might be available at the ISS to 1) try to fix the wing damage. 2) extend the survival of Columbia's crew in space until another shuttle/soyuz could be safely launched to rescue them.
* Use the soyuz to rescue three of the crew immediately by returning them to Earth. The remaining crew would hopefully consume less resources and be able to hold out a little longer for a shuttle or soyuz launch.
A very good guess, and I suspected as much. However, I would counter for the sake of argument that at the very least, the actual capabilities of the proposed "ferries" be spelled out as being inadequate. Do we know for certain that the Progress or Soyuz are, without a doubt, unable to meet the shuttle 96% of the way? The Progress supply vehicle, in principle, is built to move a lot of cargo. I suppose at the state where it is already docked to the ISS, there should only be enough fuel for it to undock, deorbit, and burn up with whatever garbage needs to be disposed of. Likewise, the Soyuz shouldn't be carrying more fuel than needed to return astronauts safely back to Earth. But I remember reading somewhere that when the ISS needs to have its orbit boosted, either the Progress or the Soyuz would execute a rocket burn long and hard enough to push the entire space station to a higher orbit. If the proposed ferry is supposed to be able to do that, isn't it reasonable to hope the thing can fly by itself over to match orbits with the shuttle?
GP was lazy for not reading the article carefully. However, it seems strange that no one has ever suggested that the Progress supply vehicle or Soyuz life boat on the ISS could are additional variables in the scenario and have been used as a ferry to meet the shuttle half way. Is anyone knowledgeable enough to work out the feasibility?
Unlike cells, nanites can be controlled by an intelligent operator.
You'd be surprised at how much progress we have made in synthetic biology. For several decades already, recombinant DNA techniques have been revolutionizing the way we do research and development in the life sciences. Cutting edge efforts as exemplified by things like iGEM aims to make hacking biology just like hacking hardware. Give it time. There won't be a difference to speak of.
fellow slashdotters and moderators: Despite the insightful nature of the comment, GP was relatively obscure when I chimed in. It is clear, to me at least, that despite having no mod points of my own, my effort drew the appropriate attention and contributed positively to GP being moded up. My admonition to mod up may not be necessary after the fact, but my karma didn't need to chopped down just because someone too lazy to use mod points productively was feeling smug and judgmental. Look around - there may be others trying to draw attention to worthy thoughts and ideas deserving of up mods.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm inclined to say Scary Punk. How far off am I??
I guess these folks are the Russian version of FOX news?
You're not wrong. But Please! Get over it people! Your teachers lied. Santa Claus isn't real. Your parents had sex. Your children will have sex. Let's just get our heads out of our asses and be grown ups about this. Space exploration and science literacy has nothing to do with dubious fashion sense. Why don't I see outrage over the fact that Kim Kardashian doesn't know her amino acids from her Armani hand bags or whatever.
How accurate is it for the media to say a "complete" genome was sequenced? I know a little molecular biology and have been lead to believe that certain types of DNA, (centromeres, telomeres, other such regions with lots of repetitive sequences or "fragile sites") are very hard to sequence reliably. Are these "swept under the rug" in a "complete" sequence? Perhaps a related question, how are non-coding regulatory portions of chromosomes handled in whole genome analysis?
I won't speculate on the intentions of OC. But bringing up oil does raise a very legitimate item of concern. For much of the 20th century, petroleum has been the critical resource that drove or enabled much of our civilization and technical infrastructure. If we are going to look skyward, we have *GOT* to start thinking differently about the resource(s) that we are going to use. Unless big oil is willing to shell out the cash for researching the exploration and mining of hydrocarbons in the Jovian system, our government has got to step up and look at what we need to power space travel on an industrial scale.
Slashdot is a bit slow on this one. Here is a TED talk from the researcher posted last year.
https://www.ted.com/talks/greg...
Too late.
Death eaters already routinely cast the Imperius Curse on unsuspecting muggles world leaders to further their agenda for an anti-Christian world empire.
I don't think we're talking about the same things. Post-9/11, plenty of cool things have been done by talented IT professionals for the government in the name of national security. If it was desired badly enough, it was made to happen. I don't think cultural differences was much of an impediment that got us to the point we are today.
Having skimmed through the article, it seems to me the elephant in the room is being ignored. A much more compelling case can be made for the fact that too *much* information technology already at the disposal of the government is making it way too easy to abuse the American public. It isn't a question of funding, it is a question of priorities.
I stand corrected. I remembered most vividly reading that Paul Dirac was somewhat of a mentor figure for the young Feynman at Cornell. But I'd somehow forgotten he was no longer a student at that point.
The videos of Feynman speaking at Cornell that Gates acquired and released are NOT the more popularly known "Feynman Lectures on Physics". It was part of the Messanger Lectures series where Feynman was a guest at his alma mater. Entitled "The Character of Physical Law", they are lesser known, but more accessible to someone who isn't intent upon a complete college lecture course.
Amish communities?
The discussion is *absolutely* necessary. Because we should expect better from our lot. For the impatient "tl;dr", Chu ends with the words "He [Elliot] needed to grow up. We all do." Some of us need to talk it out in order reach that maturity. I, for one, feel that if we are intelligent enough to parse knowledge incomprehensible to that majority of non-technical human masses, we should be intelligent enough to understand that some things, like the way you think about and treat others, are just NOT FUCKING COOL!
