No, it doesn't. If it doesn't generate enough ratings to make it profitable, it will die and that's that. There's no reason to keep it going if it loses money and fans insisting it be saved won't change anything.
Bjo Trimble was able to save Classic Trek because they tried to kill it while it was still popular and enough people were willing to come out and demonstrate their loyalty to the show. Enterprise never had that type of fan base and doesn't have one now. It will live or die on its own merit, and right now, it looks like it's going to die.
I think the collapse of Communism was a good deal more complex than the claims that Reagan outspent the Soviets.
Of course it was. Forcing the Soviets to try to keep up with SDI was merely the endgame. If Brezhnev hadn't clamped down on the people and poured all the money into the military, the Soviet economy wouldn't have been shaky enough for it to work. However, the people who came up with the idea did so because they knew how close the Soviets were to collapse.
Yes, atmosphereic CO2 has doubled in the past several centuries. However, this set of simulations assumes it will double again in less than fifty years. I'm not saying it can't or won't, but I'd like to see some evidence that the concentration is increasing a a rate that would justify this. It may be, I don't know. I would, however, be reluctant to trust this study completely until I do see such evidence.
Alarmists with an agenda are stacking the article with hype, knowing perfectly well that the facts only support their theory in the worst possible case.
What we really have is alarmist "journalists" putting a scare headline on the article. If you RTFA, you'll find that the simulations assumed a doubling in the atmospheric carbon dioxide. Nowhere in the article did anybody claim this was really going to happen. It's just examining the worst case they could think of, to see how bad things could possibly get if everything went wrong.
Or, dare we mention, the people who claimed Y2K would matter.
Y2K was a non-event, only because enough people took it seriously. If everybody had had your head-in-the-sand attitude, it would have been a big problem. Yes, some of the gloom-and-doom predictions were exagerated, but there would have been some nasty problems if we'd just ignored it as you apparently think we should have. Before sneering, learn something about the subject.
I can't speak for anybody else, but I did go over and fight. I spent seven months in Tonkin Gulf in '72 and never regretted it. I did my share, why don't you do yours?
In the long run, outbound port 25 blocking saves money. Instead of having to pay for the bandwidth used by a zombie to relay spam, all you get is a bunch of outgoing requests dropping on the floor. Suggest this to your PHB's and see if it helps.
In the end I've always just been willing to entertain the possibility that photons practically have no mass, but actually probably have some tiny (almost insignificant) amount.
No, it can't have any mass or it wouldn't be able to travel at c. It has energy, of course, and that energy can be considered to be equivalent to a certain mass, but that's different.
There are two ways you can think about gravity affecting light. One way is to think of it affecting the mass-equivalence of the photon's energy. The other way is to think of gravity as bending space so that the light travels in the straightest line possible in warped space.
Remember that any effect you can get from gravity you can duplicate with acceleration and the other way around. It's easy to show that if you accelerate at right angles to the path of a light beam the beam will appear to bend, so the same thing must happen when the light passes through a gravity well.
excuse my ignorance in physics, but i always wondered: if light has no mass then it has no speed or energy because E=MC^2, right ? if you insert a 0 in M, then 0 times C^2 is 0, thus E = 0
No. That equation has nothing to do with the speed or energy of a photon. It's only used to calculate the energy equivalent of mass, or the mass equivalent of energy. Just because a photon has no mass doesn't mean it can't have energy or velocity.
This is true only if you're only measuring radial velocity. That is, the target's velocity directly toward or away from us. You can also measure the target's proper motion, or motion at right angles to us. This is done by measuring its change in position over a known time. Once you have both, simple vector addition gets the total velocity.
Yes, the spectral lines always appear in the same place, relative to other elements, because they are emitted at fixed, known frequencies. By identifying them and seeing how far shifted they are from what they'd be if they were at rest relative to us, you get the doppler shift.
What nonsense is this? A value is either finite or it is infinite, NOTHING "approaches" infinity.
In math, something is said to approach infinity when its value increases endlessly, without bound. It may always have a finite value, but that value will increase past any arbitrary limit you care to name, not matter how high.
