As disgusting as it sounds to rehydrate a meal with urine, at least it's "clean" (in the sense that you won't get sick from it).
But dirty water? If you're in the middle of Iraq, I suspect the water may itself pose a health risk. I can't drink the water when I visit third-world countries, and I'd certainly be worried if our troops were exposing themselves to disease.
This misunderstanding stems from our science education in grade school, during which we're taught that a "theory" is just a guess that has yet to be proven.
Let me tell you about how theoretical physics really works. Quantum THEORY is just that, a theory. But it has been tested to unbelievable precision. Using the theory of quantum electrodynamics, one can calculate constants of nature from first principles to better than 12 decimal places. These theories are "right," even though there might be some improvement or refinement that comes along later.
That's the end of my general rant. Now to address specific things you said that were, quite ironically, complete baloney. You say general relativity (GR) hasn't been tested. Einstein's first prediction using GR concerned the deflection of light around the sun during an eclipse. His prediction was different from what others were saying, and when the eclipse of 1919 finally came, Einstein was vindicated. GR passes major experimental test #1.
Do you have GPS in your car? If you do, you may be surprised to know that those things rely on the mathematics of GR. Without taking into account some of the terms that pop out of the equations of GR, your GPS would never be able to locate you. But it can, and hence GR passes experimental test #2 with flying colors.
Finally, I point you to the Nobel Prize's page on Russell Hulse and Joseph Taylor. They found experimental proof that two stars orbiting each other were decaying at a rate exactly in accordance to what had been predicted years before. This is a very stringent test of the validity of GR -- the stars were orbiting each other near the "strong field" where gravitational effects are really strong, and hence where any deviation from the behavior predicted by the theory should be obvious -- and, once again, GR passed the test like an Asian kid taking math.
A certain amount of skepticism is always healthy, of course. Do I think there will be eventual refinements to GR? Of course, probably in the form of superstring theory. But before you go around proclaiming that it's all baloney, you better figure out what you're talking about.
I have serious doubts about the success of this project. Does anybody remember Iridium? Their satellites are still in orbit, and pretty much all they do now is reflect sunlight.
The Iridium project was started with a similar goal in mind: to give cellular phone access to anywhere around the globe. Given the cost of launching the satellites (and the phones themselves, which were about 10 times larger than regular cellular phones), Iridium lost a lot of customers who realized that worldwide cellular access simply wasn't worth the price and the equipment size. Except for a few truly adventurous types, nobody signed up.
This project has a noble goal, but I think that it has the same destiny as Iridium. $60/month is more than anyone currently pays for DSL, and save for those few people who really need high speed access in rural areas (I suspect there aren't a lot of people there that can't survive off of dialup), there really is no market for their product/service.
This is one of many projects related to GriPhyN (Grid Physics Network), an organized effort by physicists to bring important data analysis tasks to the home user. Distributed data analysis for LIGO is just one of the many projects that comprise GriPhyN; others include data analysis for the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and (I believe) the Large Hadron Collider, which is nearing completion at CERN in Geneva, Switzerland. SETI@HOME definitely caught the eye of physicists who, until recently, had been stymied by the lack of funds for supercomputers. While Linux clusters have gone a long way in addressing their needs, they quickly realized that the really data intensive applications such as LIGO, LHC, and SDSS would require something more. I'm excited that I might finally be able to change my screensaver to something other than SETI@Home!
First off, let me say that I'm an astrophysicist. I value "good astrophysics data" more than anyone else. I think Hubble should remain in a functional state, at least until a replacement (with detectors in more than just a couple frequency ranges) can be put into space. I also believe that going to the Moon right now is a waste of time and money.
But, I will never say that about Mars. Three points:
1. Whether or not you are happy with it, there is nothing wrong with doing something that gets the public excited about space exploration again. Sure, getting a man (or woman!) to walk on Mars has more engineering value than scientific value, but it will re-energize the population about the value of exploration. Can you think of a better time for astrophysical science than the 1960s?
