Duh, he listens to Love Line and Dr. Drew, who is always going on about how he hears many more complaints from women about their partners being too big rather than too small. And also about partners who last too long. Apparently bruising and chafing are bigger deals than a lack of performance which can be made up with extra foreplay.
But that's the functional purpose of the spines -- to scoop out another male's semen so as to help ensure it is they who are impregnating the female. A male without them would be more likely to be the guy stuck raising someone else's kids.
It seems like this would have only been advantageous after the development of mostly-monogamous pair bonding. Or after the development of concealed ovulation, so there'd be no obvious sign of fertility and thus copulations with multiple partners would, at least in half-assed theory, be more spread out in time.
When analyzing the genetic record, how can one 'sort out' the distinction between DNA changes that have happened due to mutation, compared to the changes induced by broad and consistent female choice?
That seems pretty easy -- the existence of a lack of spines originated due to a mutation, and became dominant due to natural selection. That's pretty much always the case.
As far as the exact natural selection pressures which led to it becoming dominant, that's harder to say and I have no idea. I would imagine (i.e. wild-ass guess) that whichever came first, lack of spines or concealed ovulation, they were both predated by stronger pair-bonding.
Er, normally the power output is given as the power of the laser pulse, is it not? Rather than normalized to an equivalent laser that is on continuously. A 1 MW laser that is pulsed at 10 Hz with a 50% duty cycle would be outputting 1 MW during the pulses,and 0 otherwise, for a total of half the energy of a 1 MW continuous laser.
For example the laser in TFA, which is actually only 1 kW, pulses only once for 100ns. The actual power output of the pulse is 1 kW; it is not a 10 MW pulse that they average out over a second.
It seems every 4-8 years a new 20 year plan is given to NASA that may or may not have anything to do with the last 20 year plan. Between politics and NASA's own bureacracy, it seems that the US manned space program is stalled. Thank goodness we still have JPL and its hardy unmanned probes.
Gee, good thing then that the new plan is smaller missions involving the development of specific technologies and capabilities, rather than a 20 year plan requiring single-purpose development, so that when the next cycle comes, even if the new guy changes plans, we still have what we already built.
BTW, Burt Rutan is awesome, but it's Elon Musk who is going to be providing the rides first.
Uhh, that's the WHOLE problem with all console controls.
No, the WHOLE problem with all console controls is that turning is slow, and more importantly AIMING is slow. You can't even aim at things that are in front of you quickly with a gamepad.
The Wii fixes one of those problems, and is vastly superior in every way for FPS shooting over gamepads. I simply can't play FPS games on consoles with gamepads anymore.
Of course PC controls are still better than the Wii. It's in the middle ground.
You were obviously confused since your whole original rant was based on misquoting the joke, so your reading is a mis-reading. The point was not to say things that are true but don't make sense. It was nonsense from start to finish.
And there is a very good reason to believe it was an intentional error, other than the simple fact that any Star Wars fan knows Chewbacca doesn't live on Endor, and Trey and Matt are fans. In the actual quote by Cochrane that they were parodying -- "if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit" -- it is widely believed by those who are critical of the OJ Trial that OJ's demonstration that "the glove doesn't fit" was a farce. As in, it was not true.
So it was both a non sequitor*, a conclusion that does not follow from its premise, and a false premise. Just like in the Chewbacca Defense. To even get to the part that the logic didn't make sense, you had to accept the premise, which was false. They weren't just making fun of illogical statements in general, but also the shear magnitude of nonsense that Cochrane was able to get away with.
Sorry, but you're just way off on your reading, both in the specifics and in the context. I'm not even much of a SP fan, but they were spot-on in their parody of Cochrane with the Chewbacca Defense and it is some of their finest work.
* Not a Strawman Argument, since neither real nor SP Cochrane was misrepresenting their opponent's argument
The country was designed to be a a union of states, so it really should be the states making the decisions, not the entire mass of the country as a whole. My point is that the states vote according to the democractially-determined election, and then the states cast their votes almost exactly according to the will of the people that voted, with very little room for decision by any individual representative.
It's not "almost exactly" except in states that are completely one-sided. They're only going according to the will of the majority. A proportional allocation system would be almost exactly the will of the people, at the granularity of electors, yet still be the states making the decision. It's superior in every way -- unless you're a specific state thinking about being the first to pursue the idea when everyone else is winner-takes-all.
