...am I the only one who thinks that this is like Piltdown Man all over again...
Well, even if it is a hoax, it took 41 years to expose the Piltdown Man. With current technology/communication it shouldn't take that long though.
I agree with you on one point: if a certain scientific discovery makes it to all major news outlets you better be sceptic. It might be just a popularity stunt (yes, seems like some scientists are pulling off these too). Let's just wait for the peer review. DNA tests (if possible) should be interesting as well.
Are people seriously going to vote for the better candidate on copyrights and making backup copies of software? There seems to be more important issues like Iraq, health care, the economy, and terrorism to judge candidates for president...
Agreed. Stories like this make me wonder: is Kerry campaign contributing financially to/. nowadays?
Seeing as he voted for the Patriot Act, not likely.
and Like most of the people who voted for it, he said it was flawed, but it was more important to get something in place first, then they could backfix...
Buying into the propaganda, aren't you? You see, he voted for it because it was a popular thing to do at the time. After a while, people started to feel more secure again, and the patriot act became much less popular. Then Kerry's opinion changed. He's just following whatever is popular at the moment, that's all. The rest is just a propaganda to explain his actions.
The above statement is NOT flamebait, and I'm surprised it is moderated as such on/.
Shouldn't/. readers be open minded, specially to things not understood?
"God" to me is just a word describing a hard to understand concept. It is not some kind of super being above us all, but rather some kind of energy of which we are all part of. In this context parent's post makes sense. Too bad the statement seems to be lost in the crowd...
..to do are really where the useful science is at.
The problem is knowing which parts of science will be useful. Not to mention defining "useful" in this context is also difficult. To me all aspects of science brings us closer to a certain understanding of life/existence in general. Some scientific inventions will find their way into daily life, while some other will just remain theoretical facts.
I'm all for as-much-science-as-possible approach, but if it doesn't make sense at a certain point in time, then it doesn't. If we don't discover a certain fact now, we will in the future. Sometimes we have to wait for the technology to catch up with our ideas.
So is Hubble worth keeping? I agree with grandparent that it is a nightmare for the decision makers.
Re:What the hell is it?
on
OQO For Sale
·
· Score: 1
The OQO computer is a full-featured pocketable Windows XP computer.
[Wikipedia is] In many cases better than proprietary solutions.
The regular/. statement praising open source.
Some cases not as good.
Now, you're putting into doubt what you just said earlier.
...many many Wikipedia articles suck
Now you just reinforced your 2nd statement and went totally opposite your first. So what you said is: "Wikipedia is better, sometimes not, and very often it's bad." In other words you covered the whole range of opinions about the subject ranging from it's the best to it sucks. And yet it was modded insightful. Could it be because your post tries to appeal to both proponents and opponents of Wikipedia?
"The plant is happy listening to music," says Gotoh...
Well, from what I understand on how nature reacts to music, it's the type of music that matter. There was some test done long time ago on the dolphins (if I recollect correctly), where music was played on the beach, and dolphin reaction was noticed. They enjoyed classical music (came closer to the beach), ignored country (neutral reaction), and run (well, swam) away when rock music was played (negative reaction, seemed to annoy them).
I just feel sorry for the flower if it has to listen to rap all day.
I guess they are clever enough to filter out all requests having slashdot.org as referrer.
and
I would imagine they are filtering out any requests that have a referrer that is anything other than the page in the test that comes directly before this one.
Exactly. I would imagine any somewhat smart/.er would at least open a new browser (or Mozilla tab) and paste the url there instead of just clicking on it directly from/.
This would at least nullify the referrer, but yes, google is probably checking the referrer from their previous puzzle page.
Well, in that case, why not send a bunch of them at once, put them all in orbit, and then start sending them down one at a time. Should bring the cost per unit down.
Except that the spacecraft would have been at a few thousand degrees.
The temperature would be an obstacle, but could be dealt with (certain tools on extensions to attach to the craft). However the real problem here would be speed (or so I think) in which the craft was ascending w/o the parachutes.
The ground and gravity are conspiring against us!!!
You forgot to mention the real factor behind the destruction: electromagnetic force. It's what actually caused the ultimate destruction. Gravity was just a helper here...
But seriosly, anyone else here feels real sad about this?
Yes. I was surprised at the amount of joking around here. After all it was supposed to bring particles from the sun, which would help in our understanding of what is going on in there. The only hope is that there will be enough data to analyze what went wrong.
On the other hand, if there will be more missions like this (collecting various space particles) and reentry is such a critical maneuver, why can't NASA practice on this part for a while? They could send a cheap dummy probe into space, and then practice catching it on reentry, until the process is almost perfect. THEN send a multimillion probe to a "real" object.
I can see the headlines now: "200 people killed when drunk driver collides with office building".
Well, they actually compared a drunk driver on a flying car to a drunk rider on a horse in the article:
"We're trying to make an airplane like a horse," jokes Andrew Hahn, an analyst for NASA in Hampton, Va. "A horse doesn't want to be driven off a cliff. And if you're drunk and fall asleep, it's going to take you back to the barn." So Hahn is developing intuitive, easy-to-operate controls.
