Something being "real easy to test" does not make the test accurate or significant.
In your discussion, you're talking about volume. However, the relevant topics are not volume, but density and mass. Objects 'float' when they displace an amount of the fluid (water) with a mass equal to their own. In other words, a 100 ton iceberg floats when it raises the water level by whatever volume 100 tons of water is.
So, the iceberg in a solid state will raise the water level by 100 tons of water (divided by the area of the pool and all that). When you melt the iceberg, you have 100 extra tons of water... so an equal rise.
It should be noted that this is primarily applicable on the north pole, where the ice is actually floating. Antarctica, being an actual land mass, has ice that is not currently displacing sufficient water to float.
You'd notice something. "Nitrogen(N2) is inert." Not just "N." Nitrogen (N) is indeed not a noble gas, and thus lacks a full outer octet, and will react to gain electrons and become more stable. However, this whole system uses N2, where each atom has a full outer shell, and when you have a full outer shell, you don't react much. It is a very very stable compound. Furthermore, N2 is the primary form of nitrogen found in the atmosphere - if it is going to react to kill us all, it would have done it already, because it's 70% of the stuff flying and colliding all around us!
First, and I hate to break this too you, for a lot of people, the problems with using word are far less than trying not to use it, due to things like, oh, the majority of the world. You probably don't need to be told this, but, I figgure for the reading audiance out there, it's a wise thing to point out.
Now, as for you suspicions, may I point out that Katz's articles are not about technology? He's writing about society and people, not source code and silicon. If he was clueless, he couldn't get what he gets, but for that sort of thing, you don't need to be able to rattle off the latest offical Linux source in it's entirty.
Now, as for your final paragraph. A lot of/.'s problems come from people who have grown intolerent of differences, and the like. They want/. to only carry stories on Linux (like your paragraph could be read to), or that humor posts should be moderated down, or any of the hundreds of other issues people have about it.
Furthermore, talking about how things are different, and setting up qualifications (i.e. your comment on Katz's knowlage for your first paragraphy), are at the cornerstone of creating haves and have-nots, us and they, etc.
So, can't we just stop saying what is right and belongs and what is wrong and should be deleted, and just concentrate on sharing opinions and information?
Yet, unliky Cryptography, carrying a firearm is directly a clearn and present threat. Schenck v. United States (1951) established that limitation of Free Speach, and I think most people will suport it's existance.
As for Political Speach, that depends. Are you talking about how you can't commit lible against your policial oponents? Or maybe the limitations on how much you can donate to a particular canidate? Or that you can't campaign within some number of feet from voting locations? Maybe some other kind of Political Speech I'm forgetting? Personaly, I don't find any of those restrictive - if anything they limit how much someone else can restrict your speach.
Now, Cryptography doesn't limit someone else's speach, and it doesn't directly pose any threat. However, it isn't particularly expresive either. Hence, consitutional arguments, unless you want to argue the merits of the Elastic Cluase, are fairly irelvent.
-- Buy my new book "Reading Bits and Peices: The Secret to getting your way out of the Consitution"!
Because their faces are different/similar in much the same manner that their fingerprints are different/similar. The simple fact is, there isn't enought DNA to code the exact positioning and construction of everything - instead it codes for how the cells decide what they should do at the structual level (i.e. Position of capilaries).
"So how are they so similar" I'm sure you're now asking. Well, the answer is that the differences are on a small scale, and end up cancling each other out when casualy examined. But, if you look close enought, you can find the differences.
Hence, it's just as acurate. As for beating diguses, I think they do thermal imaging. It would be a short step from dealing with varietions in the ambient temperture and distance from the messuring device to dealing with sunglasses or makeup or a mask interfearing with it.
"The genetic code does not, and cannot, specify the nature and position of every capillary in the body or every neuron in the brain. What it can}do is describe the underlying fractal pattern which creates them. -- Academician Prokhor Zakharov, "Nonlinear Genetics""
> Furthermore, if they search you with probable > cause, like say for...a knife, if they find > something that they aren't looking for, like > say...marijuana, then they can haul you in for > it. I believe that, too, is illegal.
