Umm, I see a few pics from JPL, but nothing that states natural conditions similar to those that support life on earth have ever existed on Mars. Why? There is no data to support that conclusion.
Hence, we sent up a probe to search for that kind of evidence. A rock can have holes in it for reasons other than interaction with water (e.g. erosion, chemical reactions) at temperatures and pressures at which life can exist. For instance, the holes could be vesicles (as stated in TFA) that formed as gases evolved from a molten rock. From the data generated by Soujourner, igneous rocks compositions that have vesicles on earth seem to be a common on Mars and would have formed under similar thermodynaic conditions.
Perhaps you are thinking of the Doctrine of Uniformitarianism? Loosly translated, "The Present is the Key to the Past."
see http://www.uniformitarianism.net/ for a discussion and the limitations of this principle.
The same physical laws apply on Mars. But Mars has very different conditions than are present on earth (temperature, pressure, atmospheric composition, etc.). Thus, although the same physical laws apply, the pressue, temperature, etc. impacting thermodynamics and stable phases are very different on earth than what now exists on Mars.
The data they are trying to collect is intended to determine if conditions were ever amenable to abundant liquid water existing for extended periods of time. Thus, the focus on hydrated minerals, carbonates and other mineral assemblages that suggest reactions in the presence of liquid water.
to conclusions based upon early data before the rover has even "hit the road." We'll be getting more and better data.
As an example. One of my geology profs was studying an outcropping of calcium-rich meta-igneous rock (meta basalt). He kept finding a mix of calcium oxalate minerals on the surface of the rock in numerous places, but couldn't understand how they would be a weathering product. Oxalate minerals are unusual in nature.
Then it dawned on him. Oxalates are common in kidney stones. He bought a live trap and captured several wild rats. Then he kept them in a lab and realized they like to urinate in the same place. What appeared to be a strange chemical weathering reaction was actually just evaporated rat urine.
Point is, first impressions may be incorrect and additional data and study leads to more accurate conclusions. Sometimes those later conclusions are more interesting (or comical) than the original hypothesis.
It's a bit early to write the probe off. We'll see.
However, as written up on the BBC and previsouly discussed on/., there were some budget and time constraints and funding did not sound as strong as it should have been for a mission this complex.
Faster, Better, Cheaper -- Pick Two.
Just because NASA claimed they could do all three in the 1990's (promptly losing a Mars Mission), doesn't mean it's true.
If Beagle 2 turns out to be a fialure, I think Faster and Cheaper will turn out to be culprits.
Granite forms at depth in the crust, not in volcanos. It is typically indicative of igneous activity a long time ago -- sometimes billions of years. Its presence is not any kind of indicator of potential for volcanic activity.
When it is exposed at the surface, it usually indicates there has been tectonic activity that moved it upwards. Again, may have happened a long time ago.
In the Salt Lake, there is extremely low potential for volccanic or other igneous activity. What Utah DOES have is a potential for strong seismic (earthquake) acitvity. How safe things are getting bounced around by a magnitude 7 is a matter of question. Would depend on how well engineered the structure is to isolate it from ground movement. Building structures on solid rock is more easily engineered that unconsolidated materials because there is no potential for liquifaction and the high-amplitude, low frequency surface waves (Lova, Rayleigh) are not much of a design factor.
Building inside a granite mountain is a pretty good choice for isolating a structure from seismic waves. Just requires a good isolation system.
Agreed. Battleships are relics from the past that offer us no protection.
Silly commentary, but I'll take the bait. I don't disagree with spending money on science, but it should be on sensible projects. Read the post.
The 10 billion NASA wasted on shuttle replacements was not science, it was money down the toilet. I'd prefer the have 10 billion spent on an attack sub that can launch cruise missiles in addition to hunting down and destroying ships. Attack subs cruise missiles -- guided by SOCOM troops on the ground -- helped take out the Taliban who harbored the terrorists that killed 3000 Americans.
You can bitch and moan about the demonstrated shortcomings of American foreign policy, but please present some sensible arguments.
