You know what else I wonder about though? What about all the pollution? No one seems to mention that. How about everyone take a trip down to Los Angeles? Or even better...drive into LA. You tell me that thick fucking cloud of disgusting pollution you can see, smell, and feel on you as you drive in doesn't make you want to do things a little differently.
What's more is I've talked to several people who lived in L.A. back in the 80s and they say it was far worse and makes the air there today seems like the purest country air. One of them didn't even understand what I was talking about when I called the current air quality shit.
How fucking disgusting must L.A. of the 80s been? No wonder California decided to start implementing tighter emissions controls. And it sounds like it worked!
Global warming is bad too but shouldn't that go hand in hand with the pollution we're making? Isn't it getting bad enough to address?
The overlap between people who are against doing anything about global warming, and are also against doing anything about pollution in general, is huge. Depressing, I know.
I don't know how it became trendy, but frankly I think if people don't want things in their back yard asshole, then they shouldn't have put an asshole in their back yard.
That's not evolution (or to clarify, "macroevolution"). That's natural selection, which I have often stated is not denied except by the truly obstinate.
I'm glad your clarified from something that is unequivocally wrong -- a single species undergoing changes in allele frequency is indeed evolution -- to a mere red herring.
Okay, so if what you'd call "microevolution" is something not denied except by the truly obstinate, and you are not such, then let me show you why you also should not deny "macroevolution".
You have a species. It can undergo "microevolution". This species is by twist of fate split into two separate populations that are unable to interbreed due to for example geographical barriers. Each of these two populations undergo their own "microevolution", but since they do not interbreed the changes are not shared with the other population. Over time, these two populations would diverge to the point where were they to be brought back together they would be incapable of interbreeding. They are now different species.
That's "macroevolution", done with nothing but the mechanism of "microevolution" which of course you're not so obstinate as to deny. But you can't deny one without denying the other, because they're the same thing. You're trying to drive a wedge into a gap that doesn't exist.
Yes, this is/., and on/. we make fun of people who are worried a supernova is going to kill us because the Mayans predicted the end of the world, especially in Bad Astronomer posts. Which is why that was added in the summary.
Why not allow people to look around search for techniques that improve the reliability of the device and also cases of autonomy where the system maybe completely disconnected.
Like I said, they're trying to simulate mechs that either have human pilots inside, or are completely autonomous. That's why the restriction on the pilot's view of the arena, and the restriction against jamming -- the radio connection between pilot and mech is "out of context", you see?
It's the same reason a non-harmful way of disabling the actual human pilot standing outside the arena isn't allowed.
If Betelgeuse, very much in our galaxy, and quite visible to the naked eye even before it goes supernova, is no threat (and it's not, though it could go supernova any time in the next million years), why on Earth would we be worried about an explosion in another galaxy?
Well the first step is to not know anything of what you just said about Betelgeuse.
The second step is to not really understand what a "galaxy" is or how far away anything happening in another galaxy is.
The third step is to be easily panicked by anything that sounds remotely scary like "Mayans predict end of world in 2012!" and thus jump everytime anything happens in that year.
There are a lot of these people, and Phil Plait has on many occasions been asked -- and frequently tries on his own -- to calm peoples' irrational fears of space phenomenon. I'm not exactly sure how well it works. Stupid seems to be a growth industry.
No not quite. The word is "measurement" not "observation".
Thank you! And the logic that goes "measurement -> observation -> observer" is basically a pun.
It's only "the most popular view of QM" for new-age bullshit peddlers who use this pun-based interpretation to suggest that maybe QM is what allows all their bullshit psychic powers and so forth to work. It is trying to take science and turn it back into superstitious magic.
So if is a realistic game, why not jamming signals
For the same reason the aren't allowed to pull an Indy and just shoot the other pilot.
I mean apart from one being murder and the other just being an annoying way to defeat an opponent.
They're both not in the spirit of the thing, which is to simulate mech combat where the pilot would actually be in the mech itself (or it's autonomous). That's why there's a rule about pilots only being able to see the arena through a camera mounted on the robot itself.