I can see why you'd be upset feeling that your vote is essentially thrown away, but even in a straight popular vote, the votes of the minority don't "count" anymore once the winner is determined.
It is an essential aspect of electing a President that there is only one winner. It is not an essential aspect that their be a first-level filter on the votes before the real vote. And the thing is, in a straight popular vote your vote would "count" in the only way that matters -- that the result would shift proportionally towards the person you voted for. The problem is, the only vote that matters is the electoral vote, and in that vote if you aren't in the majority in your state then your vote does not count at all.
We're not counting votes, literally. We're throwing votes out, then performing the real election. That's busted. There's no reason for it.
The rural areas would be completely swept away in a straight popular vote. At least the electoral college does provide some added representation at the state level for sections of the country that are almost completely rural compared to states that are completely urban.
The rural areas are completely swept away even more by the current system. All the rural states can't overcome New York and California, and rural New York and California can't overcome urban New York and California. The (very large) rural areas of those states are truly swept away in the sense that their vote does not matter at all.
In a proportional allocation system, the votes of rural NY and CA would combine with the votes of all the Mountain and Plains states, and rural Ohio, etc, to be a major segment of the vote. Their power would be increased, and votes would not be ignored.
Arguments about rural areas being better served by the current system fall completely flat with me unless they take into account rural CA, NY, MI, OH, and IL -- states with large rural populations that are nevertheless dominated by the urban centers.
I'm pretty sure they knew, since they are giant Star Wars nerds and did not sleep through Jedi. I don't think anyone actually believes Chewbacca doesn't live on Endor. It was a deliberate error.
On the other hand, you definitely didn't realize they were claiming he lived there, so your claim falls flat.
What has made that difference is the fact that just like Congressmen, electors are divied out to each state based on population, plus an additional two electors purely by virtue of the state being a state. This means that smaller states get a slightly proportionately larger voice per capita than larger states. And that is why the electoral college results don't always match the popular vote.
That's part of why, but a bigger effect is that the electors for each state are allocated on a winner-takes-all basis*. So in a close election, the popular vote might be 52-48%, resulting in a small shift in the national popular vote, but the entire state's votes go towards one party, resulting in a huge swing in the electoral votes.
Wyoming's extra two electors are much less likely to turn an election than Ohio's twenty, but all of Ohio's twenty electors can be allocated based on a difference in the popular vote smaller than the population of Cayenne. Every instance of the electoral college not matching the popular vote is because of this winner-take-all allocation policy.
That, to me, is the real problem with the electoral college in the modern age. It's that in between the state elections and the electoral vote, up to half (exclusive) of the state's population have their votes thrown out, ignored, and changed to be that of someone else.
It is because of this that a few hundred hanging chads can change the course of the entire nation. It is because of this that the alleged "rural vs urban" compromise that provided those extra two votes (even though it was really "slave vs free-ish") has completely failed -- today, the urban areas dominate more than ever, and the rural areas of, say, New York and California are not heard at all.
The solution is obviously proportional allocation, but each state would have to decide to do so and there's very little chance they will decide to. For starters, the majority in each state benefits from winner-take-all, and would essentially have to vote to reduce their own power. Secondly, it would tend to make currently important swing states as a whole less important because their votes would tend to be split. If every state used proportional allocation, though, it would mean every electoral vote was important, and it would finally accomplish what the extra two electoral votes failed to do and make smaller states important. Not more important than more populous areas, which is good, but nevertheless.
I just see no feasible way to get from A to B.
* There might be exceptions, but I'm not aware of any. Colorado had a proposition some years back to change to proportional allocation but it failed. Big surprise.
You want an "intractable belief" that is prevalent in science? Here's one... that science is without bias.
Except that's not a prevalent belief in science, unless you mean in the literal sense that "science" is without bias because it is a concept, not a sentient entity.
The prevalent belief is that bias (and other failings) are an endemic property of the humans who conduct science, and it is only through the rigorous application of scientific methods that the effect of these failings can be mitigated, a process which is itself subject to the same human failings.
