Phobos and Deimos both have nearly circular orbits, with aphelions and parhelions that are not very far apart:
Phobos:
9,234 km min
9,376 km average
9,518 km max
Deimos:
23,453 km min
23,458 km average
23,463 km max
Compared to our Moon:
384,400 km min
363,104 km average
405,696 km max
I can see how one could say that Phobos and Deimos, like our Moon, have extremely regular orbital distances, but given that the science that has stated that our Moon was caused by an impactor is still itself being both refined and challenged, I wonder if it's a little premature to conclude that based on orbital characteristics alone the two Martian moons derived from the same sort of event as our Moon. After all, many of the planets have orbits that are very near circular, but we do not interpret their existence in a similar fashion.
Multimode is good for a lot more than 100'. I've seen 62.5um OM1 push past 1000' with standard SX transceivers, and to 2000' with mode-conditioning cables. With 50um OM3 it gets far better.
You can also use singlemode for short distances, you just have to put your light meter on and attenuate the signal down to avoid burning-out the receiving end. Most providers that use singlemode tend to use it exclusively so they don't have to carry multiple sizes of fiber patch cords, and while the transceivers are more expensive, the fiber itself is cheaper.
I see competition to traditional taxi services as a good thing. I don't see Uber and Lyft as much more than traditional taxi services though, albeit with some quirks. They're not "ride sharing" services. They're taxis. The driver doesn't happen to be going your way; he's picking up fares and dropping them off to then pick up the next fare.
The only thing truly innovative is the pre-negotiation for the trip, but that's not really a whole lot different than sedan service. If anything, these companies are offering discount sedan service priced similarly to traditional taxis. No bright yellow paint, no advertising on the cars, just nondescript random vehicles.
On top of that, when I've interacted with the BSA (as an employee of a small computer company that apparently had been buying from bogus suppliers, our under-supply-chain-priced software in ads were the causes for the BSA approaching us) they were much more interested in tracing out the supplier, rather than pounding on us. They even traded all of our illegitimate inventory for legitimate copies of what was current Windows and Office at the time, so long as we gave them the contact info for where we got them.
I don't know if they still operate this way (this was 1999) but if they do, for at least small unintentional offenders, then it certainly could be a lot worse.
Well, fortunately for us, just about the entire Expanded Universe has been ruled non-canon.
As for Ewoks and Gungans, if there had been a desire to do so they could have been a lot more realistic. Gremlins came out in 1984, so the technology both for character design and for the animation of the characters was clearly there already had they wanted to make the Ewoks look more physically spry and less stuffed and awkward. The Gungans ability to hide from the surface-dwelling Naboo should have indicated much less slapstick in their behavior; there still could have been weird or interesting, but didn't have to be so bumbling.
I don't think that's a representation of a Furry. I think that's a representation of a girl trying to look cute by wearing ears and a tail. Furries tend to cover up to attempt make it not obvious they're humans.
A few smart kids screwing around to find workarounds isn't the same thing as all of the kids being able to get to anything at any time. Working on the device to find workarounds at least requires engagement and interest to focus on a single task.
Heh. You know, IE was the first browser that was supplied with the dominant desktop operating system integrated right into the UI, dating back to Windows 95 OSR2. Before that you had to rely on an OEM or other systems integrator if a browser was to be preinstalled. Otherwise you had to get one on disk or download one via FTP.
Mainly they said they banned phones, but technically any kind of electronic device was banned. It was the stupidest policy ever when near EVERY kid (it was a well to do area) had one in school. Nobody took them out in class...
Sounds to me like the policy was incredibly successful. The purpose of the policy was not to actually take away everyone's devices. The purpose of the policy was to prevent devices from becoming a distraction, and to give administrators and teachers recourse if a device posed a distraction. This works even if the device is somewhat concealed, like a music player connected to headphones going through the students clothing up to skin-colored wires to earbuds hidden behind hair- with this stated policy if the student was using the device in lieu of paying attention in class then the school could confiscate the device to remove that distraction from the student.
