You can no more prove or disprove the existence of God than Spock could prove or disprove the existence of Gene Roddenberry. Your statement, like mine, is a statement of faith.
There have been a few shows that were rewrites of British ones. All in the Family is a remake of 'Till Death Do Us Part and Three's Company is a remake of Man About the House. I think most would claim these to be better than the originals.
A few years ago, I found a website describing a robot built by Jay Francis called Dinobot. It was built using a Radio Shack Dino-Track toy, and used Rodney Brooks' subsumtion architecture as the basis for its AI. It was a very inspiring project.
Of course, the website is no longer active, and I have been unable to find out why such a cool robot project was removed from the web (although I suspect legal pressure from the Dinobot/Transformers cartoon people). I would like to see that website return to the internet.
Perhaps the tiles should interlock like those sliding number puzzles, or tongue and groove flooring. That way, and individual tile adhesion failure wouldn't result in the loss of a tile.
That would be a lousy gun to use. It would ruin the pelt. I mean, what good is a bearskin rug with a basketball sized hole in it?
Re:Unmanned mission to mars is OK
on
One Year on Mars
·
· Score: 1
L2 Lagrange points are not stable (you cannot orbit it without continual orbit correction). And you still have a communications problem, what with the moon being in the way.
Re:Unmanned mission to mars is OK
on
One Year on Mars
·
· Score: 1
Regardless of whether it is the Moon, or Mars, the basic fact of the matter is that there is no such reactor. Although the reaction is theoretically possible, science has yet to reach the break even point in the lab, let alone produce a working prototype.
I agree that the far side of the moon would be a fairly quiet place for a telescope. Of course, you need to deal with compensating for lunar motion, and you also need to have some way of transferring the signal from the far side, to Earth. It would be far cheaper to stick the thing in orbit.
Re:Unmanned mission to mars is OK
on
One Year on Mars
·
· Score: 1
Helium-3 is of little use until we figure out how to build a reactor that can make use of it. Also, Hubble pretty much proves that the best place for an observatory is in orbit.
They know it's not a sensor malfunction. They can tell by the tracks, and the fact that the rover is veering off to one side. In order to get the rover to travel in a straight line, they have to command some of the wheels to rotate faster than the other side to compensate for the drag.
My computer is within 2m of my TV. In fact, the TV remote typically sits on top of the computer case. It is rare that I have only one of the devices on.
Sojourner was the rover, and the Sagan Memorial Station was the lander/base station. Both the base station and rover had basic, non rechargeable batteries. They were chosen because of the 30 sol maximum mission profile, and rechargeables didn't fit into the "better, faster, cheaper" design.
Actually, Sojourner's mission lasted a lot longer than its batteries. During the last days, it was limited to daytime operations only. The Pathfinder mission was shut down because the Sagan Memorial station stopped transmitting. (The rover transmitted to the base station, which relayed the data to Earth. So, as soon as contact was lost with the base station, contact with the rover was lost as well.) The rover was commanded to circle the base station once they realized that they might lose communications. For all we know, Sojourner is still circling the Sagan Memorial station, on solar power, waiting to hear from Earth.
Spirit, and Opportunity, however, were designed with solar powered rechargeable batteries. They were necessary because the 90 sol mission profile precluded the use of standard batteries.
Many professional photographers and reviewers consider 5 or 6 megapixel cameras to be equivalent or even superior to 35mm film. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for a beginner.
I've never heard of Clark color labs. (Of course, I only have a fixed focus point and click camera, so I don't take a lot of pictures, and thus, I don't know many photo processing places, except what I see in the malls.) Black's sells 24 exposure Kodak Gold for $5.99/roll (according to their website). This does not include processing. So, by the time you process it, you're up to around $10/roll.
Are you comparing used digi SLR to used SLR+film, or new digi SLR to used SLR+film? If you're comparing new to used, then I don't think you are making a fair comparison.
"On the other hand, when the typical consumer asks "what's the best camera" what they really want to know, when questioned, is..."
Thanks for your candid appraisal, and the suggestions. I am going to reward myself with a digital camera when I land a new job. Both the Panasonic and the Kodak look really good.
But on price, you could use a roll of film a week for about 4 years before a $200 used SLR, film, and developing costs more than a decent dSLR.
I'm not sure where you're getting your figures, but where I live, a new dSLR is about $1000 more than a new SLR (let's compare apples to apples, and new cameras to new cameras, shall we?). 24 exposure processing included film is $11.99/roll, so that's 83 rolls of film, not 200+ rolls.
Slashdot Mirror
You can no more prove or disprove the existence of God than Spock could prove or disprove the existence of Gene Roddenberry. Your statement, like mine, is a statement of faith.