Not a bit. Relativity shows why it's not possible for anything with mass to move as fast as light, but doesn't prevent matter from moving at any lesser speed. As long as the blobs of gas aren't actually moving at the speed of light, there's no problem with relativity, general or special.
The first and only time I ever knowingly met an FBI agent is when I had to deliver something to their local office. It took them 45 minutes to investigate their office and fine out who was responsible for the material.
That's not what the article said. It tested unpatched boxes in all cases. The Linux, Solaris and Windows boxen were all default installations, with no security patches or add-ons.
I think that my favorite pet peeve in this regard is "virus." A computer virus was a piece of code that added itself to an existing program, running whenever the main program was executed. It added itself to other programs and possibly caused damage to the system. It spread from computer to computer when infected files were transferred. What we have now is trojans, programs that claim to do one thing and either cause damage instead or as well as their claimed operation.
No, not all software is scalable. I remember when I was at JPL, back in '84. I was working with the software engeneer who'd written what was then JPL's main program for calculating space-probe trajectories, TRAM. (Trajectory Monitor) Somebody came in and told us he'd just crashed TRAM. He'd been trying to calculate the masses of the Jovian moons (or at least a maximum if they were too small) by comparing the predictions to the actual path taken by Voyager II. He'd been trying to calculate the masses for eleven of them at once, but TRAM was written in FORTRAN and had all the arrays set to ten because FORTRAN didn't allow for dynamic arrays in those days. TRAM was not scalable. We ended up editing a copy of the source to change it to allow for eleven and recompiling a special version for this. Now, of course, they'd use C or C++, and allocate everything dynamically, but that wasn't available yet.
Yes, I'm sure. The truth has never been a defense against libel or slander in Great Britian. In the Colonial period, a governer sued a newspaper publisher for libel, heard the case himself and rejected the defense plea that the article was true.
Truth is an absolute defense to libel and slander and so forth.
That's true in the USofA, but not in Great Britian. Truth isn't a defense there, and the wealthy use that to punish the tabloids for printing things all the time.
I'm talking about the little-guy judges, not Bush's lap dancing appointees.
And how, pray tell, did Bush appoint the Supreme Court Justices that told SCOFLA (Apt name, isn't it?) they couldn't ignore the Federal laws forbidding changing the voting rules after the election? They were all on the bench before he was elected. Grow up and get over it already.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it doesn't. If it doesn't generate enough ratings to make it profitable, it will die and that's that. There's no reason to keep it going if it loses money and fans insisting it be saved won't change anything.
Bjo Trimble was able to save Classic Trek because they tried to kill it while it was still popular and enough people were willing to come out and demonstrate their loyalty to the show. Enterprise never had that type of fan base and doesn't have one now. It will live or die on its own merit, and right now, it looks like it's going to die.
The moderators called you "interesting," and "insightful." As a metamoderator, I say, wrong. You're nothing but a hateful troll.
Of course it was. Forcing the Soviets to try to keep up with SDI was merely the endgame. If Brezhnev hadn't clamped down on the people and poured all the money into the military, the Soviet economy wouldn't have been shaky enough for it to work. However, the people who came up with the idea did so because they knew how close the Soviets were to collapse.
Your link is currently 404 compliant.
Yes, atmosphereic CO2 has doubled in the past several centuries. However, this set of simulations assumes it will double again in less than fifty years. I'm not saying it can't or won't, but I'd like to see some evidence that the concentration is increasing a a rate that would justify this. It may be, I don't know. I would, however, be reluctant to trust this study completely until I do see such evidence.
What we really have is alarmist "journalists" putting a scare headline on the article. If you RTFA, you'll find that the simulations assumed a doubling in the atmospheric carbon dioxide. Nowhere in the article did anybody claim this was really going to happen. It's just examining the worst case they could think of, to see how bad things could possibly get if everything went wrong.
Y2K was a non-event, only because enough people took it seriously. If everybody had had your head-in-the-sand attitude, it would have been a big problem. Yes, some of the gloom-and-doom predictions were exagerated, but there would have been some nasty problems if we'd just ignored it as you apparently think we should have. Before sneering, learn something about the subject.