2. While we always prefer "good" data, we as a civilization would be selling ourselves short if we never tried to reach for the frontier. I think Kennedy said it best: "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard..." Sure, it's hard to obtain conclusive data about the existence of life on Mars. But it needs to be done. The fact that it's hard is no reason to throw our hands up into the air. It's simply too important to be ignored.
3. Despite occasional comments (and glimmers of hope) suggesting otherwise, the search for life on Mars is primarily focused on the existence of life in the past. Because most scientists now believe that life on Earth was carried over on meteorites from Mars, these studies are examining our very origins as a civilization. Even if life wasn't transported from Mars to Earth, discovering the abundance (or lack) of life on Mars will tell us a lot about how life develops in this and other solar systems. Now, honestly, which gets you more excited: smaller error bars on stellar luminosity data, or answering in some small way the mystery of where we came from? One of these makes astrophysicists like myself very happy, the other answers the collective questions of an entire species trying to understand who they are.
Do we really want our scientific community to be comprised of people who are in it for the money and attention? Given the choice between the guy looking for financial success and the geek looking to keep scratchin' that curiosity itch, I'm betting all my chips on the curious geek.....every time.
I think you've missed the point, and indeed don't understand the scale of the problem. (This is not a flame, but I do wish to inject some amount of reason into this discussion.)
The major problem here is that there are plenty of people in the world who ARE curious. They're *not *doing it for the money (after all, nobody goes to school until they're 30 years old without making a dime for the money). The point is that many of these curious individuals cannot follow their passions in science because that career is just too unstable and underpaid to support a family with. I'm speaking somewhat from personal experience: until recently, I was planning on taking my bachelor's degree in physics with me to a PhD program. But doing my latest research with a 36 year old postdoc opened by eyes to the fact that, until you become a tenured professor, you're basically kicked in the balls over and over -- as a grad student for 6-7 years, then as a postdoc for several more years, you're underpaid ($0 - $30000) and overworked (80+ hrs/wk). That's discouraging to a lot of people.
For the record, I favor paying scientists more money. Arguably, they do the most important work in this world -- think about where we would be without the Newtons and Edisons of this world. And the funny thing about science is that it's internally regulated -- you'll never get to a well paying job without first proving yourself (that's what a PhD is, after all), and even then, you won't be successful and you won't have your job for long if you aren't a "curious geek" that can actually produce results that people care about.
I propose a simpler explanation: obscurity. The fact that ARM has a large market share doesn't automatically mean that everyone knows about it -- in fact, how many/.ers can honestly say that we know a lot about ARM?
In short, we at/. are really good at complaining about Microsoft, Intel, AMD, SCO, and just about any company whose name is mentioned. But because ARM keeps a pretty low profile, it avoids the hatred that will inevitably be directed toward it now that its on slashdot.
Though my understanding of the human eye is far from perfect, I believe this technique will work for patients who are born blind as well as those that become blind through trauma or degenerative disease. That is, this technique can, I suspect, be used on *anyone*.
I am particularly fascinated by this approach. While it certainly has some drawbacks (e.g., imperfect donor eyes, organ rejection), it definitely gets around the technical issues that one reads about in the U.S. Most of the research I've read about in the past couple years (see, e.g., article 1 and article 2) involves the use of electronic fixtures of some sort with electrodes connected to the optic nerve or onto the brain itself. It's interesting--though perhaps not entirely surprising--that the low-tech approach might, at present, be more successful than the high-tech one.
Which would you rather have? A human replacement eye, or a pinhole camera mounted behind a pair of sunglasses?
There's no reason for any software distributor to run away from Linux (with the exception of those in the OS market). Though Linux still represents a small portion of the desktop market, small enough that software companies wouldn't go out of their way to make their programs compatible, I also don't see any good economic reason why they would go out of their way to prevent use of their software on Linux. If Windows represents 80% of desktops and *nix 5%, these companies could now market their product to 85% of people instead of just 80%.