I went to high school just before the cell phone migrated its way into teenagers' hands. I still got to see my friends; we simply had to make plans when and were to meet up. I would even argue that my friends were better friends, because we actually did stuff together and had common interests, not an electronic means of connection requiring little to no effort to maintain that one could just play lip-service to. The cell phone is a convenient tool, but all-waking-day connectivity doesn't mean that things are actually better simply through having it.
When I learned mathematics, the technology that we used was intentionally kept below the level of the curriculum we were learning. We didn't get to use even so much as simple four-operation calculators until we were doing double-variable algebra. We didn't get to use scientific calculators with extended functions until we were well into trigonometry. We didn't get to use graphing calculators until we were well into calculus. At each point, the technology was only added once we had demonstrated proficiency with the lower-level skill, so that the calculator made the time-consuming part of the lower-level skill less, so we could focus more on the current lesson. The only use of computers for mathematics that I can remember was in the DOS and pre-Mac-Apple era when we would play Number Munchers in the computer labs. We were literally handed 5.25" floppy disks to boot the computer on, and as such the computer would only do the one function that we were to engage in. For math in the computer lab that was Number Munchers.
My biggest concerns with the introduction of technology into the classroom are that first, we don't really have any killer-app that justifies the expense, and second, that by using general-purpose computers we are making it very easy for students to use the computers for a purpose other than what's intended. It's extremely easy to get off-task when you have the bulk of the Internet at your disposal, even if there's content filtering. General purpose computers give students almost unlimited choices in what to do, and only one of those choices is the intended one.
We need the right applications that don't yet seem to exist, and we need computing platforms that are restricted in the use of the computer, to make it function better as an educational platform. We also need to stop introducing too much technology too early, so that students develop basic skills and demonstrate proficiency before they get electronic crutches.
If they would design key systems for cars that function similarly to garage door openers, where the receiver is programmed to respond the the handheld device, such that one handheld device could be programmed into several vehicles, I would be okay with that. The way it stands now it's just annoying if one has more than one vehicle.
I've driven rentals that use the radio fobs, where the rental company has hooked the two fobs together, it's really annoying. Would be the same for two fobs for different vehicles.
Heh. Government spending for war materiel is an economic stimulus. Along with devaluing currency it's one aspect of what a government can do to affect the amount of money in an economy and to drive how quickly its spent. If Argentina doesn't actually invade then it could help them. If they do invade I expect the militaries of the Crown to cause much more economic damage to Argentina than it would have suffered with no action at all, even if they limit their targets to purely military ones, like ships and bases and aircraft. Ships are expensive.
I will amend my assertion, to exclude the motivations of those personally involved, to only focus on society-at-large. Those personally affected have an entirely different perspective and it's not one that the rest of us can empathize with unless we've been through a similar tragedy.
And as each group kills members of the other group, they're both encouraged to continue killing in retribution. The mentality is the same for common street gangs and for nations.
The only people that are interested in making a stand against the jury's decision in this particular case would be those opposed to the death penalty in all cases, basically those that do not believe that the State should kill people.
In this particular case, most entities that oppose the death penalty for specific reasons, like those that are concerned for the reliability of justice and the danger of executing innocent people, are extremely unlikely to have grounds for such an objection, given the dramatic and highly public events that led to his eventual apprehension combined with his written words admitting to his actions.
I suspect that most of those who do object to the use of the death penalty for the first reason I mentioned probably wouldn't choose to stake their movement on this particular case, given the nature of what happened. Attempting to fight against it would probably cause more harm for the movement than good.
I've toyed with the idea of getting a Maltron one-handed keyboard or using one of the Dvorak one-handed layouts, but I use too many different machines, including a slew of portable machines, that would make this impractical.
The only keys I really can't stand in computer keyboards are the older-style chicklet keys that could be pressed sideways to no effect. There were some early toy computers that had keyboards like that and they suck. Modern ones are quite a bit better.