When NASA and its contractors can pull together a big project that works, I'll believe it. Until then I doubt their proposals. Since Apollo and Skylab, we've had an expensive shuttle, several failed shuttle replacements (over ten billion dollars wasted trying) and spam-in-a-can ISS. Manned space missions have turned into grandiose, miserable failures.
On the other hand, the small unmanned projects with limited and well-defined goals have had some success. The microprobe analyses from the little Mars rover were very interesting. Viking did good work. Probes have left the solar system and still work. And there is the propect that the next Mars landings will do some good science.
This proposal just smells of another huge project to keep funding and billing rates high for the sake of government jobs and contractor profit. No concrete details and a promise to Fundamentally Change Life on Earth.
Actually, my US senators and representative do use e-mail and have responded to my comments. No more meaningfully than to snail mail, but they use it. I feel no more disenfranchised when e-mailing them than I do when I used to send letters.
On the bright side, my state representative uses e-mail very effectively, both responding to my comments, sending out information and requesting feedback on topics with which he is concerned.
The only one I fail to hear from is my state senator, who gets elected by the party majority on the other side of my district and ignores anything that deals with my concerns.
The state rep admits spam is out of control, and recommends using good filtering because anything politically palatable enough to pass will be weak and ineffective. Long live open source MTA's and MDA's, rule-based and Bayesian filters. Really, can any legislation keep up with spammer technology? Heck, those open source solutions are about 97% effective from my data and require tuning to stay effective.
The logic is so fundamentally flawed, it inspires awe. I'll assume (for the sake of argument), there is actually some shred of code in Linux that wasn't stolen from BSD or elsewhere.
OK, I'll agree the Constitution provides the basis for copyright law. If you want to copyright, patent or enforce trade secrets as a business model, Congress has made sure you can and the courts have upheld the laws.
But, the GPL is voluntary, and you are not forced to use its protections of free use. If Scaldera voluntarily released code under the GPL, its too late to go back unless they can come up with some twisted logic to justify their current actions. Reading Darl's arguments require a voluntary suspension of disbelief. "If our employees released code to Linux, it was without permission." "The GPL is unconstitutional and a sin against nature." Yada, yada, yada, I'll see you in 8 to 12 months.
Here is a brief GPL for Dummies analogy, Darl:
I tend to harp on about Ben Franklin and how he refused a patent for the Pennsylvania Stove; in doing so he had no choice but to allow others to patent the ideas he publicly released. If he had the option of GPL'ing the Pennsylvania Stove, other people could not have leached his ideas for their own patents. The GPL was written for those who want to make sure their code remains free.
Does digital TV rate up there with other moments that were compelling enough to warrant the investment by consumers?
1) 1920's -- Sound in the cinema. 2) 1930's -- Color in the cinema 3) 1950's -- Television 4) 1960's -- Color Television 5) 1970's -- Cable TV 6) 1980's -- Large Screen TV 7) 1990's -- Better Large Screen TV
Keep in mind the producer's investment costs get passed on to the consumer. The advances mentioned were not mandated by a regulatory agency and passed the consumer test on their own merits.
From what I have seen of digital TV it is gorgeous, but not something I would, by choice, spend $1500 on compared to what I can get from analog TV. I'm none too thrilled with the prospect of having digital TV and DRM forced down my throat at a higher cost.
Nowhere in the article does this get called a Feasibility Study -- it is a development effort. When initiating an FS, you typically have an idea of what the goal is and the technologies available. Hence, you have a reasonable idea of the constraints based upon objectives, performance and costs in light of available technology.
An engineer regards an FS as an evaluation of the best alternatives (technologically, economically, etc.) to obtain a result. Research and development of new technology is not an FS.
From the article content, I see only vaporware with claims that it will be as quiet as a 747.
No, because the B-1 was the only supersonic aircraft stationed within 750 miles AND the only one authorized to operate supersonic at low level in that area, Smart Ass.
Re:Failure Reborn
on
Son of Concorde
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Great Circle routes to Atlanta would require crossing land over North Carolina, or maybe even Virginia. Thus, they would have to begin decelerating on the order of 500 miles before hitting the coast. Alternatively, they would have to fly a modified (and less time and cost efficient) Great Circle over the Atlantic and make a hard turn to come over the coast further south. Even New York requires a swing east and south to get an approach.