More importantly, the threat of unauthorized use is not any greater under Linux than under Windows. That's largely the point of Wine; the same programs run under Linux in almost exactly the same way that the run under Windows. I'll bet that the real threat of unauthorized distribution comes from little warez kiddies, most of whom run Windows.
Or you can dispense with the notebook altogether if, like me, you always fill your tank fully at the gas station.
When you fill up, the pump will tell you how many gallons you just pumped into your car. When I get back into my car, I reset the tripmeter (the "second" odometer which can be reset) after noting the number of miles I've driven since the last fuel stop. Then it's just a matter of spending the next minute or so trying to do the division as accurately as possible without getting into an accident.
This method is certainly no better than what the parent recommended, but it definitely requires less paperwork.
I also feel the need to say that there are a lot of very serious things that can go wrong with your car that don't affect the fuel economy --- just because you're beating the quoted fuel efficiency rating doesn't mean you don't have to look at other things!
The article says "the FCC has ruled that it has final jurisdiction over unlicensed wireless space"
I think the ruling is a good one, but something about the previous sentence bothers me: I don't like the idea that the FCC can decide what it does and does not control. Does anyone see the potential for abuse? *puts on tinfoil hat*
Nobody should ever have to pay for a service which provides the same information as a quick look out the window does. And if they do charge something for it, the vast majority of people *will not* pay.
Their tactics aren't ineffective
on
P2P Bits
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Lord knows I don't agree at all with the RIAA/MPAA, and it certainly hasn't stopped me (or probably most other/. readers from "sampling" music "before I buy").
But, their tactics have worked reasonably well, at least as a low-pass filter. I'd say that the lower 80% (in terms of resourcefulness) have significantly reduced or altogether ceased downloading music and videos online. Everyone is afraid at some level of the RIAA, and the effect has been noticeable. Whether or not the RIAA's campaign has been cost-effective is another matter, but that's not to say that it hasn't worked.
Best Buy isn't the first joint venture that Napster has undertaken. Samsung and Napster teamed up to design an mp3 player around the Napster download service.
It seems as though Napster doesn't have much faith in their ability to survive. These corporate sponsorships provide companies such as Best Buy and Samsung an interest in Napster's well-being. It's definitely a far cry from the heyday of Napster, when it couldn't keep users away.
XXX tons maximum
Isn't that a website?
More interestingly, the wizards at JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the guys who build a large fraction of the robotic devices that are launched into space) have some up with a median solution. The speed limit signs in their parking lots list the maximum speed in kilometers per hour, but the same speed in miles per hour (in slightly smaller font) just below. Both are easily visible, but the metric number is slightly bigger (as it should be).
I think this is the best way to get the US over to the metric system. If we suddenly switched to metric, there would be a lot of accidents. But if we weaned people over slowly, they'd get used to the metric numbers.
And if you ever get pulled over for a speeding ticket, you can always confuse the cop with unit conversions.
The parent post is pretty insightful, IMHO.
NASA's biggest problem in the last 20 years has had nothing to do with engineering, but with public relations. Add to it two major accidents and you're left with a pretty unhappy public questioning (unfortunately) the need for NASA.
Imagine the kind of hell NASA would have to pay if it suffered another accident. NASA is already under tremendous scrutiny by Congress; what would happen if Congress was given yet another reason to cut the NASA budget? How much worse would public opinion get?
Now consider the alternative: NASA offers a monetary prize for private companies seeking a route to space. The risks are the same -- people may die, and unlike the parent, I believe that NASA cares about these people. However, NASA avoids the added risk of organizational self-destruction.
I've been pretty impressed with NASA in past years. Unlike many governmental organizations, they don't seem to demand credit for everything that is done; if someone gets to space on their own, NASA will be cheering them on. A monetary prize just allows them to promote the exploration of space (with all the risks that it carries) while avoiding the one extra risk of permanently turning the tide of public opinion against it.
That's a very academic question, and although I could launch a debate about what counts as a planet and whether the Oort Cloud is properly part of the Solar System, it all comes down to the very non-scientific and uninteresting issue of definition.