They're obviously trying to make this more of a sport-like game when they require the camera to be roughly center-of-mass like it's a cockpit window. The ability to look around corners which they're trying to avoid would be like the first thing you'd add to a 'real' mech.
Probably something like this: 1) Use cheap SpaceX rockets to reach LEO. 2) Use multiple launches, carrying components of the Mars craft, the supplies, fuel, and crew on separate launches. This keeps you from needing a Giganto-rocket that ultimately couldn't lift as much as these separate launches anyway. 3) Transfer to Mars orbit (which is easier than getting to LEO) 4) Detach landing craft, land on Mars 5) Re-fuel with fuel conveniently pre-manufactured by previous robotic missions (this is the only part not obvious to me how it would be done for whatever that's worth). 6) Return to orbiter. 7) Return to earth.
LEO is the big obstacle. Earth's gravity well is a killer -- it's the largest of any rocky body in the solar system. If we can make LEO cheap and easy -- which just happens to be Elon Musk's major goal with SpaceX -- then we've made the rest of the solar system significantly cheaper and easier.
LEO is nearly halfway to Mars surface in terms of delta-v.
So yeah, SpaceX is directly addressing the most important component of making Mars missions economically feasible.
If we can make access LEO a relatively cheap commodity, and make it so we don't have to lift every single thing that we're going to take to Mars all at once, and have a way to have robotic manufacture of fuel on Mars for the trip back, then I can totally see Musk's statement playing out.
It does all hinge on that first huge step though. Fortunately SpaceX is hardly neglecting that part, and progress is promising.
The only way in which Texas comes into the issue is that Texas representatives wanted the SSC built there rather than added onto existing infrastructure i.e. Fermilab. So that greatly expanded the cost of digging the tunnels.
I don't think that was a decisive factor in the SSC cancellation.
Certainly 'hateful rednecks' had nothing to do with it. And even if they did, putting it in Texas didn't hurt it. As an immigrant to Texas, my impression is that the only thing your stereotypical science-hatin' Texan would hate more than a highfalutin science project is a highfalutin science project not in Texas.:P
It seems to me that pursing thorium is an easier and more economic solution than continuing to futz with fusion.
Why treat these things like we have to only pick one? It's not like the money for R&D into fusion reactors and money for the construction of production fission reactors are coming from the same place. Even if they were, I'm sure we could find some third thing to de-prioritize instead.
Thorium fission reactors have great potential for solving many current problems with fossil fuels. Thorium reactors could be running and solving our problem long before fusion reactors could.
Fusion reactors have the potential to solve our energy problems for any forseeable future -- making energy so plentiful and cheap that we could use it to do things that would be completely insane now. Even in a future where we are using nuclear fission for all our power, the creation of working, production fusion reactors would be a revolutionary change.
We want both. Let's not pit them against each other.
I was talking about the geekoid's consistently poor grammar and spelling in his posts, done with a 'fuck it,it's slashdot' attitude. But then suddenly when talking about casual conversation it's all "oh yeah I make sure I'm always communicating properly only tools pause and say 'um' in conversation" and I just don't buy it.
I know the chance may be small, but seems proper in this analysis to take it into account.
I'm not sure you do, so fine, let's take it into account. ~10^15 possible passwords - ~10^6 English words = ~10^15 passwords that are not English words.
1/10^9 is the fraction of passwords that need to be discarded. Completely. Negligible.
So, yes It may be low probability but if that probability makes the two systems comparable, then is it really worth to memorize a very complex combination of characters?
As you can see, this cannot possibly make the two systems the same and that goes for any given second system. Either they were already the same to within 7 decimal places, or they weren't and still aren't.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey now! Some of my best friends are protons!
Singin' this'll be e to the i Pi.
This'll be e to the i Pi.
You know what else I wonder about though? What about all the pollution? No one seems to mention that. How about everyone take a trip down to Los Angeles? Or even better...drive into LA. You tell me that thick fucking cloud of disgusting pollution you can see, smell, and feel on you as you drive in doesn't make you want to do things a little differently.
What's more is I've talked to several people who lived in L.A. back in the 80s and they say it was far worse and makes the air there today seems like the purest country air. One of them didn't even understand what I was talking about when I called the current air quality shit.