This is a fine case of bias leading to a conclusion that was passed around as true, because science wants it to be true. How else do you explain how far wrong it might be that the planet they said was one thing, couldn't be further from the truth.
Because there was an error in a reference catalog whose existence predates any knowledge of possible exoplanets, and therefore any possible motivation to "want" that planet to be around that star and with certain properties.
Of course that's still a fuck-up. But it was a simple mistake, not bias, that lead to the conclusion. Maybe bias prevented them from investigating the catalog data prior to someone asking a question specifically pertaining to it, but then I would have to assume that they did do this for other discoveries in planets. Which I doubt. More likely, the real bias was being biased towards thinking their reference information was correct, and that bias applied to every observation, not just the ones they were especially excited about.
My point is, that science is flawed, because people performing it are flawed. It does tend to correct itself over time however, but it cannot nor does it attempt to fix the problems it causes when it is wrong.
Scientists already know scientists are flawed.
And what does that last part mean? Science does attempt to fix problems it causes. A chemical with an unexpected side effect, they try to eliminate it if possible. They miscalculate the trajectory of a probe, they try to correct it if possible. And they try to fix the methodologies themselves to try to prevent the problem from repeating.
For example, I imagine the catalog data they are using will be thoroughly scrubbed before you see another "earth-like exoplanet" announcement based on it.
This has nothing to do with religion except where science acts like a religion while trying to pretend it never does.
The only similarity between religion and science is that they both involve fallible, fundamentally irrational humans. The biggest difference is that science views fallibility and rationality as problems to be worked around, and accepts when those properties resulted in the wrong conclusion.
In truth, this is a perfect example of science not acting like religion.
When your only criteria are size and distance, you're not doing much to prove "likeness" to the Earth. In fact, you're doing less than 2 parameters/N parameters, since size and distance may have nothing to do with how habitable the planet may be to humans or any life forms.
They both certainly have something to do with it, but yes, those two aspects alone are hardly sufficient to prove habitability.
Nevertheless, size (actually composition) and distance (actually temperature in the range for liquid water) are the two criterion astronomers use when talking about "earth-like" planets. That's all it means -- like earth in these two aspects.
For reference, both Venus and Mars are "earth-like". Probably not what you were expecting it to mean, but so it goes.:)
Distance, combined with the star its orbiting, is how they get an initial estimate of temperature. And size will help indicate if its a terrestrial planet or a gas giant. Being in the habitable zone, but a gas giant, is not 'earth-like'.
Size and distance are important characteristics of the planet, and the ones that can be most reliably measured with the technique that Kepler uses. So yes, the should mention them both even if they have temperature estimates.
To me, going to Mars or Uranus with probes vs going to the Moon means that we don't want to build up the technology and infrastructure to become a space faring species. It says that we're more interested in satisfying a few scientific curiosities rather than figuring out how to live away from the Earth's surface.
I find their list to be extremely disappointing. I was hoping to see mankind take its first real steps toward the stars in my lifetime. Ah well...
Developing technology and infrastructure is a big part of what NASA is focusing on, while letting commercial ventures focus on lowering cost to LEO. It's why I'm more enthusiastic than ever in my life about our prospects for going to the moon and staying there.
This report is not about that. This report is about -- and only about -- satisfying the scientific curiosities that is the other big part of what NASA is about. So of course it doesn't mention colonizing the moon.
So do not create, nor take this list to imply, a false dichotomy between human exploration of near-earth, and probe-based exploration of the rest of the solar system.
Hey, why are you riding me for lacking a sense of humor, when you should be chuckling or perhaps chortling at my fresh Disney Characters With No Pants joke?
The joke came pre-ruined. That flame, though, was much better.:)
I was a bit young-ish when I saw it when originally released in the movie theater. I was then, expecting more star war-ish.
I've seen it as an adult...and again, so far, never been that impressed with it. I have never been overwhelmed with the special effects, even back then. It seems to move slow and boring to me.
The movie is slow moving, and doesn't even try to overwhelm you with special effects. It is not anything like Star Wars or Aliens or any other action sci-fi you may have seen. If that's what you wanted, and even as an adult it sounds like that's the case, then it's absolutely no surprise that you found it boring.