The point is this: Pioneer is really, really, really far. Even farther than Canada.
What's truly amazing about Pioneer and all the other satellites of the era is that they have lasted so far beyond their expected lifetimes. If I remember correctly, Pioneer was supposed to die after reaching the outer planets, but it died in late 2003.
The work they do at NASA and especially JPL (where most of the unmanned devices are designed and built) is truly impressive, and even more so considering there usually aren't any second chances available (with the noteworthy exception of Hubble).
This may be one of the most powerful reasons for DNA recordkeeping (at least for those that are convicted). Many of those released from death row after being convicted are exonerated by old DNA evidence combined with new analysis technology.
It's a sad reality of our justice system that, despite its reasonable attempt at assuring fairness, some innocent individuals do end up behind bars. I can't imagine how many innocent people would waste away in jail if law enforcement simply disposed of all the evidence after the trial. It is critical to keep evidence and information around, because it is entirely possible that it can be used to exonerate the wrongfully imprisoned. DNA evidence falls cleanly into that category.
That said, I do agree that DNA information should be expunged if charges are dropped or the prosecution fails to acheive conviction.
I'm not fully convinced either way about this issue, but I would like to comment on a few points raised in the parent:
The fcc exists primary to ensure radio waves continue to exist and companies are protected from each other. Without proper regulation, and I highly doubt the industry can do this alone, things like satelite tv would be irredic at best. Things like computer monitors, cordless phones, stereos would not have regulations on the interference they put out and cause lots of havoc.
Valid points, yes, but not ones without solution. For instance, the court system can also be used to "protect companies from each other." Although I think that society has become too litigious, it is technically correct that the judicial system is equipped to handle this problem. For instance, one could certainly establish a law which regulates the amount of power that a device transmits. You don't actually need an entire department to make sure devices don't violate such a law, all you need is a monkey with some sort of signal detector (and a lawyer). The threat of litigation for non-compliance (and the inescapable delays to product deployment) would be more than enough to restrain companies in the first place. And if they don't, well, you've got an attorney.
Consider as an interesting but wholly unrelated analogy, civil rights laws. Because there are laws in place, we've been able to get away with having private organizations like the ACLU sue when appropriate. For the most part, it's worked.
Things like Janet Jackson at the super bowl don't make me feel sorry for the guilty parties at all. National tv with children watching and people feel the need to "push the envenlope."
I could insert a Soviet Russia joke here, but it would actually make sense. This is just blatant censorship. I agree that children shouldn't have to be exposed to questionable material if their parents so desire, in which case there is justification for some sort of a notification/control system (e.g., v-chip). But to say that Howard Stern is just not allowed to broadcast anymore is absolutely ridiculous (this coming from a person who can't stand Stern).
Problems such as the broadcast flag are more a fault of intense lobbying from the MPAA and very little opposition because people either don't understand or don't care. The fcc cannot be faulted for blunders to fair use.
This is more of a reason to eliminate the FCC. If the FCC is so easily duped into listening to the MPAA/RIAA axis of evil, then it serves no purpose.
Look, I'm as skeptical of the article as you are. But I would be careful to immediately conclude that there's no other way, because there always is.
Though parent is (+5, Funny), the answer to his question is most likely yes. In all the time I've spent in various physics research labs, I've never seen anything *but* Linux.
The story would be different if the CCD was being launched (in which case it would probably run on a specially written variant of VAX). But the drivers/utilities for land-based devices are written almost exclusively by the scientists themselves (not engineers), and most of them stick with Linux.
I'm not quite sure how significant it is to photograph 50 million buildings. Does anyone have a rough idea of how many buildings there are in the U.S.? If the 50 million figure is anywhere near the total number of buildings in the United States, I will be quite impressed.
My best guess right now is about 100 million. This is an order of magnitude estimate (yes, I'm a physicist) based on the number of people living in the U.S. (~300 million). Does anyone have a better guess (or, *gasp*, actual information)?
Slashdot Mirror
As disgusting as it sounds to rehydrate a meal with urine, at least it's "clean" (in the sense that you won't get sick from it).