This also assumes that the engines are as quiet as existing commercial aircraft and would pass analysis. They are talking new technology in the article,though. Would be prety cool if they came up with a quiet engine capable of that performance, though. Lots of devel costs for technology that different than that in use now, and no estimates on operating costs.
Re:Failure Reborn
on
Son of Concorde
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
This is a European adventure, and if they want to subsidize it, have fun. Boeing tried and failed. And I'm not talking about that fuel-sucking high-subsonic Chronic Snoozer (I mean, Sonic Cruiser), they failed to pull off a viable supersonic plane before that.
But it will have a tough time getting clearance for the USA.
More annoying than jet noise are sonic booms. They are not going to be acceptable (by law) over populated areas. Therefore, any service is limited to coastal American airports (like New York City) because there just are not many airports approachable over ocean routes. Atlanta, BWI, Seattle and Orlando -- forget it (unless you want to swing way south around the FL peninsula first). LAX, NY, San Fran, New York and Boston are pretty much it, and this new aircraft would be subject to new sound analyses and intense public stakeholder scrutiny. And not many people need to fly in these planes, so they derive no benefit in having a very loud plane near their homes. It better be quiet and drop subsonic long before it approaches the coast to have a hope of landing in the USA.
As for the Air Force, I've sat on a bucolic mountaintop, enjoying the winter view and serenity, only to have a B-1 come ripping by doing low-level supersonic training. Kind of felt like a pillowfight body shot. Funny thing was, I never saw the Lancer!
Sure, a supersonic airliner would be much higher, but the sonic booms would still be unacceptable.
This case is just too silly. SCO comes closer to sound logic than this guy.
Then again, I'm sure we will be seeing some even sillier posts about how we need to set up some kind of property rights for when we start living on and mining asteroids.
1) Asteroid Property Rights 2) Extract oxygen and water from silicates 3) Buy mining equipemnt 4) ??? 5) Profit!
Your interpretations rank up there with the John Birch Society in the Constitutional Scholarship arena. The Patent Office, like it or not, derives its authority from Article 1. Section 8, Clause 8 as implemented by laws passed by Congress.
Just couldn't take a clue from all the flames you got then, eh?
It's been said before and will undoubtedly be said again: Don't ask for legal advice on Slashdot. The parent is a glowing example of why.
These Amendments apply to criminal cases, not civil ones. Complex civil laws are best left to attorneys. However, even a high school civics class should provide enough knowledge of the basic structure of the American Constitution to understand that this does not apply. IANAL does not apply; I failed high school civics may be an acceptable excuse.
The aquatic ecosystem is important for food and recreation. But fish populations are under stress worldwide. In the Netherlands, workers used to get their employers to provide lunch, but negotiated the maximum number of times per week salmon would be served. They couldn't get an employer to pay for salmon anymore.
In North America, the Atlantic salmon is a farm FrankenFish, fed Fish Pellets until they are big and then pumped full of carrot extract to get that "natural" orange color before processing.
While some of these species may seem insignificant, it is important to catalog and understand them to assess the health and viability of ecosystems.
Then again, the whole world is slaughtering fish in the oceans to the point that the most productive fisheries are under serious pressure. So if we can wipe out ubiquitous species, how can we hope to preserve those in sensitive habitats that come under pressure?
Well, at least we will have some descriptions and pictures.
Just 2 cents from a catch and release, barbless hooks fly fisher.
Before we condemn these students about a civil disobedience stance against electronic voting, keep in mind these folks are at a Quaker-based college and are acting in those traditions. A few of the posts modded up have been somewhat critical of the motives and methods.
The Society of Friends -- Quakers -- have a long history of questioning that which is conventionally accepted. Thus, they were among the first to question slavery:
Quaker-based organizations -- The American Friends Service Committee and British Friends Service Council -- won the 1947 Nobel Peace Prize for their material aid efforts in postwar Europe, particularly in Germany which was then an international paraih:
http://www.afsc.org/about/nobel.htm
And they were in Cambodia when nobody else would go.
Pick a topic -- civil rights, underground railroad, women's rights, GLBT, tolerance of different religions among them -- and Quakers have been quietly (and sometimes not so quietly) questioning convention and willing to stand by their decisions, even when confronted with prison and punishment.