What are you missing? The thing that makes sci-fi (as opposed to space opera) interesting -- the human questions. What is it to be human? How do we know we are? What are memories but pictures that we cling to? How long a life must we lead for it to be worthwhile? And so on. Sci-fi, especially as practiced by PKD, uses future technology as a mirror to look at ourselves.
It's okay to think it's boring, though, if you don't like that kind of slow moving thoughtful movie. A lot of people think 2001: A Space Odyssey is boring, and while I love the movie, I can't really tell them they're wrong.
That's certainly the general idea, but direct calls to a framebuffer API (for example) aren't needed. A C program has STDIN and STDOUT after all, and STDOUT can be piped to a graphics interpreter front end for whatever system we'll be running in 100 years.
Yes it isn't needed, heck you don't need a STDOUT interface you could have a wrapper that just peeks at the appropriate memory location in the emulator to do graphics. I thought the whole point was that because ANSI C will be compilable in 100 years, we can just, you know, recompile and link against an appropriate implementation of DrawPixel(). That implementation still needs to be provided in the case of piping stdout, but you've also required them to create a pipe, which not all systems make equally simple as UNIX. Not necessarily a big deal, but why bother? Using a stdout interface instead of a programmatic one really only makes sense if you didn't plan on having the emulator source.
You'll never update the emulator code base, just attach new generation graphics interpreters.
Yes, in both cases. And in both cases the core emulator code base remains unchanged, but the graphics interface is an essential component of making the emulator function and would properly be called part of the emulator, and would need to be updated.:)
Slashdot Mirror
That makes sense, seeing as how that number would be useful.
Duh, he listens to Love Line and Dr. Drew, who is always going on about how he hears many more complaints from women about their partners being too big rather than too small. And also about partners who last too long. Apparently bruising and chafing are bigger deals than a lack of performance which can be made up with extra foreplay.
So I'm set! =D
But that's the functional purpose of the spines -- to scoop out another male's semen so as to help ensure it is they who are impregnating the female. A male without them would be more likely to be the guy stuck raising someone else's kids.
It seems like this would have only been advantageous after the development of mostly-monogamous pair bonding. Or after the development of concealed ovulation, so there'd be no obvious sign of fertility and thus copulations with multiple partners would, at least in half-assed theory, be more spread out in time.
When analyzing the genetic record, how can one 'sort out' the distinction between DNA changes that have happened due to mutation, compared to the changes induced by broad and consistent female choice?
That seems pretty easy -- the existence of a lack of spines originated due to a mutation, and became dominant due to natural selection. That's pretty much always the case.
As far as the exact natural selection pressures which led to it becoming dominant, that's harder to say and I have no idea. I would imagine (i.e. wild-ass guess) that whichever came first, lack of spines or concealed ovulation, they were both predated by stronger pair-bonding.
Er, normally the power output is given as the power of the laser pulse, is it not? Rather than normalized to an equivalent laser that is on continuously. A 1 MW laser that is pulsed at 10 Hz with a 50% duty cycle would be outputting 1 MW during the pulses,and 0 otherwise, for a total of half the energy of a 1 MW continuous laser.
For example the laser in TFA, which is actually only 1 kW, pulses only once for 100ns. The actual power output of the pulse is 1 kW; it is not a 10 MW pulse that they average out over a second.
Now you're just trolling, or just being an idiot, not that there's a difference.
It seems every 4-8 years a new 20 year plan is given to NASA that may or may not have anything to do with the last 20 year plan. Between politics and NASA's own bureacracy, it seems that the US manned space program is stalled. Thank goodness we still have JPL and its hardy unmanned probes.
Gee, good thing then that the new plan is smaller missions involving the development of specific technologies and capabilities, rather than a 20 year plan requiring single-purpose development, so that when the next cycle comes, even if the new guy changes plans, we still have what we already built.
BTW, Burt Rutan is awesome, but it's Elon Musk who is going to be providing the rides first.
Uhh, that's the WHOLE problem with all console controls.
No, the WHOLE problem with all console controls is that turning is slow, and more importantly AIMING is slow. You can't even aim at things that are in front of you quickly with a gamepad.
The Wii fixes one of those problems, and is vastly superior in every way for FPS shooting over gamepads. I simply can't play FPS games on consoles with gamepads anymore.