But dirty water? If you're in the middle of Iraq, I suspect the water may itself pose a health risk. I can't drink the water when I visit third-world countries, and I'd certainly be worried if our troops were exposing themselves to disease.
This misunderstanding stems from our science education in grade school, during which we're taught that a "theory" is just a guess that has yet to be proven.
Let me tell you about how theoretical physics really works. Quantum THEORY is just that, a theory. But it has been tested to unbelievable precision. Using the theory of quantum electrodynamics, one can calculate constants of nature from first principles to better than 12 decimal places. These theories are "right," even though there might be some improvement or refinement that comes along later.
That's the end of my general rant. Now to address specific things you said that were, quite ironically, complete baloney. You say general relativity (GR) hasn't been tested. Einstein's first prediction using GR concerned the deflection of light around the sun during an eclipse. His prediction was different from what others were saying, and when the eclipse of 1919 finally came, Einstein was vindicated. GR passes major experimental test #1.
Do you have GPS in your car? If you do, you may be surprised to know that those things rely on the mathematics of GR. Without taking into account some of the terms that pop out of the equations of GR, your GPS would never be able to locate you. But it can, and hence GR passes experimental test #2 with flying colors.
Finally, I point you to the Nobel Prize's page on Russell Hulse and Joseph Taylor. They found experimental proof that two stars orbiting each other were decaying at a rate exactly in accordance to what had been predicted years before. This is a very stringent test of the validity of GR -- the stars were orbiting each other near the "strong field" where gravitational effects are really strong, and hence where any deviation from the behavior predicted by the theory should be obvious -- and, once again, GR passed the test like an Asian kid taking math.
A certain amount of skepticism is always healthy, of course. Do I think there will be eventual refinements to GR? Of course, probably in the form of superstring theory. But before you go around proclaiming that it's all baloney, you better figure out what you're talking about.
I have serious doubts about the success of this project. Does anybody remember Iridium? Their satellites are still in orbit, and pretty much all they do now is reflect sunlight.
The Iridium project was started with a similar goal in mind: to give cellular phone access to anywhere around the globe. Given the cost of launching the satellites (and the phones themselves, which were about 10 times larger than regular cellular phones), Iridium lost a lot of customers who realized that worldwide cellular access simply wasn't worth the price and the equipment size. Except for a few truly adventurous types, nobody signed up.
This project has a noble goal, but I think that it has the same destiny as Iridium. $60/month is more than anyone currently pays for DSL, and save for those few people who really need high speed access in rural areas (I suspect there aren't a lot of people there that can't survive off of dialup), there really is no market for their product/service.
This is one of many projects related to GriPhyN (Grid Physics Network), an organized effort by physicists to bring important data analysis tasks to the home user. Distributed data analysis for LIGO is just one of the many projects that comprise GriPhyN; others include data analysis for the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and (I believe) the Large Hadron Collider, which is nearing completion at CERN in Geneva, Switzerland. SETI@HOME definitely caught the eye of physicists who, until recently, had been stymied by the lack of funds for supercomputers. While Linux clusters have gone a long way in addressing their needs, they quickly realized that the really data intensive applications such as LIGO, LHC, and SDSS would require something more. I'm excited that I might finally be able to change my screensaver to something other than SETI@Home!
Oh, how misguided the parent is.
First off, let me say that I'm an astrophysicist. I value "good astrophysics data" more than anyone else. I think Hubble should remain in a functional state, at least until a replacement (with detectors in more than just a couple frequency ranges) can be put into space. I also believe that going to the Moon right now is a waste of time and money.
But, I will never say that about Mars. Three points:
1. Whether or not you are happy with it, there is nothing wrong with doing something that gets the public excited about space exploration again. Sure, getting a man (or woman!) to walk on Mars has more engineering value than scientific value, but it will re-energize the population about the value of exploration. Can you think of a better time for astrophysical science than the 1960s?