Check http://www.quaker.org if you want to read about how these people have stood in the face of convention and often ended up ahead of their times. Hint: William Penn Hat Trial.
And no, they DO NOT dress like the 17th century guy on the oats box. That's more of an Amish style.
Ben barely finished schooling (failing mathematics), was apprenticed to a brother and ran away to Philadelphia, discarding his apprentice obligation. He was educated, but not well even by colonial Boston standards.
He was, thus, condemned to become:
"the most ingenious scientist of his era rather than transcending into the pantheon of truly profound theorists such as Newton."
(Isaacson, "Benjamin Franklin, An American Life", Simon and Schuster, 2003)
Interesting reading, indeed. But it should be taken (as any autobiography) in the context of the author writing about himself. The autobiography was started when his relationship with his son, William -- appointed Governor of New Jersey through his efforts -- was deteriorating and intended to remind William that people of humble beginnings can advance through hard work and good business relationships.
Perhaps Walter Isaacson -- author of the latest biography -- summed it up best when he suggested that Franklin's life and accomplishments are topics that should be revisited by biographers every ten years. If you haven't read a Franklin biography, pick one up. You will be surprised by how much his ideas about intellectual property would conform to the GNU while tolerating patents and copyrights.
I am a research scientist in Nigeria. I have access to important information that will save the world, but need seed money to bring my theories to the scientific world.
Send me research money or the world will end! Do it quick so I can send up Bruce Willis in a shuttle to Save the Baby Seals and all the other earthlings. If you send me enough research money, I'll tell you how to mine killer asteroids for Ni, Fe, Pt, Pd and Dilithium.
Please keep our transactions confidential so we may share in this opportunity to save humanity and get rich.
Slashdot Mirror
Trappist Ale and Salvator Double Bock (even the secularized Paulaner version). Need I say more than Breakfast of Champions?
Umm, I see a few pics from JPL, but nothing that states natural conditions similar to those that support life on earth have ever existed on Mars. Why? There is no data to support that conclusion.
Hence, we sent up a probe to search for that kind of evidence. A rock can have holes in it for reasons other than interaction with water (e.g. erosion, chemical reactions) at temperatures and pressures at which life can exist. For instance, the holes could be vesicles (as stated in TFA) that formed as gases evolved from a molten rock. From the data generated by Soujourner, igneous rocks compositions that have vesicles on earth seem to be a common on Mars and would have formed under similar thermodynaic conditions.
Perhaps you are thinking of the Doctrine of Uniformitarianism? Loosly translated, "The Present is the Key to the Past."
see http://www.uniformitarianism.net/ for a discussion and the limitations of this principle.
The same physical laws apply on Mars. But Mars has very different conditions than are present on earth (temperature, pressure, atmospheric composition, etc.). Thus, although the same physical laws apply, the pressue, temperature, etc. impacting thermodynamics and stable phases are very different on earth than what now exists on Mars.
The data they are trying to collect is intended to determine if conditions were ever amenable to abundant liquid water existing for extended periods of time. Thus, the focus on hydrated minerals, carbonates and other mineral assemblages that suggest reactions in the presence of liquid water.
to conclusions based upon early data before the rover has even "hit the road." We'll be getting more and better data.
As an example. One of my geology profs was studying an outcropping of calcium-rich meta-igneous rock (meta basalt). He kept finding a mix of calcium oxalate minerals on the surface of the rock in numerous places, but couldn't understand how they would be a weathering product. Oxalate minerals are unusual in nature.
Then it dawned on him. Oxalates are common in kidney stones. He bought a live trap and captured several wild rats. Then he kept them in a lab and realized they like to urinate in the same place. What appeared to be a strange chemical weathering reaction was actually just evaporated rat urine.
Point is, first impressions may be incorrect and additional data and study leads to more accurate conclusions. Sometimes those later conclusions are more interesting (or comical) than the original hypothesis.
This guy knows electro crystal chem.
It's a bit early to write the probe off. We'll see.
/., there were some budget and time constraints and funding did not sound as strong as it should have been for a mission this complex.
