Copernicus' remains were recovered as part of an archaeological discovery. Would you suggest not reburying them? Or perhaps just tossing them back in the hole and throwing the dirt back in?
What is it you'd like to see in a tablet OS? iPhone OS is a pretty full featured version of OS X underneath and Android is a pretty full featured version of Linux underneath. Do you want more GUI elements? A task manager?
Fustakrakich suggested we throw out mass and inertia and look into something else. That kind of rules out fission and antimatter rockets. Rockets of all kinds, for that matter.
You suggested reconsidering mass and inertia. Unfortunately we've never found a way of making something go without using reaction mass. Not that lots of people haven't looked.
As for exceeding the speed of light, there's a LOT we can do without breaking that particular law of physics.
You said "We are using 2,300 year old technology... It's time to quit teaching what can't be done, so we can open up to what can be," but it seems you're not really familiar with the 2300 year old technology and you have no idea what you mean by "what can be." Your criticism comes down to "this method is old, so it is bad. Someone else should just invent something better." Very helpful.
True. Coding on paper makes you a better coder because it forces you to think about what your code is doing rather than just writing something and hitting build/run until it does what you want.
It probably was. MIDI files are usually created by a guy on a keyboard (the music kind, not the computer kind). The result is exactly the same thing you'd get if it were actually the keyboard making the sound.
Seriously. The average Joe has used "web" and "Internet" as synonyms since the average Joe heard about the Internet. "Developers" have been confusing the two since web page designers became "web developers." Ever since web apps came along pretty much everyone has forgotten that anything but http ever existed.
I never left university, but I clearly remember at least a few students using notebooks in class back then. Particularly in computer engineering classes.
They only provide the capital because they have most of it in the first place. And how did they get it all? By skimming it off the top, as the GP said.
The ones the GP was talking about, who are university educated and become traders and bankers don't have any capital anyway. They only move around OTHER people's capital (and take their percentage, of course).
Here I read that an octopus was using air in it's shell as ballast. I knew it was a bad sign when I read that shell was "paper thin." And it turns out that yes, there is no such thing as an octopus that can liquify air.
All right, my first sentence was a little bit sloppy in one place but I think you know exactly what I meant. Let me add a word for your pedantic benefit:
Everywhere we have found liquid water, we have eventually found life.
Stated another way, everywhere we have found liquid water, we have found life as soon as we took a decent look.
Better? Now the rest of your post: the second sentence isn't "special pleading." First, we haven't confirmed liquid water anywhere off Earth except on Enceladus. You disagree? Let's have some evidence. You specifically mention Mars. Liquid water? Really? There are some pretty good geologic indications that there probably used to be liquid water on the surface of Mars. Needless to say (at least I thought so), ancient surface water is not currently liquid. In fact, it is not currently in existence. There are some indications that there might be occasional flows of liquid water on Mars today, but that's very shaky. The observations can be explained by dust flows.
You misunderstood completely the point of my last sentence, probably because you're in such a contrary mood. You are absolutely right, that we haven't confirmed there is or is not life in any extraterrestrial water doesn't mean I can count it on the there-is-life-in-all-water side. That would be "special pleading." BUT neither can the researcher in the article claim that water on the no-life side.
That is, everywhere we have confirmed the presence of liquid water and made a thorough search for life, we have found it. In the places where we have confirmed there is liquid water but have not yet discovered life, we have not searched thoroughly for life so we don't know if it is present or not.
There is certainly life in the water around black smokers, where the water is very hot and the pressure is so great the water can't even boil. As for right down where it hits lava, we don't know.
So long as you change the statement to liquid water, the argument is incorrect as well. Everywhere on Earth we find liquid water, we find life, including above and below the surface. As for water that is not on Earth, we simply don't know if it has life in it or not.
Everywhere we have found liquid water, we've found life, including in a lot of places we thought no life could survive. We've found suggestions that there might be liquid water in some other places, but we haven't confirmed that, except for one place, and we certainly haven't shown that there isn't life in that water.
So far, based on what we actually know, liquid water is a very good (perfect, actually) indicator of life. It's possible that 100% accuracy won't hold, but it's awfully early to start criticizing water.
Depends on the research. If your medical research involves human subjects and imaging it's expensive. If it just involves human subjects it depends what you're doing to them.
Note that we have lots of other industries that have a very high cost of entry, yet exist anyway. Communications satellites, for instance. Or microprocessor fabrication.
Slashdot Mirror
Copernicus' remains were recovered as part of an archaeological discovery. Would you suggest not reburying them? Or perhaps just tossing them back in the hole and throwing the dirt back in?
What is it you'd like to see in a tablet OS? iPhone OS is a pretty full featured version of OS X underneath and Android is a pretty full featured version of Linux underneath. Do you want more GUI elements? A task manager?
"source code can be legally copied no matter what."
Not if you don't have it.
Fustakrakich suggested we throw out mass and inertia and look into something else. That kind of rules out fission and antimatter rockets. Rockets of all kinds, for that matter.
I'm glad someone modded you funny.