Of course PC controls are still better than the Wii. It's in the middle ground.
You were obviously confused since your whole original rant was based on misquoting the joke, so your reading is a mis-reading. The point was not to say things that are true but don't make sense. It was nonsense from start to finish.
And there is a very good reason to believe it was an intentional error, other than the simple fact that any Star Wars fan knows Chewbacca doesn't live on Endor, and Trey and Matt are fans. In the actual quote by Cochrane that they were parodying -- "if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit" -- it is widely believed by those who are critical of the OJ Trial that OJ's demonstration that "the glove doesn't fit" was a farce. As in, it was not true.
So it was both a non sequitor*, a conclusion that does not follow from its premise, and a false premise. Just like in the Chewbacca Defense. To even get to the part that the logic didn't make sense, you had to accept the premise, which was false. They weren't just making fun of illogical statements in general, but also the shear magnitude of nonsense that Cochrane was able to get away with.
Sorry, but you're just way off on your reading, both in the specifics and in the context. I'm not even much of a SP fan, but they were spot-on in their parody of Cochrane with the Chewbacca Defense and it is some of their finest work.
* Not a Strawman Argument, since neither real nor SP Cochrane was misrepresenting their opponent's argument
The country was designed to be a a union of states, so it really should be the states making the decisions, not the entire mass of the country as a whole. My point is that the states vote according to the democractially-determined election, and then the states cast their votes almost exactly according to the will of the people that voted, with very little room for decision by any individual representative.
It's not "almost exactly" except in states that are completely one-sided. They're only going according to the will of the majority. A proportional allocation system would be almost exactly the will of the people, at the granularity of electors, yet still be the states making the decision. It's superior in every way -- unless you're a specific state thinking about being the first to pursue the idea when everyone else is winner-takes-all.
I can see why you'd be upset feeling that your vote is essentially thrown away, but even in a straight popular vote, the votes of the minority don't "count" anymore once the winner is determined.
It is an essential aspect of electing a President that there is only one winner. It is not an essential aspect that their be a first-level filter on the votes before the real vote. And the thing is, in a straight popular vote your vote would "count" in the only way that matters -- that the result would shift proportionally towards the person you voted for. The problem is, the only vote that matters is the electoral vote, and in that vote if you aren't in the majority in your state then your vote does not count at all.
We're not counting votes, literally. We're throwing votes out, then performing the real election. That's busted. There's no reason for it.
The rural areas would be completely swept away in a straight popular vote. At least the electoral college does provide some added representation at the state level for sections of the country that are almost completely rural compared to states that are completely urban.
The rural areas are completely swept away even more by the current system. All the rural states can't overcome New York and California, and rural New York and California can't overcome urban New York and California. The (very large) rural areas of those states are truly swept away in the sense that their vote does not matter at all.
In a proportional allocation system, the votes of rural NY and CA would combine with the votes of all the Mountain and Plains states, and rural Ohio, etc, to be a major segment of the vote. Their power would be increased, and votes would not be ignored.
Arguments about rural areas being better served by the current system fall completely flat with me unless they take into account rural CA, NY, MI, OH, and IL -- states with large rural populations that are nevertheless dominated by the urban centers.
I'm pretty sure they knew, since they are giant Star Wars nerds and did not sleep through Jedi. I don't think anyone actually believes Chewbacca doesn't live on Endor. It was a deliberate error.
On the other hand, you definitely didn't realize they were claiming he lived there, so your claim falls flat.
What has made that difference is the fact that just like Congressmen, electors are divied out to each state based on population, plus an additional two electors purely by virtue of the state being a state. This means that smaller states get a slightly proportionately larger voice per capita than larger states. And that is why the electoral college results don't always match the popular vote.
That's part of why, but a bigger effect is that the electors for each state are allocated on a winner-takes-all basis*. So in a close election, the popular vote might be 52-48%, resulting in a small shift in the national popular vote, but the entire state's votes go towards one party, resulting in a huge swing in the electoral votes.
Wyoming's extra two electors are much less likely to turn an election than Ohio's twenty, but all of Ohio's twenty electors can be allocated based on a difference in the popular vote smaller than the population of Cayenne. Every instance of the electoral college not matching the popular vote is because of this winner-take-all allocation policy.