How fucking disgusting must L.A. of the 80s been? No wonder California decided to start implementing tighter emissions controls. And it sounds like it worked!
Global warming is bad too but shouldn't that go hand in hand with the pollution we're making? Isn't it getting bad enough to address?
The overlap between people who are against doing anything about global warming, and are also against doing anything about pollution in general, is huge. Depressing, I know.
I don't know how it became trendy, but frankly I think if people don't want things in their back yard asshole, then they shouldn't have put an asshole in their back yard.
You definitely hear "let's just be friends" and "you're like a brother to me" more than I do. More than zero, specifically.
Of course; why would a whore say that to her john unless he asked her to? And then you might have to pay extra for the "brother" thing. ew.
You cannot substitute your fantasy world for reality and continue to be a "good person".
Well in my fantasy world you can, so there!
That's not evolution (or to clarify, "macroevolution"). That's natural selection, which I have often stated is not denied except by the truly obstinate.
I'm glad your clarified from something that is unequivocally wrong -- a single species undergoing changes in allele frequency is indeed evolution -- to a mere red herring.
Okay, so if what you'd call "microevolution" is something not denied except by the truly obstinate, and you are not such, then let me show you why you also should not deny "macroevolution".
You have a species. It can undergo "microevolution". This species is by twist of fate split into two separate populations that are unable to interbreed due to for example geographical barriers. Each of these two populations undergo their own "microevolution", but since they do not interbreed the changes are not shared with the other population. Over time, these two populations would diverge to the point where were they to be brought back together they would be incapable of interbreeding. They are now different species.
That's "macroevolution", done with nothing but the mechanism of "microevolution" which of course you're not so obstinate as to deny. But you can't deny one without denying the other, because they're the same thing. You're trying to drive a wedge into a gap that doesn't exist.
Sorry, I thought this was slashdot.
Yes, this is /., and on /. we make fun of people who are worried a supernova is going to kill us because the Mayans predicted the end of the world, especially in Bad Astronomer posts. Which is why that was added in the summary.
Why not allow people to look around search for techniques that improve the reliability of the device and also cases of autonomy where the system maybe completely disconnected.
Like I said, they're trying to simulate mechs that either have human pilots inside, or are completely autonomous. That's why the restriction on the pilot's view of the arena, and the restriction against jamming -- the radio connection between pilot and mech is "out of context", you see?
It's the same reason a non-harmful way of disabling the actual human pilot standing outside the arena isn't allowed.
If Betelgeuse, very much in our galaxy, and quite visible to the naked eye even before it goes supernova, is no threat (and it's not, though it could go supernova any time in the next million years), why on Earth would we be worried about an explosion in another galaxy?
Well the first step is to not know anything of what you just said about Betelgeuse.
The second step is to not really understand what a "galaxy" is or how far away anything happening in another galaxy is.
The third step is to be easily panicked by anything that sounds remotely scary like "Mayans predict end of world in 2012!" and thus jump everytime anything happens in that year.
There are a lot of these people, and Phil Plait has on many occasions been asked -- and frequently tries on his own -- to calm peoples' irrational fears of space phenomenon. I'm not exactly sure how well it works. Stupid seems to be a growth industry.
No not quite. The word is "measurement" not "observation".
Thank you! And the logic that goes "measurement -> observation -> observer" is basically a pun.
It's only "the most popular view of QM" for new-age bullshit peddlers who use this pun-based interpretation to suggest that maybe QM is what allows all their bullshit psychic powers and so forth to work. It is trying to take science and turn it back into superstitious magic.
Of course not. Kilometers are what killbots use to determine if they've reached their pre-set kill limit.
Outrage is getting mad at things that have already happened, it isn't productive method of try to make sure it doesn't happen.
Somebody kick this moron in the balls and repeat that line at him.
You just tell yourself it's Dr. Girlfriend at the other keyboard.
So if is a realistic game, why not jamming signals
For the same reason the aren't allowed to pull an Indy and just shoot the other pilot.
I mean apart from one being murder and the other just being an annoying way to defeat an opponent.