2. While we always prefer "good" data, we as a civilization would be selling ourselves short if we never tried to reach for the frontier. I think Kennedy said it best: "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard..." Sure, it's hard to obtain conclusive data about the existence of life on Mars. But it needs to be done. The fact that it's hard is no reason to throw our hands up into the air. It's simply too important to be ignored.
3. Despite occasional comments (and glimmers of hope) suggesting otherwise, the search for life on Mars is primarily focused on the existence of life in the past. Because most scientists now believe that life on Earth was carried over on meteorites from Mars, these studies are examining our very origins as a civilization. Even if life wasn't transported from Mars to Earth, discovering the abundance (or lack) of life on Mars will tell us a lot about how life develops in this and other solar systems. Now, honestly, which gets you more excited: smaller error bars on stellar luminosity data, or answering in some small way the mystery of where we came from? One of these makes astrophysicists like myself very happy, the other answers the collective questions of an entire species trying to understand who they are.
Do we really want our scientific community to be comprised of people who are in it for the money and attention? Given the choice between the guy looking for financial success and the geek looking to keep scratchin' that curiosity itch, I'm betting all my chips on the curious geek.....every time.
I think you've missed the point, and indeed don't understand the scale of the problem. (This is not a flame, but I do wish to inject some amount of reason into this discussion.)
The major problem here is that there are plenty of people in the world who ARE curious. They're *not *doing it for the money (after all, nobody goes to school until they're 30 years old without making a dime for the money). The point is that many of these curious individuals cannot follow their passions in science because that career is just too unstable and underpaid to support a family with. I'm speaking somewhat from personal experience: until recently, I was planning on taking my bachelor's degree in physics with me to a PhD program. But doing my latest research with a 36 year old postdoc opened by eyes to the fact that, until you become a tenured professor, you're basically kicked in the balls over and over -- as a grad student for 6-7 years, then as a postdoc for several more years, you're underpaid ($0 - $30000) and overworked (80+ hrs/wk). That's discouraging to a lot of people.
For the record, I favor paying scientists more money. Arguably, they do the most important work in this world -- think about where we would be without the Newtons and Edisons of this world. And the funny thing about science is that it's internally regulated -- you'll never get to a well paying job without first proving yourself (that's what a PhD is, after all), and even then, you won't be successful and you won't have your job for long if you aren't a "curious geek" that can actually produce results that people care about.
I propose a simpler explanation: obscurity. The fact that ARM has a large market share doesn't automatically mean that everyone knows about it -- in fact, how many /.ers can honestly say that we know a lot about ARM?
/. are really good at complaining about Microsoft, Intel, AMD, SCO, and just about any company whose name is mentioned. But because ARM keeps a pretty low profile, it avoids the hatred that will inevitably be directed toward it now that its on slashdot.
In short, we at
Computers dont have finite limits like a person. That's true. I can only count to 32768.
Though my understanding of the human eye is far from perfect, I believe this technique will work for patients who are born blind as well as those that become blind through trauma or degenerative disease. That is, this technique can, I suspect, be used on *anyone*. I am particularly fascinated by this approach. While it certainly has some drawbacks (e.g., imperfect donor eyes, organ rejection), it definitely gets around the technical issues that one reads about in the U.S. Most of the research I've read about in the past couple years (see, e.g., article 1 and article 2) involves the use of electronic fixtures of some sort with electrodes connected to the optic nerve or onto the brain itself. It's interesting--though perhaps not entirely surprising--that the low-tech approach might, at present, be more successful than the high-tech one.
Which would you rather have? A human replacement eye, or a pinhole camera mounted behind a pair of sunglasses?
There's no reason for any software distributor to run away from Linux (with the exception of those in the OS market). Though Linux still represents a small portion of the desktop market, small enough that software companies wouldn't go out of their way to make their programs compatible, I also don't see any good economic reason why they would go out of their way to prevent use of their software on Linux. If Windows represents 80% of desktops and *nix 5%, these companies could now market their product to 85% of people instead of just 80%.