I have keys on my keychain. I have enough keys to variouls things that having nonessential things on my keychain would result in something too large to fit in the pocket and too heavy to use in an automobile ignition without damaging it.
To me it comes down to someone or some entity has to maintain the container that is the financial system unless we want to go to an entirely barter-at-transaction in-person economy. Most places use the government that issues the currency and its theoretical management of a central banking system to do that, for both cash-based and electronic transactions. Switch to the use of third parties for management and you still have a container, in the form of the gift card, or those who control access to Bitcoin, or those who control access to any other form of scrip. The only alternative is to trade, face to face, something of value by both parties to the other. That won't work.
I think it makes the most sense to use a central bank and government. It has its downsides, I will not deny that, but the downsides for all of the private methods are worse.
Given that we just had this discussion within the last few weeks and most of the armchair solutions completely ignored Argentina's history with its currency, hyperinflation, being artificially pegged to the US Dollar, and then the problems that had to be addressed when they chose to top artificially pairing with the Dollar, I don't think it'll help at all.
Currencies only work when everyone trusts them. People trust them when their governments and banks engage in responsible monetary policy. If monetary policy gets so out-of-whack that the people don't trust the currency then the government itself is in jeopardy the state-issued fiat currency is how it conducts business.
I expect that most Argentines don't want violent or protracted revolution, they want the system to be repaired. Most solutions that were offered last time were based on circumventing the government, which would bring about the downfall of anything resembling the status quo, rather than correcting minor to moderate problems.
This isn't Greece or Venezuela or Somalia, there's the ability to fix it if people are willing to commit themselves to it and to not syphon-off all of the gains for themselves.
Reread the GP post from subject line all of the way through. I wasn't replying to anything involving metal powder or lasers, assuming the average diet...
Slashdot Mirror
Phobos and Deimos both have nearly circular orbits, with aphelions and parhelions that are not very far apart:
Phobos:
9,234 km min
9,376 km average
9,518 km max
Deimos:
23,453 km min
23,458 km average
23,463 km max
Compared to our Moon:
384,400 km min
363,104 km average
405,696 km max
I can see how one could say that Phobos and Deimos, like our Moon, have extremely regular orbital distances, but given that the science that has stated that our Moon was caused by an impactor is still itself being both refined and challenged, I wonder if it's a little premature to conclude that based on orbital characteristics alone the two Martian moons derived from the same sort of event as our Moon. After all, many of the planets have orbits that are very near circular, but we do not interpret their existence in a similar fashion.
Simply adding a hint of what you posted would have made the article summary work a whole lot better.
The branding, "Yubikey Neo," means nothing to me. Sounds like an Asian version of the main character from The Matrix.
Multimode is good for a lot more than 100'. I've seen 62.5um OM1 push past 1000' with standard SX transceivers, and to 2000' with mode-conditioning cables. With 50um OM3 it gets far better.
You can also use singlemode for short distances, you just have to put your light meter on and attenuate the signal down to avoid burning-out the receiving end. Most providers that use singlemode tend to use it exclusively so they don't have to carry multiple sizes of fiber patch cords, and while the transceivers are more expensive, the fiber itself is cheaper.
I see competition to traditional taxi services as a good thing. I don't see Uber and Lyft as much more than traditional taxi services though, albeit with some quirks. They're not "ride sharing" services. They're taxis. The driver doesn't happen to be going your way; he's picking up fares and dropping them off to then pick up the next fare.
The only thing truly innovative is the pre-negotiation for the trip, but that's not really a whole lot different than sedan service. If anything, these companies are offering discount sedan service priced similarly to traditional taxis. No bright yellow paint, no advertising on the cars, just nondescript random vehicles.
On top of that, when I've interacted with the BSA (as an employee of a small computer company that apparently had been buying from bogus suppliers, our under-supply-chain-priced software in ads were the causes for the BSA approaching us) they were much more interested in tracing out the supplier, rather than pounding on us. They even traded all of our illegitimate inventory for legitimate copies of what was current Windows and Office at the time, so long as we gave them the contact info for where we got them.