They're both not in the spirit of the thing, which is to simulate mech combat where the pilot would actually be in the mech itself (or it's autonomous). That's why there's a rule about pilots only being able to see the arena through a camera mounted on the robot itself.
They're obviously trying to make this more of a sport-like game when they require the camera to be roughly center-of-mass like it's a cockpit window. The ability to look around corners which they're trying to avoid would be like the first thing you'd add to a 'real' mech.
Probably something like this:
1) Use cheap SpaceX rockets to reach LEO.
2) Use multiple launches, carrying components of the Mars craft, the supplies, fuel, and crew on separate launches. This keeps you from needing a Giganto-rocket that ultimately couldn't lift as much as these separate launches anyway.
3) Transfer to Mars orbit (which is easier than getting to LEO)
4) Detach landing craft, land on Mars
5) Re-fuel with fuel conveniently pre-manufactured by previous robotic missions (this is the only part not obvious to me how it would be done for whatever that's worth).
6) Return to orbiter.
7) Return to earth.
LEO is the big obstacle. Earth's gravity well is a killer -- it's the largest of any rocky body in the solar system. If we can make LEO cheap and easy -- which just happens to be Elon Musk's major goal with SpaceX -- then we've made the rest of the solar system significantly cheaper and easier.
Heh. He's also the CEO of SpaceX, which has the Chinese saying they can't compete with their cost structure.
LEO is nearly halfway to Mars surface in terms of delta-v.
So yeah, SpaceX is directly addressing the most important component of making Mars missions economically feasible.
If we can make access LEO a relatively cheap commodity, and make it so we don't have to lift every single thing that we're going to take to Mars all at once, and have a way to have robotic manufacture of fuel on Mars for the trip back, then I can totally see Musk's statement playing out.
It does all hinge on that first huge step though. Fortunately SpaceX is hardly neglecting that part, and progress is promising.
The only way in which Texas comes into the issue is that Texas representatives wanted the SSC built there rather than added onto existing infrastructure i.e. Fermilab. So that greatly expanded the cost of digging the tunnels.
I don't think that was a decisive factor in the SSC cancellation.
Certainly 'hateful rednecks' had nothing to do with it. And even if they did, putting it in Texas didn't hurt it. As an immigrant to Texas, my impression is that the only thing your stereotypical science-hatin' Texan would hate more than a highfalutin science project is a highfalutin science project not in Texas. :P
It seems to me that pursing thorium is an easier and more economic solution than continuing to futz with fusion.
Why treat these things like we have to only pick one? It's not like the money for R&D into fusion reactors and money for the construction of production fission reactors are coming from the same place. Even if they were, I'm sure we could find some third thing to de-prioritize instead.
Thorium fission reactors have great potential for solving many current problems with fossil fuels. Thorium reactors could be running and solving our problem long before fusion reactors could.
Fusion reactors have the potential to solve our energy problems for any forseeable future -- making energy so plentiful and cheap that we could use it to do things that would be completely insane now. Even in a future where we are using nuclear fission for all our power, the creation of working, production fusion reactors would be a revolutionary change.
We want both. Let's not pit them against each other.
When someone asks you how far it is to your house, do you tell them the least significant digit first?
In that case month/day is in fact wrong.
I was talking about the geekoid's consistently poor grammar and spelling in his posts, done with a 'fuck it,it's slashdot' attitude. But then suddenly when talking about casual conversation it's all "oh yeah I make sure I'm always communicating properly only tools pause and say 'um' in conversation" and I just don't buy it.
I know the chance may be small, but seems proper in this analysis to take it into account.
I'm not sure you do, so fine, let's take it into account.
~10^15 possible passwords - ~10^6 English words = ~10^15 passwords that are not English words.
1/10^9 is the fraction of passwords that need to be discarded. Completely. Negligible.
So, yes It may be low probability but if that probability makes the two systems comparable, then is it really worth to memorize a very complex combination of characters?
As you can see, this cannot possibly make the two systems the same and that goes for any given second system. Either they were already the same to within 7 decimal places, or they weren't and still aren't.
"Besides"?
SEED is similarly not of interest to the average college student.
Once we start programs promoting BUD, then we'll see some results.