Actualy, it's quite legal. If the search is a valid and justified legal search, anything found is fair game. If I come into your house with a warent to search for say, bank records, and while digging in a file cabinent find an illegal assult rifle, I can arrest you.
Furthermore, it's only illegal search and seizure if it's a police officer. If I, a private citizen (who does not work for a police agency) open your backpack and report you have marijuana, while I have commited a crime, the evidence is still legal for use against you.
I'm not sure, but I think the story was wrong on the treaty part. If I recall, about 5 or 6 years ago, a group of legal experts at the request of a number of governements and various other organizations. They finaly result was that when you plant your flag on unclaimed land, you own all teritory untill a significant seperating terran feature, (which they defined). Now, the it turns out that there's no such defining feature cutting of any portion of the moon. Hence, it's one big peice of U.S. Federal property.
Re:Not again NASA... Conventinal Rockets
on
NASA's X-37
·
· Score: 1
Now, I may be bringing up a sore spot that's been done to death (wouldn't be the first time), but isn't another part of the outragous costs of space the continued use of conventinonal rocket engines?
Now, I'm not going to nessacarly suggest any one alternative. I can't. And, of coarse, most of them are still in the infant stages, further comounded by the fact that it seems all the big research goes into improving O2 + Fuel rocketry...
For example, in The Millennial Project : Colonizing the Galaxy in Eight Easy Steps by Marshall Savage, Mr. Savage proposes a Mass driver, dug down along the slope of a mountain somewhere near the equator, and continuing out something like 15 KM. The launch vehical is placed on a sort of slede in the tunnel of the driver. The system pushes the sleigh up till the top of the mountain, where the vehical continue upwords I think 6 off of gravities pull (against the earth's rotation). Shortly thereafter, a series of Lasers placed around the exit of the mass Driver focus on a chunk of Ice, about a cubic yard in size. As the Lasers heat the ice, it of coarse turns to steam, and that steam provides what remaing power is needed to escape earth's gravity.
Vola! Out of earth's gravity, and while the overhead might be a burden, as might the energy cost (something that is solved in the book), you're no longer lifting the fuel, and the weight to thrust ratio finaly is high enought to be worth something...
Slashdot Mirror
Something being "real easy to test" does not make the test accurate or significant.
In your discussion, you're talking about volume. However, the relevant topics are not volume, but density and mass. Objects 'float' when they displace an amount of the fluid (water) with a mass equal to their own. In other words, a 100 ton iceberg floats when it raises the water level by whatever volume 100 tons of water is.
So, the iceberg in a solid state will raise the water level by 100 tons of water (divided by the area of the pool and all that). When you melt the iceberg, you have 100 extra tons of water... so an equal rise.
It should be noted that this is primarily applicable on the north pole, where the ice is actually floating. Antarctica, being an actual land mass, has ice that is not currently displacing sufficient water to float.
You'd notice something. "Nitrogen(N2) is inert." Not just "N." Nitrogen (N) is indeed not a noble gas, and thus lacks a full outer octet, and will react to gain electrons and become more stable. However, this whole system uses N2, where each atom has a full outer shell, and when you have a full outer shell, you don't react much. It is a very very stable compound. Furthermore, N2 is the primary form of nitrogen found in the atmosphere - if it is going to react to kill us all, it would have done it already, because it's 70% of the stuff flying and colliding all around us!
First, and I hate to break this too you, for a lot of people, the problems with using word are far less than trying not to use it, due to things like, oh, the majority of the world. You probably don't need to be told this, but, I figgure for the reading audiance out there, it's a wise thing to point out.
/.'s problems come from people who have grown intolerent of differences, and the like. They want /. to only carry stories on Linux (like your paragraph could be read to), or that humor posts should be moderated down, or any of the hundreds of other issues people have about it.
Now, as for you suspicions, may I point out that Katz's articles are not about technology? He's writing about society and people, not source code and silicon. If he was clueless, he couldn't get what he gets, but for that sort of thing, you don't need to be able to rattle off the latest offical Linux source in it's entirty.
Now, as for your final paragraph. A lot of
Furthermore, talking about how things are different, and setting up qualifications (i.e. your comment on Katz's knowlage for your first paragraphy), are at the cornerstone of creating haves and have-nots, us and they, etc.