However, as written up on the BBC and previsouly discussed on
Faster, Better, Cheaper -- Pick Two.
Just because NASA claimed they could do all three in the 1990's (promptly losing a Mars Mission), doesn't mean it's true.
If Beagle 2 turns out to be a fialure, I think Faster and Cheaper will turn out to be culprits.
Arrgh, armchair geologists getting modded Insightful.
Granite forms at depth in the crust, not in volcanos. It is typically indicative of igneous activity a long time ago -- sometimes billions of years. Its presence is not any kind of indicator of potential for volcanic activity.
When it is exposed at the surface, it usually indicates there has been tectonic activity that moved it upwards. Again, may have happened a long time ago.
In the Salt Lake, there is extremely low potential for volccanic or other igneous activity. What Utah DOES have is a potential for strong seismic (earthquake) acitvity. How safe things are getting bounced around by a magnitude 7 is a matter of question. Would depend on how well engineered the structure is to isolate it from ground movement. Building structures on solid rock is more easily engineered that unconsolidated materials because there is no potential for liquifaction and the high-amplitude, low frequency surface waves (Lova, Rayleigh) are not much of a design factor.
Building inside a granite mountain is a pretty good choice for isolating a structure from seismic waves. Just requires a good isolation system.
Agreed. Battleships are relics from the past that offer us no protection.
Silly commentary, but I'll take the bait. I don't disagree with spending money on science, but it should be on sensible projects. Read the post.
The 10 billion NASA wasted on shuttle replacements was not science, it was money down the toilet. I'd prefer the have 10 billion spent on an attack sub that can launch cruise missiles in addition to hunting down and destroying ships. Attack subs cruise missiles -- guided by SOCOM troops on the ground -- helped take out the Taliban who harbored the terrorists that killed 3000 Americans.
You can bitch and moan about the demonstrated shortcomings of American foreign policy, but please present some sensible arguments.
When NASA and its contractors can pull together a big project that works, I'll believe it. Until then I doubt their proposals. Since Apollo and Skylab, we've had an expensive shuttle, several failed shuttle replacements (over ten billion dollars wasted trying) and spam-in-a-can ISS. Manned space missions have turned into grandiose, miserable failures.
On the other hand, the small unmanned projects with limited and well-defined goals have had some success. The microprobe analyses from the little Mars rover were very interesting. Viking did good work. Probes have left the solar system and still work. And there is the propect that the next Mars landings will do some good science.
This proposal just smells of another huge project to keep funding and billing rates high for the sake of government jobs and contractor profit. No concrete details and a promise to Fundamentally Change Life on Earth.
Stick with KISS -- Keep It Simple, Stupid.
Actually, my US senators and representative do use e-mail and have responded to my comments. No more meaningfully than to snail mail, but they use it. I feel no more disenfranchised when e-mailing them than I do when I used to send letters.
On the bright side, my state representative uses e-mail very effectively, both responding to my comments, sending out information and requesting feedback on topics with which he is concerned.
The only one I fail to hear from is my state senator, who gets elected by the party majority on the other side of my district and ignores anything that deals with my concerns.
The state rep admits spam is out of control, and recommends using good filtering because anything politically palatable enough to pass will be weak and ineffective. Long live open source MTA's and MDA's, rule-based and Bayesian filters. Really, can any legislation keep up with spammer technology? Heck, those open source solutions are about 97% effective from my data and require tuning to stay effective.
The logic is so fundamentally flawed, it inspires awe. I'll assume (for the sake of argument), there is actually some shred of code in Linux that wasn't stolen from BSD or elsewhere.
OK, I'll agree the Constitution provides the basis for copyright law. If you want to copyright, patent or enforce trade secrets as a business model, Congress has made sure you can and the courts have upheld the laws.
But, the GPL is voluntary, and you are not forced to use its protections of free use. If Scaldera voluntarily released code under the GPL, its too late to go back unless they can come up with some twisted logic to justify their current actions. Reading Darl's arguments require a voluntary suspension of disbelief. "If our employees released code to Linux, it was without permission." "The GPL is unconstitutional and a sin against nature." Yada, yada, yada, I'll see you in 8 to 12 months.