I can't speak for anybody else, but I did go over and fight. I spent seven months in Tonkin Gulf in '72 and never regretted it. I did my share, why don't you do yours?
In the long run, outbound port 25 blocking saves money. Instead of having to pay for the bandwidth used by a zombie to relay spam, all you get is a bunch of outgoing requests dropping on the floor. Suggest this to your PHB's and see if it helps.
No, it can't have any mass or it wouldn't be able to travel at c. It has energy, of course, and that energy can be considered to be equivalent to a certain mass, but that's different.
There are two ways you can think about gravity affecting light. One way is to think of it affecting the mass-equivalence of the photon's energy. The other way is to think of gravity as bending space so that the light travels in the straightest line possible in warped space.
Remember that any effect you can get from gravity you can duplicate with acceleration and the other way around. It's easy to show that if you accelerate at right angles to the path of a light beam the beam will appear to bend, so the same thing must happen when the light passes through a gravity well.
No. That equation has nothing to do with the speed or energy of a photon. It's only used to calculate the energy equivalent of mass, or the mass equivalent of energy. Just because a photon has no mass doesn't mean it can't have energy or velocity.
This is true only if you're only measuring radial velocity. That is, the target's velocity directly toward or away from us. You can also measure the target's proper motion, or motion at right angles to us. This is done by measuring its change in position over a known time. Once you have both, simple vector addition gets the total velocity.
Yes, the spectral lines always appear in the same place, relative to other elements, because they are emitted at fixed, known frequencies. By identifying them and seeing how far shifted they are from what they'd be if they were at rest relative to us, you get the doppler shift.
In math, something is said to approach infinity when its value increases endlessly, without bound. It may always have a finite value, but that value will increase past any arbitrary limit you care to name, not matter how high.
Not a bit. Relativity shows why it's not possible for anything with mass to move as fast as light, but doesn't prevent matter from moving at any lesser speed. As long as the blobs of gas aren't actually moving at the speed of light, there's no problem with relativity, general or special.
The first and only time I ever knowingly met an FBI agent is when I had to deliver something to their local office. It took them 45 minutes to investigate their office and fine out who was responsible for the material.
That's not what the article said. It tested unpatched boxes in all cases. The Linux, Solaris and Windows boxen were all default installations, with no security patches or add-ons.
I think that my favorite pet peeve in this regard is "virus." A computer virus was a piece of code that added itself to an existing program, running whenever the main program was executed. It added itself to other programs and possibly caused damage to the system. It spread from computer to computer when infected files were transferred. What we have now is trojans, programs that claim to do one thing and either cause damage instead or as well as their claimed operation.
No, not all software is scalable. I remember when I was at JPL, back in '84. I was working with the software engeneer who'd written what was then JPL's main program for calculating space-probe trajectories, TRAM. (Trajectory Monitor) Somebody came in and told us he'd just crashed TRAM. He'd been trying to calculate the masses of the Jovian moons (or at least a maximum if they were too small) by comparing the predictions to the actual path taken by Voyager II. He'd been trying to calculate the masses for eleven of them at once, but TRAM was written in FORTRAN and had all the arrays set to ten because FORTRAN didn't allow for dynamic arrays in those days. TRAM was not scalable. We ended up editing a copy of the source to change it to allow for eleven and recompiling a special version for this. Now, of course, they'd use C or C++, and allocate everything dynamically, but that wasn't available yet.
Caffine dissolved in water.
Most, if not all "web engineers" are jumped-up copy writers with no technical knowlege or skill, and even less design ability.
Yes, I'm sure. The truth has never been a defense against libel or slander in Great Britian. In the Colonial period, a governer sued a newspaper publisher for libel, heard the case himself and rejected the defense plea that the article was true.
I am that I am. Tell them "I am" has sent you...
That's true in the USofA, but not in Great Britian. Truth isn't a defense there, and the wealthy use that to punish the tabloids for printing things all the time.
And how, pray tell, did Bush appoint the Supreme Court Justices that told SCOFLA (Apt name, isn't it?) they couldn't ignore the Federal laws forbidding changing the voting rules after the election? They were all on the bench before he was elected. Grow up and get over it already.