God doesn't predict the future, so much as existing "simultaneously" at all points in time. (Luke 20:38, John 8:58)
There have been a few shows that were rewrites of British ones. All in the Family is a remake of 'Till Death Do Us Part and Three's Company is a remake of Man About the House. I think most would claim these to be better than the originals.
Here's a list if you want further details.
For some of us it isn't an emotional purchase. Some of us don't have the 18+ inches of depth needed for a CRT.
A few years ago, I found a website describing a robot built by Jay Francis called Dinobot. It was built using a Radio Shack Dino-Track toy, and used Rodney Brooks' subsumtion architecture as the basis for its AI. It was a very inspiring project.
Of course, the website is no longer active, and I have been unable to find out why such a cool robot project was removed from the web (although I suspect legal pressure from the Dinobot/Transformers cartoon people). I would like to see that website return to the internet.
Yes, they put heaters on a fuel tank that they are desperately trying to keep cool.
Perhaps the tiles should interlock like those sliding number puzzles, or tongue and groove flooring. That way, and individual tile adhesion failure wouldn't result in the loss of a tile.
That would be a lousy gun to use. It would ruin the pelt. I mean, what good is a bearskin rug with a basketball sized hole in it?
L2 Lagrange points are not stable (you cannot orbit it without continual orbit correction). And you still have a communications problem, what with the moon being in the way.
Regardless of whether it is the Moon, or Mars, the basic fact of the matter is that there is no such reactor. Although the reaction is theoretically possible, science has yet to reach the break even point in the lab, let alone produce a working prototype.
I agree that the far side of the moon would be a fairly quiet place for a telescope. Of course, you need to deal with compensating for lunar motion, and you also need to have some way of transferring the signal from the far side, to Earth. It would be far cheaper to stick the thing in orbit.
322 days? Should't you be measuring in sols?
Helium-3 is of little use until we figure out how to build a reactor that can make use of it. Also, Hubble pretty much proves that the best place for an observatory is in orbit.
05? 05? It's thinking like this that lead to the whole y2k crisis. It is 2005, not 05.
It's only been half a year. A year is 668 sols long, and we've only been there for 350 or so sols.
...Oh! You meant Earth years.
They know it's not a sensor malfunction. They can tell by the tracks, and the fact that the rover is veering off to one side. In order to get the rover to travel in a straight line, they have to command some of the wheels to rotate faster than the other side to compensate for the drag.
Man! You deserve a break. :-)
My computer is within 2m of my TV. In fact, the TV remote typically sits on top of the computer case. It is rare that I have only one of the devices on.
Sojourner was the rover, and the Sagan Memorial Station was the lander/base station. Both the base station and rover had basic, non rechargeable batteries. They were chosen because of the 30 sol maximum mission profile, and rechargeables didn't fit into the "better, faster, cheaper" design.
Actually, Sojourner's mission lasted a lot longer than its batteries. During the last days, it was limited to daytime operations only. The Pathfinder mission was shut down because the Sagan Memorial station stopped transmitting. (The rover transmitted to the base station, which relayed the data to Earth. So, as soon as contact was lost with the base station, contact with the rover was lost as well.) The rover was commanded to circle the base station once they realized that they might lose communications. For all we know, Sojourner is still circling the Sagan Memorial station, on solar power, waiting to hear from Earth.
Spirit, and Opportunity, however, were designed with solar powered rechargeable batteries. They were necessary because the 90 sol mission profile precluded the use of standard batteries.
Perhaps to demonstrate to the world the type of people who use Microsoft products?
I always thought it was his older brother Petey Barnum.
Many professional photographers and reviewers consider 5 or 6 megapixel cameras to be equivalent or even superior to 35mm film. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for a beginner.
I've never heard of Clark color labs. (Of course, I only have a fixed focus point and click camera, so I don't take a lot of pictures, and thus, I don't know many photo processing places, except what I see in the malls.) Black's sells 24 exposure Kodak Gold for $5.99/roll (according to their website). This does not include processing. So, by the time you process it, you're up to around $10/roll.
Are you comparing used digi SLR to used SLR+film, or new digi SLR to used SLR+film? If you're comparing new to used, then I don't think you are making a fair comparison.
"On the other hand, when the typical consumer asks "what's the best camera" what they really want to know, when questioned, is..."
Thanks for your candid appraisal, and the suggestions. I am going to reward myself with a digital camera when I land a new job. Both the Panasonic and the Kodak look really good.
But on price, you could use a roll of film a week for about 4 years before a $200 used SLR, film, and developing costs more than a decent dSLR.
I'm not sure where you're getting your figures, but where I live, a new dSLR is about $1000 more than a new SLR (let's compare apples to apples, and new cameras to new cameras, shall we?). 24 exposure processing included film is $11.99/roll, so that's 83 rolls of film, not 200+ rolls.
I'll make phone calls on my TV before I watch TV on my cell phone.
Certification (regardless of its actual worth) always looks good on a resume.