The way I see it, they plan to build in some kind of AI which would "sense" that something's wrong with you, and most likely provide a safe landing. I'm not sure if current technology is smarter than a horse (it is smart as a cockroach though:), but security will certainly be highest priority of these things.
Another thing, there will certainly be a vertical limit implemented (how high you can go) which will be a major difference from regular planes.
Flying cars capable of carrying 500Kg of explosives...
Technology will change by then. I don't think the flying cars will operate on petrol the way we know it. Fuel cells maybe. Whatever the energy storage will be it will be much harder to explode.
+R9 has a simple advantage..... This format uses "+" symbol.
Yeah, I know it's funny, but does anyone know if the plus/minus signs actually mean anything in this context?
Many years ago, when I first noticed a CD-R drive, I thought the "minus" was a simple delimiter, since everyone was familiar with the CD shortcut, CD-R seemed more clear than CDR (CD-R being a CD with some additional feature denounced by "R", in this case recording). Then I noticed CD+R and the first thought was that it was somehow an improved version of CD-R. Had to read on the subject to clarify some things.
Using boolean logic a CD-R would mean CD w/o the recording feature, and CD+R a CD with recording capability. This is of course not the case, so back to my question: do this signs stand for anything logically sensible?
This, ladies and gentlemen, is why you should preview before you hit submit...
And it is also a perfect case for when a spelling check would not help you either (dick being a valid word, gee, even grammar of this sentence makes sense).
...I should be doing work right now...what if there's an interesting balance that happens (no internet hurts some folks, but helps others) such that the net effect is zero?
Well, you think you might get more productive w/o internet, because you won't read/post/. stories but actually do something. However, remember there is a heavy service-for-money traffic through the internet allowing many businesses to exist. W/o internet you might get some work done, but your company won't be able to pay you for it.
Slashdot Mirror
...am I the only one who thinks that this is like Piltdown Man all over again...
Well, even if it is a hoax, it took 41 years to expose the Piltdown Man. With current technology/communication it shouldn't take that long though.
I agree with you on one point: if a certain scientific discovery makes it to all major news outlets you better be sceptic. It might be just a popularity stunt (yes, seems like some scientists are pulling off these too). Let's just wait for the peer review. DNA tests (if possible) should be interesting as well.
Are people seriously going to vote for the better candidate on copyrights and making backup copies of software? There seems to be more important issues like Iraq, health care, the economy, and terrorism to judge candidates for president...
/. nowadays?
Agreed. Stories like this make me wonder: is Kerry campaign contributing financially to
Seeing as he voted for the Patriot Act, not likely.
and
Like most of the people who voted for it, he said it was flawed, but it was more important to get something in place first, then they could backfix...
Buying into the propaganda, aren't you? You see, he voted for it because it was a popular thing to do at the time. After a while, people started to feel more secure again, and the patriot act became much less popular. Then Kerry's opinion changed. He's just following whatever is popular at the moment, that's all. The rest is just a propaganda to explain his actions.
It just make us wonder again why we waste so much money on weapons instead of just advancing science for our own sake.
In a perfect world spending money on weapons would be, indeed, a waste. The problem is we are not living in a perfect world.
The meaning of life is abusing your hormones for pleasure, until you eventually end up dying?
Being happy doesn't mean abusing your hormones.
Happiness != self indulgence.
Sometimes you achieve true happiness when you bring it to someone else...
...we would, in effect, be emulating god.
/.
/. readers be open minded, specially to things not understood?
and
God is in the self.
The above statement is NOT flamebait, and I'm surprised it is moderated as such on
Shouldn't
"God" to me is just a word describing a hard to understand concept. It is not some kind of super being above us all, but rather some kind of energy of which we are all part of. In this context parent's post makes sense. Too bad the statement seems to be lost in the crowd...
Actually, Satellites crashing may not be a bad idea.
I could sell one of these things off ebay and buy me some sweet loving.
Which actually brings a question: if a satellite would crash into an US house, would it automatically become property of the house owner?
..to do are really where the useful science is at.
The problem is knowing which parts of science will be useful. Not to mention defining "useful" in this context is also difficult. To me all aspects of science brings us closer to a certain understanding of life/existence in general. Some scientific inventions will find their way into daily life, while some other will just remain theoretical facts.
I'm all for as-much-science-as-possible approach, but if it doesn't make sense at a certain point in time, then it doesn't. If we don't discover a certain fact now, we will in the future. Sometimes we have to wait for the technology to catch up with our ideas.
So is Hubble worth keeping? I agree with grandparent that it is a nightmare for the decision makers.
The OQO computer is a full-featured pocketable Windows XP computer.
So, we don't like it here, right?
Let's see here:
/. statement praising open source.
...many many Wikipedia articles suck
[Wikipedia is] In many cases better than proprietary solutions.