That, to me, is the real problem with the electoral college in the modern age. It's that in between the state elections and the electoral vote, up to half (exclusive) of the state's population have their votes thrown out, ignored, and changed to be that of someone else.
It is because of this that a few hundred hanging chads can change the course of the entire nation. It is because of this that the alleged "rural vs urban" compromise that provided those extra two votes (even though it was really "slave vs free-ish") has completely failed -- today, the urban areas dominate more than ever, and the rural areas of, say, New York and California are not heard at all.
The solution is obviously proportional allocation, but each state would have to decide to do so and there's very little chance they will decide to. For starters, the majority in each state benefits from winner-take-all, and would essentially have to vote to reduce their own power. Secondly, it would tend to make currently important swing states as a whole less important because their votes would tend to be split. If every state used proportional allocation, though, it would mean every electoral vote was important, and it would finally accomplish what the extra two electoral votes failed to do and make smaller states important. Not more important than more populous areas, which is good, but nevertheless.
I just see no feasible way to get from A to B.
* There might be exceptions, but I'm not aware of any. Colorado had a proposition some years back to change to proportional allocation but it failed. Big surprise.
Unfortunatly, there is nothing anymore nonsensical about a wookie visiting Endor than a human visiting Endor.
Ha! Nice rant, but it completely falls apart because you didn't pay enough attention to the Chewbacca Defense.
Cochran didn't say it made no sense for Chewbacca to be on Endor, visiting. He said it didn't make sense that Chewbacca lived on Endor.
Which, of course, he doesn't. Which just adds another layer of nonsense to the whole thing.
I would have thought that for someone chastising Trey and Matt for sleeping through Jedi, this would have leaped right out at them.
You want an "intractable belief" that is prevalent in science? Here's one ... that science is without bias.
Except that's not a prevalent belief in science, unless you mean in the literal sense that "science" is without bias because it is a concept, not a sentient entity.
The prevalent belief is that bias (and other failings) are an endemic property of the humans who conduct science, and it is only through the rigorous application of scientific methods that the effect of these failings can be mitigated, a process which is itself subject to the same human failings.
This is a fine case of bias leading to a conclusion that was passed around as true, because science wants it to be true. How else do you explain how far wrong it might be that the planet they said was one thing, couldn't be further from the truth.
Because there was an error in a reference catalog whose existence predates any knowledge of possible exoplanets, and therefore any possible motivation to "want" that planet to be around that star and with certain properties.
Of course that's still a fuck-up. But it was a simple mistake, not bias, that lead to the conclusion. Maybe bias prevented them from investigating the catalog data prior to someone asking a question specifically pertaining to it, but then I would have to assume that they did do this for other discoveries in planets. Which I doubt. More likely, the real bias was being biased towards thinking their reference information was correct, and that bias applied to every observation, not just the ones they were especially excited about.
My point is, that science is flawed, because people performing it are flawed. It does tend to correct itself over time however, but it cannot nor does it attempt to fix the problems it causes when it is wrong.
Scientists already know scientists are flawed.
And what does that last part mean? Science does attempt to fix problems it causes. A chemical with an unexpected side effect, they try to eliminate it if possible. They miscalculate the trajectory of a probe, they try to correct it if possible. And they try to fix the methodologies themselves to try to prevent the problem from repeating.
For example, I imagine the catalog data they are using will be thoroughly scrubbed before you see another "earth-like exoplanet" announcement based on it.
This has nothing to do with religion except where science acts like a religion while trying to pretend it never does.
The only similarity between religion and science is that they both involve fallible, fundamentally irrational humans. The biggest difference is that science views fallibility and rationality as problems to be worked around, and accepts when those properties resulted in the wrong conclusion.
In truth, this is a perfect example of science not acting like religion.
Indeed, anyone who doesn't respect someone else's work and assumes it is trivial, because they don't understand it, is inferior.
When your only criteria are size and distance, you're not doing much to prove "likeness" to the Earth. In fact, you're doing less than 2 parameters/N parameters, since size and distance may have nothing to do with how habitable the planet may be to humans or any life forms.
They both certainly have something to do with it, but yes, those two aspects alone are hardly sufficient to prove habitability.