One side won, the other defeated. But it did not feel settled until someone admitted defeat. Someone has to go on record saying its dead, Jim.
This is utter B/S! What's with this black/white way of looking at things? By this line of reasoning, Copernicus was a hack for being too obsessed with the Sun. Galileo failed for not anticipating Newton. Newton failed for not anticipating Einstein. Einstein is a looser for being unable to handle QM. And we're all Dumbasses for not knowing the answer to every question ever asked. Seriously?
Whatever the case may be, BICEP should be acknowledged for taking a gutsy and ingenious shot at a daunting question. The approach is laudable and should be appreciated as modern, cutting-edge scientific research at its best: the meticulousness and dedication of working out of the South Pole, the engineering effort that went into such precise equipment design, the camaraderie and team spirit mustered among all the professional collaborators.
People who are eager to smear the project are doing a great disservice to science literacy by perpetuating low-brow stereotypical notion of what scientific research is about in this day and age. It is unsettling that the tendency toward sensationalism has somehow become a legitimate way of thinking and talking about these things. We're all becoming brain-dead National Inquirerers. This is shameful for a modern civilized society.
Hold on there, Nellie. Aren't we being just a bit quick to point fingers? It is entirely appropriate to stand your ground if it is firmly rooted in solid evidence and good reason. Let the data be subjected to scrutiny and defend itself to the extent possible. More likely than not, it isn't as conclusive or accurate as some may hope, but it doesn't automatically make it bad science. Whatever short-coming is uncovered this time around is another stepping stone toward getting it right. No one is wrong simply because you or anyone else arbitrarily say so.
Of course! I know where I've seen this before.
"The X-Files" Season 3 Episode 2 "Paper Clip" /* insert witty comment about government secrecy and overreach */
After I was turned onto Babylon 5, I looked you up and found out you were involved in TV shows I enjoyed as a kid. For example, "The Real Ghostbusters" often had compelling plots and dialogue that were noticeably different from your average cartoon. But my curiosity was really piqued when I read you played a large part in creating the short-lived live-action "Captain Powers" series. Assuming the rights could be secured, is there any interest on your part in either continuing/rebooting the story in some form or wrapping things up for those of us who are still dying to find out what happened after the good guys' home base was destroyed?
Progress is fundamentally a different vehicle from the more massive, more complex, man-rated Columbia. Comparing propellant potential is meaningless if you don't talk about the associated load that propellant is used on. That is why most of this discussion refers to delta-V - the change in trajectory. Gains would still be achievable without a round trip. The article specifically discussed the most limiting resource on Columbia being the CO2 scrubbers. If either the Progress or Soyuz can make a one way delivery of replacement scrubbers (along with more oxygen/food/whatever), you've just bought your stranded crew some additional time with which to ready a proper, AND SAFE, rescue mission.
I believe you. But if there was ever a sliver of a chance for a one way trip by either of the two vehicles.....
..... even if you do happen to make it... what then?
* Use the capacity of the Progress to transfer over whatever supplies might be available at the ISS to 1) try to fix the wing damage. 2) extend the survival of Columbia's crew in space until another shuttle/soyuz could be safely launched to rescue them.
* Use the soyuz to rescue three of the crew immediately by returning them to Earth. The remaining crew would hopefully consume less resources and be able to hold out a little longer for a shuttle or soyuz launch.
A very good guess, and I suspected as much. However, I would counter for the sake of argument that at the very least, the actual capabilities of the proposed "ferries" be spelled out as being inadequate. Do we know for certain that the Progress or Soyuz are, without a doubt, unable to meet the shuttle 96% of the way? The Progress supply vehicle, in principle, is built to move a lot of cargo. I suppose at the state where it is already docked to the ISS, there should only be enough fuel for it to undock, deorbit, and burn up with whatever garbage needs to be disposed of. Likewise, the Soyuz shouldn't be carrying more fuel than needed to return astronauts safely back to Earth. But I remember reading somewhere that when the ISS needs to have its orbit boosted, either the Progress or the Soyuz would execute a rocket burn long and hard enough to push the entire space station to a higher orbit. If the proposed ferry is supposed to be able to do that, isn't it reasonable to hope the thing can fly by itself over to match orbits with the shuttle?
GP was lazy for not reading the article carefully. However, it seems strange that no one has ever suggested that the Progress supply vehicle or Soyuz life boat on the ISS could are additional variables in the scenario and have been used as a ferry to meet the shuttle half way. Is anyone knowledgeable enough to work out the feasibility?
Unlike cells, nanites can be controlled by an intelligent operator.
You'd be surprised at how much progress we have made in synthetic biology. For several decades already, recombinant DNA techniques have been revolutionizing the way we do research and development in the life sciences. Cutting edge efforts as exemplified by things like iGEM aims to make hacking biology just like hacking hardware. Give it time. There won't be a difference to speak of.
Show us. Serious request. I'm genuinely curious what Octave can do.
fellow slashdotters and moderators: Despite the insightful nature of the comment, GP was relatively obscure when I chimed in. It is clear, to me at least, that despite having no mod points of my own, my effort drew the appropriate attention and contributed positively to GP being moded up. My admonition to mod up may not be necessary after the fact, but my karma didn't need to chopped down just because someone too lazy to use mod points productively was feeling smug and judgmental. Look around - there may be others trying to draw attention to worthy thoughts and ideas deserving of up mods.
I'm an atheist vegetarian you insensitive clod!