The regular
Some cases not as good.
Now, you're putting into doubt what you just said earlier.
Now you just reinforced your 2nd statement and went totally opposite your first. So what you said is: "Wikipedia is better, sometimes not, and very often it's bad." In other words you covered the whole range of opinions about the subject ranging from it's the best to it sucks. And yet it was modded insightful. Could it be because your post tries to appeal to both proponents and opponents of Wikipedia?
"The plant is happy listening to music," says Gotoh...
Well, from what I understand on how nature reacts to music, it's the type of music that matter. There was some test done long time ago on the dolphins (if I recollect correctly), where music was played on the beach, and dolphin reaction was noticed. They enjoyed classical music (came closer to the beach), ignored country (neutral reaction), and run (well, swam) away when rock music was played (negative reaction, seemed to annoy them).
I just feel sorry for the flower if it has to listen to rap all day.
I guess they are clever enough to filter out all requests having slashdot.org as referrer.
/.er would at least open a new browser (or Mozilla tab) and paste the url there instead of just clicking on it directly from /.
and
I would imagine they are filtering out any requests that have a referrer that is anything other than the page in the test that comes directly before this one.
Exactly. I would imagine any somewhat smart
This would at least nullify the referrer, but yes, google is probably checking the referrer from their previous puzzle page.
...adding in launch costs on current hardware
Well, in that case, why not send a bunch of them at once, put them all in orbit, and then start sending them down one at a time. Should bring the cost per unit down.
Except that the spacecraft would have been at a few thousand degrees.
The temperature would be an obstacle, but could be dealt with (certain tools on extensions to attach to the craft). However the real problem here would be speed (or so I think) in which the craft was ascending w/o the parachutes.
Correct link: Reign of Fire
The ground and gravity are conspiring against us!!!
You forgot to mention the real factor behind the destruction: electromagnetic force. It's what actually caused the ultimate destruction. Gravity was just a helper here...
But seriosly, anyone else here feels real sad about this?
Yes. I was surprised at the amount of joking around here. After all it was supposed to bring particles from the sun, which would help in our understanding of what is going on in there. The only hope is that there will be enough data to analyze what went wrong.
On the other hand, if there will be more missions like this (collecting various space particles) and reentry is such a critical maneuver, why can't NASA practice on this part for a while? They could send a cheap dummy probe into space, and then practice catching it on reentry, until the process is almost perfect. THEN send a multimillion probe to a "real" object.
Well, they actually compared a drunk driver on a flying car to a drunk rider on a horse in the article:
"We're trying to make an airplane like a horse," jokes Andrew Hahn, an analyst for NASA in Hampton, Va. "A horse doesn't want to be driven off a cliff. And if you're drunk and fall asleep, it's going to take you back to the barn." So Hahn is developing intuitive, easy-to-operate controls.
The way I see it, they plan to build in some kind of AI which would "sense" that something's wrong with you, and most likely provide a safe landing. I'm not sure if current technology is smarter than a horse (it is smart as a cockroach thoughAnother thing, there will certainly be a vertical limit implemented (how high you can go) which will be a major difference from regular planes.
Flying cars capable of carrying 500Kg of explosives...
Technology will change by then. I don't think the flying cars will operate on petrol the way we know it. Fuel cells maybe. Whatever the energy storage will be it will be much harder to explode.
+R9 has a simple advantage..... This format uses "+" symbol.
Yeah, I know it's funny, but does anyone know if the plus/minus signs actually mean anything in this context?
Many years ago, when I first noticed a CD-R drive, I thought the "minus" was a simple delimiter, since everyone was familiar with the CD shortcut, CD-R seemed more clear than CDR (CD-R being a CD with some additional feature denounced by "R", in this case recording). Then I noticed CD+R and the first thought was that it was somehow an improved version of CD-R. Had to read on the subject to clarify some things.
Using boolean logic a CD-R would mean CD w/o the recording feature, and CD+R a CD with recording capability. This is of course not the case, so back to my question: do this signs stand for anything logically sensible?
This, ladies and gentlemen, is why you should preview before you hit submit...
And it is also a perfect case for when a spelling check would not help you either (dick being a valid word, gee, even grammar of this sentence makes sense).
I can live without Word's quote-unquote grammar checker. :)
Shouldn't that be:
I can live without Word's quote grammar checker unquote?
Proper nesting, in your case you closed the tag before the intended object.
We're going to slashdot the entire internet?
Here's the link.
...I should be doing work right now...what if there's an interesting balance that happens (no internet hurts some folks, but helps others) such that the net effect is zero?
/. stories but actually do something. However, remember there is a heavy service-for-money traffic through the internet allowing many businesses to exist. W/o internet you might get some work done, but your company won't be able to pay you for it.
Well, you think you might get more productive w/o internet, because you won't read/post
..so you're saying welfare should be abolished?
I don't think that's what he meant. But current welfare system is flawed in the way it makes people dependent on it (hence the "slavery" analogy).