Nevertheless, size (actually composition) and distance (actually temperature in the range for liquid water) are the two criterion astronomers use when talking about "earth-like" planets. That's all it means -- like earth in these two aspects.
For reference, both Venus and Mars are "earth-like". Probably not what you were expecting it to mean, but so it goes. :)
Distance, combined with the star its orbiting, is how they get an initial estimate of temperature. And size will help indicate if its a terrestrial planet or a gas giant. Being in the habitable zone, but a gas giant, is not 'earth-like'.
Size and distance are important characteristics of the planet, and the ones that can be most reliably measured with the technique that Kepler uses. So yes, the should mention them both even if they have temperature estimates.
It should be trivial to do something, from the point of view of someone who isn't doing it, and has no idea what is involved in doing it.
Are you a manager, perchance?
To me, going to Mars or Uranus with probes vs going to the Moon means that we don't want to build up the technology and infrastructure to become a space faring species. It says that we're more interested in satisfying a few scientific curiosities rather than figuring out how to live away from the Earth's surface.
I find their list to be extremely disappointing. I was hoping to see mankind take its first real steps toward the stars in my lifetime. Ah well...
Developing technology and infrastructure is a big part of what NASA is focusing on, while letting commercial ventures focus on lowering cost to LEO. It's why I'm more enthusiastic than ever in my life about our prospects for going to the moon and staying there.
This report is not about that. This report is about -- and only about -- satisfying the scientific curiosities that is the other big part of what NASA is about. So of course it doesn't mention colonizing the moon.
So do not create, nor take this list to imply, a false dichotomy between human exploration of near-earth, and probe-based exploration of the rest of the solar system.
Hey, why are you riding me for lacking a sense of humor, when you should be chuckling or perhaps chortling at my fresh Disney Characters With No Pants joke?
The joke came pre-ruined. That flame, though, was much better. :)
Heh, well, I'd guess the first step in avoiding "pulling a Jordan" is trying not to. :)
I was a bit young-ish when I saw it when originally released in the movie theater. I was then, expecting more star war-ish.
I've seen it as an adult...and again, so far, never been that impressed with it. I have never been overwhelmed with the special effects, even back then. It seems to move slow and boring to me.
The movie is slow moving, and doesn't even try to overwhelm you with special effects. It is not anything like Star Wars or Aliens or any other action sci-fi you may have seen. If that's what you wanted, and even as an adult it sounds like that's the case, then it's absolutely no surprise that you found it boring.
What are you missing? The thing that makes sci-fi (as opposed to space opera) interesting -- the human questions. What is it to be human? How do we know we are? What are memories but pictures that we cling to? How long a life must we lead for it to be worthwhile? And so on. Sci-fi, especially as practiced by PKD, uses future technology as a mirror to look at ourselves.
It's okay to think it's boring, though, if you don't like that kind of slow moving thoughtful movie. A lot of people think 2001: A Space Odyssey is boring, and while I love the movie, I can't really tell them they're wrong.
The law is typically what says you have to wear pants (and some top-covering if you're female) so there's no need to specify a store policy.
But yeah, I know it's funnier if we imagine that Donald Duck is welcome in stores across the country.
Linux isn't an acronym. It's just "Linus" made UNIX-y.
That's certainly the general idea, but direct calls to a framebuffer API (for example) aren't needed. A C program has STDIN and STDOUT after all, and STDOUT can be piped to a graphics interpreter front end for whatever system we'll be running in 100 years.
Yes it isn't needed, heck you don't need a STDOUT interface you could have a wrapper that just peeks at the appropriate memory location in the emulator to do graphics. I thought the whole point was that because ANSI C will be compilable in 100 years, we can just, you know, recompile and link against an appropriate implementation of DrawPixel(). That implementation still needs to be provided in the case of piping stdout, but you've also required them to create a pipe, which not all systems make equally simple as UNIX. Not necessarily a big deal, but why bother? Using a stdout interface instead of a programmatic one really only makes sense if you didn't plan on having the emulator source.
You'll never update the emulator code base, just attach new generation graphics interpreters.
Yes, in both cases. And in both cases the core emulator code base remains unchanged, but the graphics interface is an essential component of making the emulator function and would properly be called part of the emulator, and would need to be updated. :)