Depending on the day Liberals either take the stance that Bush is either an incompetent fool who has no idea what he is doing, or that he is devious and calculating. Which is it?
It's a composite of many images taken at various angles, so the sun is coming in at different angles in different sections of the photograph. It also wasn't taken all at the same time. Conspiracy theorists always just point out some kind of perceived inconsistency and say "obviously that means the picture is fake". If the picture were fake it would have probably been done in a 3D renderer and there would be no inconstancies in the shadows.
If an organ fails, maybe the question "Does this person still need to live" should be asked.
Why bother weighting until an organ fails, why don't we make a list of all the 'useful' people and kill all the rest. It would be a more direct solution to solving the population 'problem' that you seem to believe exists and it wouldn't be any more morally questionable.
It's still effectively zero emissions, since every CO2 molecule which comes out of the car's tailpipe was already scrubbed from the atmosphere when the plant was growing.
So if the problem is making sure the net emissions of CO2 are zero why don't we just keep track of how much CO2 is being released by burning Oil and just remove a proportional amount of carbon from the environment by burying plants in the ground. It seems like if using ethanol could work then this could also work, and it wouldn't take any research and development.
It doesn't really matter because their format will not be lossy. 3D files aren't like graphics or MP3's, the only reason a point or polygon exists in a 3D file is because an artist told the computer to put it there. In an uncompressed bitmap a white page would take as much space as a photograph of a house. An empty 3-D file would take much less space than a 3-D file containing a model house.
Emulators and PC cards are not like actually having a PC. No one would seriously consider running all their programs through an emulator. They are way to resolve some compatibility issues for people who already know they want a mac, not a replacement for a PC.
Actually apple already has an x86 port for OSX. It is after all based on Next Step, which originally ran on the x86. So mostly they just had to recompile the GUI stuff. They could release an x86 mac that can boot into windows or OSX and encourage developers to release their programs as 'fat' binaries that run on PPC and x86. Then they just have to decide if they want an Intel Inside sticker or not.
A while ago I saw an article where the U.S. government bought a bunch of apple Xserve's to use interpreting sonar images on submarines. Of coarse they wanted linux for an application like that. The interesting thing is that they didn't buy the Xserve's directly from apple because if the hire-ups knew that they were buying macs they wouldn't approve it. They had been using G4's with custom made boards before they bought the Xseve's.
I always see posts where people rationalize buying Apple laptops buy saying "if I don't like OSX I can always put linux on it". This makes it a lot easier for apple to get people to switch from linux to OSX. Maybe apple should try to make macs that are capable of running Windows so more people will switch to macs from the Windows world.
Of course not. But the money should not be spent today on a glory shot. It should be spent on R&D towards developing the technology to make moon and/or mars colonization viable.
You're exactly right. That's why Bush is proposing a plan that puts a base on the moon before we go to Mars. The goal is not a "glory shot" if he wanted that he would have supported the Mars Direct plan. The goal is the long term development of a space infrastructure. First by developing a base on the moon, then by using that base, or the technology from that base to go to Mars.
Everyone I know would be willing to risk their lives to go to another planet, and I only know basement geeks. NASA is adverse to risks because it knows that if someone dies the media and the politicians will make a big deal out of it. The astronauts know the risks and are willing to take them.
I was going to mod this post up but I don't think it provides enough information. Before Clinton signed the Kyoto treaty the senate passed a resolution 95 to 0 saying that they would not support the treaty unless it held developing countries (such as China) to the same standards. Clinton signed the treaty even though it specifically exempted the developing countries. Without the support of the senate the U.S. would not live up to its obligations in the treaty. When Bush pulled out of the agreement he was just being realistic.
Why can't we just experience the universe directly without the interference of sybols and concepts.
Without symbols and concepts people would be unable to communicate with each other. Society as we know it would not exist. It's important that 'planet' has an exact definition so when you call something a planet people know what you're talking about.
But the problem is that whenever we solve a problem our standards for what the world should be like increase. So we keep finding more problems. If we wait until we have solved all of the problems on earth before developing space technology then we never will.
That is an image of a rock taken with the rovers microscopic imager. They photographed the rock, then they ground a shallow hole in it and took another picture to try to get an idea of what the structure of the rock was. I still don't see how someone could possibly think that was a fossil though.
Actually I think the statement "I'm not a Green but I do object to being poisoned for some companies bottom line." pretty much is the Green party line. Blaming all the worlds problems on big business is what the green party is all about, not environmentalism.
Excellent post, the only thing I would change is "North American" to "any". It's not like American news sites are more biased than any other news sites.
It wouldn't have to accelerate people very fast. It could be miles long and accelerate people over it's entire length. In order to get escape velocity while giving the cargo 3 G's of force would take 80 seconds, and 100Km of track.
Slashdot Mirror
Depending on the day Liberals either take the stance that Bush is either an incompetent fool who has no idea what he is doing, or that he is devious and calculating. Which is it?
It's a composite of many images taken at various angles, so the sun is coming in at different angles in different sections of the photograph. It also wasn't taken all at the same time. Conspiracy theorists always just point out some kind of perceived inconsistency and say "obviously that means the picture is fake". If the picture were fake it would have probably been done in a 3D renderer and there would be no inconstancies in the shadows.