Here is a brief GPL for Dummies analogy, Darl:
I tend to harp on about Ben Franklin and how he refused a patent for the Pennsylvania Stove; in doing so he had no choice but to allow others to patent the ideas he publicly released. If he had the option of GPL'ing the Pennsylvania Stove, other people could not have leached his ideas for their own patents. The GPL was written for those who want to make sure their code remains free.
Does digital TV rate up there with other moments that were compelling enough to warrant the investment by consumers?
1) 1920's -- Sound in the cinema.
2) 1930's -- Color in the cinema
3) 1950's -- Television
4) 1960's -- Color Television
5) 1970's -- Cable TV
6) 1980's -- Large Screen TV
7) 1990's -- Better Large Screen TV
Keep in mind the producer's investment costs get passed on to the consumer. The advances mentioned were not mandated by a regulatory agency and passed the consumer test on their own merits.
From what I have seen of digital TV it is gorgeous, but not something I would, by choice, spend $1500 on compared to what I can get from analog TV. I'm none too thrilled with the prospect of having digital TV and DRM forced down my throat at a higher cost.
There was a 1990's project, too. Came down to not being cost-effective.
o gy /nasa_supersonic_000725.html
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technol
Nowhere in the article does this get called a Feasibility Study -- it is a development effort. When initiating an FS, you typically have an idea of what the goal is and the technologies available. Hence, you have a reasonable idea of the constraints based upon objectives, performance and costs in light of available technology.
An engineer regards an FS as an evaluation of the best alternatives (technologically, economically, etc.) to obtain a result. Research and development of new technology is not an FS.
From the article content, I see only vaporware with claims that it will be as quiet as a 747.
No, because the B-1 was the only supersonic aircraft stationed within 750 miles AND the only one authorized to operate supersonic at low level in that area, Smart Ass.
Great Circle routes to Atlanta would require crossing land over North Carolina, or maybe even Virginia. Thus, they would have to begin decelerating on the order of 500 miles before hitting the coast. Alternatively, they would have to fly a modified (and less time and cost efficient) Great Circle over the Atlantic and make a hard turn to come over the coast further south. Even New York requires a swing east and south to get an approach.
,though. Would be prety cool if they came up with a quiet engine capable of that performance, though. Lots of devel costs for technology that different than that in use now, and no estimates on operating costs.
This also assumes that the engines are as quiet as existing commercial aircraft and would pass analysis. They are talking new technology in the article
This is a European adventure, and if they want to subsidize it, have fun. Boeing tried and failed. And I'm not talking about that fuel-sucking high-subsonic Chronic Snoozer (I mean, Sonic Cruiser), they failed to pull off a viable supersonic plane before that.
But it will have a tough time getting clearance for the USA.
More annoying than jet noise are sonic booms. They are not going to be acceptable (by law) over populated areas. Therefore, any service is limited to coastal American airports (like New York City) because there just are not many airports approachable over ocean routes. Atlanta, BWI, Seattle and Orlando -- forget it (unless you want to swing way south around the FL peninsula first). LAX, NY, San Fran, New York and Boston are pretty much it, and this new aircraft would be subject to new sound analyses and intense public stakeholder scrutiny. And not many people need to fly in these planes, so they derive no benefit in having a very loud plane near their homes. It better be quiet and drop subsonic long before it approaches the coast to have a hope of landing in the USA.
As for the Air Force, I've sat on a bucolic mountaintop, enjoying the winter view and serenity, only to have a B-1 come ripping by doing low-level supersonic training. Kind of felt like a pillowfight body shot. Funny thing was, I never saw the Lancer!
Sure, a supersonic airliner would be much higher, but the sonic booms would still be unacceptable.
This case is just too silly. SCO comes closer to sound logic than this guy.
Then again, I'm sure we will be seeing some even sillier posts about how we need to set up some kind of property rights for when we start living on and mining asteroids.
1) Asteroid Property Rights
2) Extract oxygen and water from silicates
3) Buy mining equipemnt
4) ???
5) Profit!
Let's just review your last insight into constitutional law at:
3 14 202
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=83637&cid=7
Your interpretations rank up there with the John Birch Society in the Constitutional Scholarship arena. The Patent Office, like it or not, derives its authority from Article 1. Section 8, Clause 8 as implemented by laws passed by Congress.