More importantly, the threat of unauthorized use is not any greater under Linux than under Windows. That's largely the point of Wine; the same programs run under Linux in almost exactly the same way that the run under Windows. I'll bet that the real threat of unauthorized distribution comes from little warez kiddies, most of whom run Windows.
Or you can dispense with the notebook altogether if, like me, you always fill your tank fully at the gas station.
When you fill up, the pump will tell you how many gallons you just pumped into your car. When I get back into my car, I reset the tripmeter (the "second" odometer which can be reset) after noting the number of miles I've driven since the last fuel stop. Then it's just a matter of spending the next minute or so trying to do the division as accurately as possible without getting into an accident.
This method is certainly no better than what the parent recommended, but it definitely requires less paperwork.
I also feel the need to say that there are a lot of very serious things that can go wrong with your car that don't affect the fuel economy --- just because you're beating the quoted fuel efficiency rating doesn't mean you don't have to look at other things!
The article says "the FCC has ruled that it has final jurisdiction over unlicensed wireless space"
I think the ruling is a good one, but something about the previous sentence bothers me: I don't like the idea that the FCC can decide what it does and does not control. Does anyone see the potential for abuse? *puts on tinfoil hat*
Nobody should ever have to pay for a service which provides the same information as a quick look out the window does. And if they do charge something for it, the vast majority of people *will not* pay.
Lord knows I don't agree at all with the RIAA/MPAA, and it certainly hasn't stopped me (or probably most other /. readers from "sampling" music "before I buy").
But, their tactics have worked reasonably well, at least as a low-pass filter. I'd say that the lower 80% (in terms of resourcefulness) have significantly reduced or altogether ceased downloading music and videos online. Everyone is afraid at some level of the RIAA, and the effect has been noticeable. Whether or not the RIAA's campaign has been cost-effective is another matter, but that's not to say that it hasn't worked.
Best Buy isn't the first joint venture that Napster has undertaken. Samsung and Napster teamed up to design an mp3 player around the Napster download service.
It seems as though Napster doesn't have much faith in their ability to survive. These corporate sponsorships provide companies such as Best Buy and Samsung an interest in Napster's well-being. It's definitely a far cry from the heyday of Napster, when it couldn't keep users away.
XXX tons maximum Isn't that a website? More interestingly, the wizards at JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the guys who build a large fraction of the robotic devices that are launched into space) have some up with a median solution. The speed limit signs in their parking lots list the maximum speed in kilometers per hour, but the same speed in miles per hour (in slightly smaller font) just below. Both are easily visible, but the metric number is slightly bigger (as it should be). I think this is the best way to get the US over to the metric system. If we suddenly switched to metric, there would be a lot of accidents. But if we weaned people over slowly, they'd get used to the metric numbers. And if you ever get pulled over for a speeding ticket, you can always confuse the cop with unit conversions.
The parent post is pretty insightful, IMHO. NASA's biggest problem in the last 20 years has had nothing to do with engineering, but with public relations. Add to it two major accidents and you're left with a pretty unhappy public questioning (unfortunately) the need for NASA. Imagine the kind of hell NASA would have to pay if it suffered another accident. NASA is already under tremendous scrutiny by Congress; what would happen if Congress was given yet another reason to cut the NASA budget? How much worse would public opinion get? Now consider the alternative: NASA offers a monetary prize for private companies seeking a route to space. The risks are the same -- people may die, and unlike the parent, I believe that NASA cares about these people. However, NASA avoids the added risk of organizational self-destruction. I've been pretty impressed with NASA in past years. Unlike many governmental organizations, they don't seem to demand credit for everything that is done; if someone gets to space on their own, NASA will be cheering them on. A monetary prize just allows them to promote the exploration of space (with all the risks that it carries) while avoiding the one extra risk of permanently turning the tide of public opinion against it.
That's a very academic question, and although I could launch a debate about what counts as a planet and whether the Oort Cloud is properly part of the Solar System, it all comes down to the very non-scientific and uninteresting issue of definition. The point is this: Pioneer is really, really, really far. Even farther than Canada.