If an organ fails, maybe the question "Does this person still need to live" should be asked.
Why bother weighting until an organ fails, why don't we make a list of all the 'useful' people and kill all the rest. It would be a more direct solution to solving the population 'problem' that you seem to believe exists and it wouldn't be any more morally questionable.
It's still effectively zero emissions, since every CO2 molecule which comes out of the car's tailpipe was already scrubbed from the atmosphere when the plant was growing.
So if the problem is making sure the net emissions of CO2 are zero why don't we just keep track of how much CO2 is being released by burning Oil and just remove a proportional amount of carbon from the environment by burying plants in the ground. It seems like if using ethanol could work then this could also work, and it wouldn't take any research and development.
It doesn't really matter because their format will not be lossy. 3D files aren't like graphics or MP3's, the only reason a point or polygon exists in a 3D file is because an artist told the computer to put it there. In an uncompressed bitmap a white page would take as much space as a photograph of a house. An empty 3-D file would take much less space than a 3-D file containing a model house.
Wouldn't that mean that most open source software wouldn't get verified?
Emulators and PC cards are not like actually having a PC. No one would seriously consider running all their programs through an emulator. They are way to resolve some compatibility issues for people who already know they want a mac, not a replacement for a PC.
Actually apple already has an x86 port for OSX. It is after all based on Next Step, which originally ran on the x86. So mostly they just had to recompile the GUI stuff. They could release an x86 mac that can boot into windows or OSX and encourage developers to release their programs as 'fat' binaries that run on PPC and x86. Then they just have to decide if they want an Intel Inside sticker or not.
A while ago I saw an article where the U.S. government bought a bunch of apple Xserve's to use interpreting sonar images on submarines. Of coarse they wanted linux for an application like that. The interesting thing is that they didn't buy the Xserve's directly from apple because if the hire-ups knew that they were buying macs they wouldn't approve it. They had been using G4's with custom made boards before they bought the Xseve's.
I always see posts where people rationalize buying Apple laptops buy saying "if I don't like OSX I can always put linux on it". This makes it a lot easier for apple to get people to switch from linux to OSX. Maybe apple should try to make macs that are capable of running Windows so more people will switch to macs from the Windows world.
Of course not. But the money should not be spent today on a glory shot. It should be spent on R&D towards developing the technology to make moon and/or mars colonization viable.
You're exactly right. That's why Bush is proposing a plan that puts a base on the moon before we go to Mars. The goal is not a "glory shot" if he wanted that he would have supported the Mars Direct plan. The goal is the long term development of a space infrastructure. First by developing a base on the moon, then by using that base, or the technology from that base to go to Mars.
Everyone I know would be willing to risk their lives to go to another planet, and I only know basement geeks. NASA is adverse to risks because it knows that if someone dies the media and the politicians will make a big deal out of it. The astronauts know the risks and are willing to take them.
This sounds like just a bunch of buzz words thrown together.
low altitude geosynchronous orbit objects
Geosynchronous orbit is 35,785 kilometers, which is not a low altitude.
I was going to mod this post up but I don't think it provides enough information. Before Clinton signed the Kyoto treaty the senate passed a resolution 95 to 0 saying that they would not support the treaty unless it held developing countries (such as China) to the same standards. Clinton signed the treaty even though it specifically exempted the developing countries. Without the support of the senate the U.S. would not live up to its obligations in the treaty. When Bush pulled out of the agreement he was just being realistic.
This should be moderated funny.
Why can't we just experience the universe directly without the interference of sybols and concepts.
Without symbols and concepts people would be unable to communicate with each other. Society as we know it would not exist. It's important that 'planet' has an exact definition so when you call something a planet people know what you're talking about.
What you are suggesting is that it's equally likely to throw 50 heads in a row, than it is to throw 25 heads and 25 tails.
No. What he means is that the odds of getting 50 heads in a row given that you have already gotten 49 in a row is 50%.
But the problem is that whenever we solve a problem our standards for what the world should be like increase. So we keep finding more problems. If we wait until we have solved all of the problems on earth before developing space technology then we never will.
That is an image of a rock taken with the rovers microscopic imager. They photographed the rock, then they ground a shallow hole in it and took another picture to try to get an idea of what the structure of the rock was. I still don't see how someone could possibly think that was a fossil though.
Why would I want to pay for an inferior, insecure product when I can get Linux for free?
Because it runs Microsoft office?
Actually I think the statement "I'm not a Green but I do object to being poisoned for some companies bottom line." pretty much is the Green party line. Blaming all the worlds problems on big business is what the green party is all about, not environmentalism.
Excellent post, the only thing I would change is "North American" to "any". It's not like American news sites are more biased than any other news sites.
It would probably be more reliable, because there are less things that can go wrong. And it can get general readings from many points on the surface.
It wouldn't have to accelerate people very fast. It could be miles long and accelerate people over it's entire length. In order to get escape velocity while giving the cargo 3 G's of force would take 80 seconds, and 100Km of track.
Just one more thing to add...
On the other hand the moon has no atmosphere. So launches from the moon could easily be done with a rail gun.