Just couldn't take a clue from all the flames you got then, eh?
It's been said before and will undoubtedly be said again: Don't ask for legal advice on Slashdot. The parent is a glowing example of why.
These Amendments apply to criminal cases, not civil ones. Complex civil laws are best left to attorneys. However, even a high school civics class should provide enough knowledge of the basic structure of the American Constitution to understand that this does not apply. IANAL does not apply; I failed high school civics may be an acceptable excuse.
The aquatic ecosystem is important for food and recreation. But fish populations are under stress worldwide. In the Netherlands, workers used to get their employers to provide lunch, but negotiated the maximum number of times per week salmon would be served. They couldn't get an employer to pay for salmon anymore.
In North America, the Atlantic salmon is a farm FrankenFish, fed Fish Pellets until they are big and then pumped full of carrot extract to get that "natural" orange color before processing.
While some of these species may seem insignificant, it is important to catalog and understand them to assess the health and viability of ecosystems.
Then again, the whole world is slaughtering fish in the oceans to the point that the most productive fisheries are under serious pressure. So if we can wipe out ubiquitous species, how can we hope to preserve those in sensitive habitats that come under pressure?
Well, at least we will have some descriptions and pictures.
Just 2 cents from a catch and release, barbless hooks fly fisher.
Before we condemn these students about a civil disobedience stance against electronic voting, keep in mind these folks are at a Quaker-based college and are acting in those traditions. A few of the posts modded up have been somewhat critical of the motives and methods.
l y- 02-18-2002.shtml
The Society of Friends -- Quakers -- have a long history of questioning that which is conventionally accepted. Thus, they were among the first to question slavery:
http://www.gospelcom.net/chi/DAILYF/2002/02/dai
Quaker-based organizations -- The American Friends Service Committee and British Friends Service Council -- won the 1947 Nobel Peace Prize for their material aid efforts in postwar Europe, particularly in Germany which was then an international paraih:
http://www.afsc.org/about/nobel.htm
And they were in Cambodia when nobody else would go.
Pick a topic -- civil rights, underground railroad, women's rights, GLBT, tolerance of different religions among them -- and Quakers have been quietly (and sometimes not so quietly) questioning convention and willing to stand by their decisions, even when confronted with prison and punishment.
Check http://www.quaker.org if you want to read about how these people have stood in the face of convention and often ended up ahead of their times. Hint: William Penn Hat Trial.
And no, they DO NOT dress like the 17th century guy on the oats box. That's more of an Amish style.
It's called the United Space Alliance and it has been around since 1996.
Ben barely finished schooling (failing mathematics), was apprenticed to a brother and ran away to Philadelphia, discarding his apprentice obligation. He was educated, but not well even by colonial Boston standards.
He was, thus, condemned to become:
"the most ingenious scientist of his era rather than transcending into the pantheon of truly profound theorists such as Newton."
(Isaacson, "Benjamin Franklin, An American Life", Simon and Schuster, 2003)
Interesting reading, indeed. But it should be taken (as any autobiography) in the context of the author writing about himself. The autobiography was started when his relationship with his son, William -- appointed Governor of New Jersey through his efforts -- was deteriorating and intended to remind William that people of humble beginnings can advance through hard work and good business relationships.
Perhaps Walter Isaacson -- author of the latest biography -- summed it up best when he suggested that Franklin's life and accomplishments are topics that should be revisited by biographers every ten years. If you haven't read a Franklin biography, pick one up. You will be surprised by how much his ideas about intellectual property would conform to the GNU while tolerating patents and copyrights.
Dear Rich Friend:
I am a research scientist in Nigeria. I have access to important information that will save the world, but need seed money to bring my theories to the scientific world.
Send me research money or the world will end! Do it quick so I can send up Bruce Willis in a shuttle to Save the Baby Seals and all the other earthlings. If you send me enough research money, I'll tell you how to mine killer asteroids for Ni, Fe, Pt, Pd and Dilithium.
Please keep our transactions confidential so we may share in this opportunity to save humanity and get rich.