Perhaps the reason they colored them red is to cut down the conspiracy theories: "See, the sky is blue. That *proves* that this is just being broadcast from some desert backlot in New Mexico."
NERVA may be the answer. Currently we use oxygen/hydrogen combustion and blow steam out the back of our rockets. NERVA uses nuclear heating to heat hydrogen to a much higher temperature than combustion could reach. This produces a greater thrust than combustion. Also, you only need one propellant. However, neither generating thrust, nor power are the real problems. The real problems are food, water, and air.
Don't nuclear subs desalinate seawater for drinking, and extract O2 from the surrounding water? After all, they aren't hurting for power, and they're surrounded by raw material.
In 1787, the loading and firing was done on a single shot musket, not an AK-47 or a 357. (If you're going to use a 200+ year old standard, you'll have to measure yourself with the same sort of equipment.) Loading and firing six aimed shots a minute with a musket (keeping in mind that muskets are not rifled) takes considerable skill. I doubt I'd get three shots off, personally.
Why don't *you* consider how you would like the menus and tools arranged, and send a nice, polite email to the GIMP development team (perhaps with some mockups, or code) explaining to them how GIMP would be better with your menu layout.
I've always thought that they should use a roll of cellophane, like you'd find on an overhead projector. Once the cellophane is dusty, you just roll out a fresh section.
You are seriously overestimating the capabilities of the rovers we have sent out. First of all, no two rovers have landed anywhere near to each other. Secondly, each rover is custom built. You could no more fit parts from, say, Pathfinder onto Spirit than you could fit Ferarri parts onto a Volkswagen. Thirdly, none of the rovers we have sent out have the tools, or manipulators to take anything apart, let alone put something together. Do you expect them to remove a bolt with a camera, or maybe solder a wire with a shovel?
Thanks for that link. It has taught me how to view cross eyed stereograms. It is a little wobbly and out of focus for me at first, but after about 5-10 seconds (and getting shorter with practice) the images come into focus and I get a nice 3d image.
I prefer the parallel viewing method. However that method has an built in weakness. Images can only have a separation of about 50-60mm. Wider than that, and the eyes have to look beyond parallel. The cross eyed version does not have this weakness.
I am curious about the design of the telescope. They seem to be suspending an array of mirrors and other optics in the middle of the incoming light beam. All of those mechanical supports must cause interference. Firstly, can adaptive optics take care of that? Secondly, would it not make sense to "skew" the primary mirror so that the secondary optics are off to the side, and not in the incoming light stream?
It may also be more culturally acceptable for a man to have many women partners, than for a woman to have many men partners. Undoubtibly there are a variety of psychological, social, biological, and pathological factors. Perhaps women are more susceptible to HIV.
This is something I've been wondering. Is the PAL/NTSC formatting a function of the DVD-player, or is it a function of the DVD-disk? It seems to me that the video data on the disk would converted by the player to whatever is needed: eg, stick a disk in a North American DVD player and you get NTSC out. Stick it in a European DVD player, and you get PAL, or SECAM. In other words, the disk is generic, and the player determines the signal format.
Surely they wouldn't put the signal formatting on the disk, would they? That would mean that they would have to press an NTSC version , and a PAL version, and an <insert video format here> version of every disk.
Slashdot Mirror
3.97 C
So all they have to do is keep this Diffie Hellman under surveilance? She shouldn't be that hard to tail, should she?
Perhaps the reason they colored them red is to cut down the conspiracy theories: "See, the sky is blue. That *proves* that this is just being broadcast from some desert backlot in New Mexico."
It would make a useful propellant for rockets though.
Instead of a wiper blade, use a roll of cellophane like you'd find on an overhead projector. When it gets too dusty, just roll out a clean section.
You get most, if not all of the "benefits" the guy mentioned by trying to colonize the sea. Three quarters of the Earth's surface going to waste.
NERVA may be the answer. Currently we use oxygen/hydrogen combustion and blow steam out the back of our rockets. NERVA uses nuclear heating to heat hydrogen to a much higher temperature than combustion could reach. This produces a greater thrust than combustion. Also, you only need one propellant. However, neither generating thrust, nor power are the real problems. The real problems are food, water, and air.
Don't nuclear subs desalinate seawater for drinking, and extract O2 from the surrounding water? After all, they aren't hurting for power, and they're surrounded by raw material.
In 1787, the loading and firing was done on a single shot musket, not an AK-47 or a 357. (If you're going to use a 200+ year old standard, you'll have to measure yourself with the same sort of equipment.) Loading and firing six aimed shots a minute with a musket (keeping in mind that muskets are not rifled) takes considerable skill. I doubt I'd get three shots off, personally.
Why don't *you* consider how you would like the menus and tools arranged, and send a nice, polite email to the GIMP development team (perhaps with some mockups, or code) explaining to them how GIMP would be better with your menu layout.
What cool thing? How does it work?
I've always thought that they should use a roll of cellophane, like you'd find on an overhead projector. Once the cellophane is dusty, you just roll out a fresh section.
Um... You're forgetting Sojourner.
Sojourner was only designed to last 8 days, but they got 83 days out of it. I'm sure they'll get more than 3-6 months out of the MERs
Is OS-X available for non-Apple machines?
Don't you just hate it when your d4 lands on one of it's corners?
You are seriously overestimating the capabilities of the rovers we have sent out. First of all, no two rovers have landed anywhere near to each other. Secondly, each rover is custom built. You could no more fit parts from, say, Pathfinder onto Spirit than you could fit Ferarri parts onto a Volkswagen. Thirdly, none of the rovers we have sent out have the tools, or manipulators to take anything apart, let alone put something together. Do you expect them to remove a bolt with a camera, or maybe solder a wire with a shovel?
Thanks for that link. It has taught me how to view cross eyed stereograms. It is a little wobbly and out of focus for me at first, but after about 5-10 seconds (and getting shorter with practice) the images come into focus and I get a nice 3d image.
I prefer the parallel viewing method. However that method has an built in weakness. Images can only have a separation of about 50-60mm. Wider than that, and the eyes have to look beyond parallel. The cross eyed version does not have this weakness.
I think the ultimate space hack was the stuff they needed to do to get Apollo 13 home.
I am curious about the design of the telescope. They seem to be suspending an array of mirrors and other optics in the middle of the incoming light beam. All of those mechanical supports must cause interference. Firstly, can adaptive optics take care of that? Secondly, would it not make sense to "skew" the primary mirror so that the secondary optics are off to the side, and not in the incoming light stream?
Dangit! I must be going to the wrong libraries.
The point is that the atmosphere *disperses* pollutants, whereas rivers *concentrate* pollutants.
It may also be more culturally acceptable for a man to have many women partners, than for a woman to have many men partners. Undoubtibly there are a variety of psychological, social, biological, and pathological factors. Perhaps women are more susceptible to HIV.
This is something I've been wondering. Is the PAL/NTSC formatting a function of the DVD-player, or is it a function of the DVD-disk? It seems to me that the video data on the disk would converted by the player to whatever is needed: eg, stick a disk in a North American DVD player and you get NTSC out. Stick it in a European DVD player, and you get PAL, or SECAM. In other words, the disk is generic, and the player determines the signal format.
Surely they wouldn't put the signal formatting on the disk, would they? That would mean that they would have to press an NTSC version , and a PAL version, and an <insert video format here> version of every disk.
You mean France?