I don't know if they still operate this way (this was 1999) but if they do, for at least small unintentional offenders, then it certainly could be a lot worse.
Well, fortunately for us, just about the entire Expanded Universe has been ruled non-canon.
As for Ewoks and Gungans, if there had been a desire to do so they could have been a lot more realistic. Gremlins came out in 1984, so the technology both for character design and for the animation of the characters was clearly there already had they wanted to make the Ewoks look more physically spry and less stuffed and awkward. The Gungans ability to hide from the surface-dwelling Naboo should have indicated much less slapstick in their behavior; there still could have been weird or interesting, but didn't have to be so bumbling.
I don't think that's a representation of a Furry. I think that's a representation of a girl trying to look cute by wearing ears and a tail. Furries tend to cover up to attempt make it not obvious they're humans.
...from Ewoks: The Battle for Endor?
A few smart kids screwing around to find workarounds isn't the same thing as all of the kids being able to get to anything at any time. Working on the device to find workarounds at least requires engagement and interest to focus on a single task.
Heh. You know, IE was the first browser that was supplied with the dominant desktop operating system integrated right into the UI, dating back to Windows 95 OSR2. Before that you had to rely on an OEM or other systems integrator if a browser was to be preinstalled. Otherwise you had to get one on disk or download one via FTP.
Mainly they said they banned phones, but technically any kind of electronic device was banned. It was the stupidest policy ever when near EVERY kid (it was a well to do area) had one in school. Nobody took them out in class...
Sounds to me like the policy was incredibly successful. The purpose of the policy was not to actually take away everyone's devices. The purpose of the policy was to prevent devices from becoming a distraction, and to give administrators and teachers recourse if a device posed a distraction. This works even if the device is somewhat concealed, like a music player connected to headphones going through the students clothing up to skin-colored wires to earbuds hidden behind hair- with this stated policy if the student was using the device in lieu of paying attention in class then the school could confiscate the device to remove that distraction from the student.
I went to high school just before the cell phone migrated its way into teenagers' hands. I still got to see my friends; we simply had to make plans when and were to meet up. I would even argue that my friends were better friends, because we actually did stuff together and had common interests, not an electronic means of connection requiring little to no effort to maintain that one could just play lip-service to. The cell phone is a convenient tool, but all-waking-day connectivity doesn't mean that things are actually better simply through having it.
Got a citation for this one? Sounds like a good way to lose your phone to a thief.
When I learned mathematics, the technology that we used was intentionally kept below the level of the curriculum we were learning. We didn't get to use even so much as simple four-operation calculators until we were doing double-variable algebra. We didn't get to use scientific calculators with extended functions until we were well into trigonometry. We didn't get to use graphing calculators until we were well into calculus. At each point, the technology was only added once we had demonstrated proficiency with the lower-level skill, so that the calculator made the time-consuming part of the lower-level skill less, so we could focus more on the current lesson. The only use of computers for mathematics that I can remember was in the DOS and pre-Mac-Apple era when we would play Number Munchers in the computer labs. We were literally handed 5.25" floppy disks to boot the computer on, and as such the computer would only do the one function that we were to engage in. For math in the computer lab that was Number Munchers.
My biggest concerns with the introduction of technology into the classroom are that first, we don't really have any killer-app that justifies the expense, and second, that by using general-purpose computers we are making it very easy for students to use the computers for a purpose other than what's intended. It's extremely easy to get off-task when you have the bulk of the Internet at your disposal, even if there's content filtering. General purpose computers give students almost unlimited choices in what to do, and only one of those choices is the intended one.
We need the right applications that don't yet seem to exist, and we need computing platforms that are restricted in the use of the computer, to make it function better as an educational platform. We also need to stop introducing too much technology too early, so that students develop basic skills and demonstrate proficiency before they get electronic crutches.