You suggested reconsidering mass and inertia. Unfortunately we've never found a way of making something go without using reaction mass. Not that lots of people haven't looked.
As for exceeding the speed of light, there's a LOT we can do without breaking that particular law of physics.
You said "We are using 2,300 year old technology... It's time to quit teaching what can't be done, so we can open up to what can be," but it seems you're not really familiar with the 2300 year old technology and you have no idea what you mean by "what can be." Your criticism comes down to "this method is old, so it is bad. Someone else should just invent something better." Very helpful.
The AC wants to know what you propose that is achievable in the next few years. I'd like to know what you're proposing that is achievable.
True. Coding on paper makes you a better coder because it forces you to think about what your code is doing rather than just writing something and hitting build/run until it does what you want.
Punch cards - weeds out the dilettantes.
Paper - forces you to think and plan properly.
It probably was. MIDI files are usually created by a guy on a keyboard (the music kind, not the computer kind). The result is exactly the same thing you'd get if it were actually the keyboard making the sound.
Uh, there are three guys with (electric) guitars, a guy on the drum kit and two keyboardists. So who's playing the melody, which sounds like a flute?
Hint - not the guitarists or the drummer.
So yeah, there are some real, or mostly real, instruments, but the melody is being played by a high quality modern professional keyboard synthesizer.
Now it runs on my iPhone.
I think it was around 1996.
Seriously. The average Joe has used "web" and "Internet" as synonyms since the average Joe heard about the Internet. "Developers" have been confusing the two since web page designers became "web developers." Ever since web apps came along pretty much everyone has forgotten that anything but http ever existed.
Coding on paper makes you a better coder. Be thankful you had a CS department that made you do that. Few do anymore.
I never left university, but I clearly remember at least a few students using notebooks in class back then. Particularly in computer engineering classes.
I think you're right -- looking at a wired network, Macs don't send anything like 5 MDNS packets per second.
Perhaps it would be a good idea to slow them down if you're on a wifi network.
Hm... computers - made of little bits of sand plus some commodity metals and small amounts of plastic.
Oil... must be pumped out of the ground, whereupon it is burned and more must be pumped out.
Yup, definitely equivalent examples.
They only provide the capital because they have most of it in the first place. And how did they get it all? By skimming it off the top, as the GP said.
The ones the GP was talking about, who are university educated and become traders and bankers don't have any capital anyway. They only move around OTHER people's capital (and take their percentage, of course).
Here I read that an octopus was using air in it's shell as ballast. I knew it was a bad sign when I read that shell was "paper thin." And it turns out that yes, there is no such thing as an octopus that can liquify air.
All right, my first sentence was a little bit sloppy in one place but I think you know exactly what I meant. Let me add a word for your pedantic benefit:
Everywhere we have found liquid water, we have eventually found life.
Stated another way, everywhere we have found liquid water, we have found life as soon as we took a decent look.
Better? Now the rest of your post: the second sentence isn't "special pleading." First, we haven't confirmed liquid water anywhere off Earth except on Enceladus. You disagree? Let's have some evidence. You specifically mention Mars. Liquid water? Really? There are some pretty good geologic indications that there probably used to be liquid water on the surface of Mars. Needless to say (at least I thought so), ancient surface water is not currently liquid. In fact, it is not currently in existence. There are some indications that there might be occasional flows of liquid water on Mars today, but that's very shaky. The observations can be explained by dust flows.
You misunderstood completely the point of my last sentence, probably because you're in such a contrary mood. You are absolutely right, that we haven't confirmed there is or is not life in any extraterrestrial water doesn't mean I can count it on the there-is-life-in-all-water side. That would be "special pleading." BUT neither can the researcher in the article claim that water on the no-life side.
That is, everywhere we have confirmed the presence of liquid water and made a thorough search for life, we have found it. In the places where we have confirmed there is liquid water but have not yet discovered life, we have not searched thoroughly for life so we don't know if it is present or not.
Happy to help.
There is certainly life in the water around black smokers, where the water is very hot and the pressure is so great the water can't even boil. As for right down where it hits lava, we don't know.
That's why they're so worried about the oil munching bacteria getting out of control and using up all the oxygen in the water.
So long as you change the statement to liquid water, the argument is incorrect as well. Everywhere on Earth we find liquid water, we find life, including above and below the surface. As for water that is not on Earth, we simply don't know if it has life in it or not.
Everywhere we have found liquid water, we've found life, including in a lot of places we thought no life could survive. We've found suggestions that there might be liquid water in some other places, but we haven't confirmed that, except for one place, and we certainly haven't shown that there isn't life in that water.
So far, based on what we actually know, liquid water is a very good (perfect, actually) indicator of life. It's possible that 100% accuracy won't hold, but it's awfully early to start criticizing water.
Depends on the research. If your medical research involves human subjects and imaging it's expensive. If it just involves human subjects it depends what you're doing to them.
Note that we have lots of other industries that have a very high cost of entry, yet exist anyway. Communications satellites, for instance. Or microprocessor fabrication.
There's not much oxygen at the depths the well is at, never mind where the reservoir is.
It's possible for things to burn underwater, but those things provide their own oxidizer.