What's truly amazing about Pioneer and all the other satellites of the era is that they have lasted so far beyond their expected lifetimes. If I remember correctly, Pioneer was supposed to die after reaching the outer planets, but it died in late 2003. The work they do at NASA and especially JPL (where most of the unmanned devices are designed and built) is truly impressive, and even more so considering there usually aren't any second chances available (with the noteworthy exception of Hubble).
This may be one of the most powerful reasons for DNA recordkeeping (at least for those that are convicted). Many of those released from death row after being convicted are exonerated by old DNA evidence combined with new analysis technology. It's a sad reality of our justice system that, despite its reasonable attempt at assuring fairness, some innocent individuals do end up behind bars. I can't imagine how many innocent people would waste away in jail if law enforcement simply disposed of all the evidence after the trial. It is critical to keep evidence and information around, because it is entirely possible that it can be used to exonerate the wrongfully imprisoned. DNA evidence falls cleanly into that category. That said, I do agree that DNA information should be expunged if charges are dropped or the prosecution fails to acheive conviction.
I'm not fully convinced either way about this issue, but I would like to comment on a few points raised in the parent:
The fcc exists primary to ensure radio waves continue to exist and companies are protected from each other. Without proper regulation, and I highly doubt the industry can do this alone, things like satelite tv would be irredic at best. Things like computer monitors, cordless phones, stereos would not have regulations on the interference they put out and cause lots of havoc.
Valid points, yes, but not ones without solution. For instance, the court system can also be used to "protect companies from each other." Although I think that society has become too litigious, it is technically correct that the judicial system is equipped to handle this problem. For instance, one could certainly establish a law which regulates the amount of power that a device transmits. You don't actually need an entire department to make sure devices don't violate such a law, all you need is a monkey with some sort of signal detector (and a lawyer). The threat of litigation for non-compliance (and the inescapable delays to product deployment) would be more than enough to restrain companies in the first place. And if they don't, well, you've got an attorney.
Consider as an interesting but wholly unrelated analogy, civil rights laws. Because there are laws in place, we've been able to get away with having private organizations like the ACLU sue when appropriate. For the most part, it's worked.
Things like Janet Jackson at the super bowl don't make me feel sorry for the guilty parties at all. National tv with children watching and people feel the need to "push the envenlope."
I could insert a Soviet Russia joke here, but it would actually make sense. This is just blatant censorship. I agree that children shouldn't have to be exposed to questionable material if their parents so desire, in which case there is justification for some sort of a notification/control system (e.g., v-chip). But to say that Howard Stern is just not allowed to broadcast anymore is absolutely ridiculous (this coming from a person who can't stand Stern).
Problems such as the broadcast flag are more a fault of intense lobbying from the MPAA and very little opposition because people either don't understand or don't care. The fcc cannot be faulted for blunders to fair use.
This is more of a reason to eliminate the FCC. If the FCC is so easily duped into listening to the MPAA/RIAA axis of evil, then it serves no purpose.
Look, I'm as skeptical of the article as you are. But I would be careful to immediately conclude that there's no other way, because there always is.
Mussolini has been reinstated as the leader of Italy.
I bet that buffalo was really pissed off when he found out his name had been stolen.
Though parent is (+5, Funny), the answer to his question is most likely yes. In all the time I've spent in various physics research labs, I've never seen anything *but* Linux. The story would be different if the CCD was being launched (in which case it would probably run on a specially written variant of VAX). But the drivers/utilities for land-based devices are written almost exclusively by the scientists themselves (not engineers), and most of them stick with Linux.
I'm not quite sure how significant it is to photograph 50 million buildings. Does anyone have a rough idea of how many buildings there are in the U.S.? If the 50 million figure is anywhere near the total number of buildings in the United States, I will be quite impressed. My best guess right now is about 100 million. This is an order of magnitude estimate (yes, I'm a physicist) based on the number of people living in the U.S. (~300 million). Does anyone have a better guess (or, *gasp*, actual information)?