If they would design key systems for cars that function similarly to garage door openers, where the receiver is programmed to respond the the handheld device, such that one handheld device could be programmed into several vehicles, I would be okay with that. The way it stands now it's just annoying if one has more than one vehicle.
I've driven rentals that use the radio fobs, where the rental company has hooked the two fobs together, it's really annoying. Would be the same for two fobs for different vehicles.
Heh. Government spending for war materiel is an economic stimulus. Along with devaluing currency it's one aspect of what a government can do to affect the amount of money in an economy and to drive how quickly its spent. If Argentina doesn't actually invade then it could help them. If they do invade I expect the militaries of the Crown to cause much more economic damage to Argentina than it would have suffered with no action at all, even if they limit their targets to purely military ones, like ships and bases and aircraft. Ships are expensive.
I will amend my assertion, to exclude the motivations of those personally involved, to only focus on society-at-large. Those personally affected have an entirely different perspective and it's not one that the rest of us can empathize with unless we've been through a similar tragedy.
And as each group kills members of the other group, they're both encouraged to continue killing in retribution. The mentality is the same for common street gangs and for nations.
The only people that are interested in making a stand against the jury's decision in this particular case would be those opposed to the death penalty in all cases, basically those that do not believe that the State should kill people.
In this particular case, most entities that oppose the death penalty for specific reasons, like those that are concerned for the reliability of justice and the danger of executing innocent people, are extremely unlikely to have grounds for such an objection, given the dramatic and highly public events that led to his eventual apprehension combined with his written words admitting to his actions.
I suspect that most of those who do object to the use of the death penalty for the first reason I mentioned probably wouldn't choose to stake their movement on this particular case, given the nature of what happened. Attempting to fight against it would probably cause more harm for the movement than good.
I've toyed with the idea of getting a Maltron one-handed keyboard or using one of the Dvorak one-handed layouts, but I use too many different machines, including a slew of portable machines, that would make this impractical.
The only keys I really can't stand in computer keyboards are the older-style chicklet keys that could be pressed sideways to no effect. There were some early toy computers that had keyboards like that and they suck. Modern ones are quite a bit better.
I have keys on my keychain. I have enough keys to variouls things that having nonessential things on my keychain would result in something too large to fit in the pocket and too heavy to use in an automobile ignition without damaging it.
To me it comes down to someone or some entity has to maintain the container that is the financial system unless we want to go to an entirely barter-at-transaction in-person economy. Most places use the government that issues the currency and its theoretical management of a central banking system to do that, for both cash-based and electronic transactions. Switch to the use of third parties for management and you still have a container, in the form of the gift card, or those who control access to Bitcoin, or those who control access to any other form of scrip. The only alternative is to trade, face to face, something of value by both parties to the other. That won't work.
I think it makes the most sense to use a central bank and government. It has its downsides, I will not deny that, but the downsides for all of the private methods are worse.
Given that we just had this discussion within the last few weeks and most of the armchair solutions completely ignored Argentina's history with its currency, hyperinflation, being artificially pegged to the US Dollar, and then the problems that had to be addressed when they chose to top artificially pairing with the Dollar, I don't think it'll help at all.
Currencies only work when everyone trusts them. People trust them when their governments and banks engage in responsible monetary policy. If monetary policy gets so out-of-whack that the people don't trust the currency then the government itself is in jeopardy the state-issued fiat currency is how it conducts business.
I expect that most Argentines don't want violent or protracted revolution, they want the system to be repaired. Most solutions that were offered last time were based on circumventing the government, which would bring about the downfall of anything resembling the status quo, rather than correcting minor to moderate problems.
This isn't Greece or Venezuela or Somalia, there's the ability to fix it if people are willing to commit themselves to it and to not syphon-off all of the gains for themselves.
I donno, if Mars was also built to compute the Question, then perhaps getting them there would have been good for Arthur.
Reread the GP post from subject line all of the way through. I wasn't replying to anything involving metal powder or lasers, assuming the average diet...