So, can't we just stop saying what is right and belongs and what is wrong and should be deleted, and just concentrate on sharing opinions and information?
Yet, unliky Cryptography, carrying a firearm is directly a clearn and present threat. Schenck v. United States (1951) established that limitation of Free Speach, and I think most people will suport it's existance.
As for Political Speach, that depends. Are you talking about how you can't commit lible against your policial oponents? Or maybe the limitations on how much you can donate to a particular canidate? Or that you can't campaign within some number of feet from voting locations? Maybe some other kind of Political Speech I'm forgetting? Personaly, I don't find any of those restrictive - if anything they limit how much someone else can restrict your speach.
Now, Cryptography doesn't limit someone else's speach, and it doesn't directly pose any threat. However, it isn't particularly expresive either. Hence, consitutional arguments, unless you want to argue the merits of the Elastic Cluase, are fairly irelvent.
--
Buy my new book "Reading Bits and Peices: The Secret to getting your way out of the Consitution"!
Because their faces are different/similar in much the same manner that their fingerprints are different/similar. The simple fact is, there isn't enought DNA to code the exact positioning and construction of everything - instead it codes for how the cells decide what they should do at the structual level (i.e. Position of capilaries).
"So how are they so similar" I'm sure you're now asking. Well, the answer is that the differences are on a small scale, and end up cancling each other out when casualy examined. But, if you look close enought, you can find the differences.
Hence, it's just as acurate. As for beating diguses, I think they do thermal imaging. It would be a short step from dealing with varietions in the ambient temperture and distance from the messuring device to dealing with sunglasses or makeup or a mask interfearing with it.
"The genetic code does not, and cannot, specify the nature and position of every capillary in the body or every neuron in the brain. What it can}do is describe the underlying fractal pattern which creates them.
-- Academician Prokhor Zakharov,
"Nonlinear Genetics""
> Furthermore, if they search you with probable
> cause, like say for...a knife, if they find
> something that they aren't looking for, like
> say...marijuana, then they can haul you in for
> it. I believe that, too, is illegal.
Actualy, it's quite legal. If the search is a valid and justified legal search, anything found is fair game. If I come into your house with a warent to search for say, bank records, and while digging in a file cabinent find an illegal assult rifle, I can arrest you.
Furthermore, it's only illegal search and seizure if it's a police officer. If I, a private citizen (who does not work for a police agency) open your backpack and report you have marijuana, while I have commited a crime, the evidence is still legal for use against you.
I'm not sure, but I think the story was wrong on the treaty part. If I recall, about 5 or 6 years ago, a group of legal experts at the request of a number of governements and various other organizations. They finaly result was that when you plant your flag on unclaimed land, you own all teritory untill a significant seperating terran feature, (which they defined). Now, the it turns out that there's no such defining feature cutting of any portion of the moon. Hence, it's one big peice of U.S. Federal property.
Now, I may be bringing up a sore spot that's been done to death (wouldn't be the first time), but isn't another part of the outragous costs of space the continued use of conventinonal rocket engines?
Now, I'm not going to nessacarly suggest any one alternative. I can't. And, of coarse, most of them are still in the infant stages, further comounded by the fact that it seems all the big research goes into improving O2 + Fuel rocketry...
For example, in The Millennial Project : Colonizing the Galaxy in Eight Easy Steps by Marshall Savage, Mr. Savage proposes a Mass driver, dug down along the slope of a mountain somewhere near the equator, and continuing out something like 15 KM. The launch vehical is placed on a sort of slede in the tunnel of the driver. The system pushes the sleigh up till the top of the mountain, where the vehical continue upwords I think 6 off of gravities pull (against the earth's rotation). Shortly thereafter, a series of Lasers placed around the exit of the mass Driver focus on a chunk of Ice, about a cubic yard in size. As the Lasers heat the ice, it of coarse turns to steam, and that steam provides what remaing power is needed to escape earth's gravity.
Vola! Out of earth's gravity, and while the overhead might be a burden, as might the energy cost (something that is solved in the book), you're no longer lifting the fuel, and the weight to thrust ratio finaly is high enought to be worth something...