This is the way science should go. Not "disproving theories" with barely acceptable arguments just because it's against the current theory.
Oh, btw (not for you), Einstein's General Relativity is not a theory OF gravity, it's a theory of how things behave in a gravitational field, it doesn't matter if it's a field, particles, entropy or bunnies causing gravity.
I'm not sure, apparently ZMQ has some problems over 'public internet' (not because of the link, but it does not work properly when receiving 'unknown messages')
Even better, use it to split loads between servers, processes, etc
Only downside I've seen is that some messages are still mysterious, so if you get a weird assert popping up, just google it (yeah, I know you would do it anyway)
As I pointed out, it's a big crater, they don't need to be precise.
Tell that to NASA. It's clear you know jack shit a) the size of the crater, b) where they need to be
No reason that a) they couldn't work on the delivery system for MER to be a bit more precise and b) no reason other than unfounded assertions from NASA that the MSL delivers any more precisely than a modified MER system would.
Tell that to NASA. Or to the engineers that build it. Surely a./ commentator has more answers than them.
I'm not bothering with the rest f your post. You have really shown you can't comprehend written words and that it's pointless to discuss with you.
They may be great phone (hw) manufacturers, but in terms of software they are very, very incompetent, including wasting time on 'customization' that only bother the consumer and refusing to release updates (while Cyanogenmod runs circles around them)
I absolutely DON'T trust any of them to write a single line of code. Yes, I know how these companies operate.
And it's worth noting that NASA doesn't have a need to land in a narrowly defined landing zone, at least one much more narrowly defined than the MER were already capable of landing in.
Yeah, NASA doesn't know what they need...
Remember, Opportunity drove 20Mi/30km in 7 years. If you miss your target by 10km, that's a lot of time you'll need.
I would feel the "need" for a couple of billion dollars too. Keep in mind that this is a rover with a fair bit of range, allegedly more than the MERs. Further, its target is the Gale Crater, which, according to Wikipedia, is almost 100 miles in diameter. You don't need a pin-point landing.
See point above. And you want to target the rim of the crater usually. That's where the interesting geological formations are.
Finally, we have to consider both the degree of risk, namely, this is a riskier mission than one using a proven vehicle, and the concentration of risk, namely, the eggs are all in one vehicle. It matters because NASA, due to the way it structures space science missions, only has a few slots going to Mars. Any accident sets them back by years since they don't have another vehicle deployed which overlaps with the mission's goals or capabilities.
Of course, that's why they're testing Curiosity to death. No one wants to see it fail. But there's so much you can do with an existing vehicle. Maybe they could launch 8 MERs with different instruments, but it's probably more work than it's worth. Less risky, sure, but maybe not so scientifically groundbreaking.
And Curiosity is a needed exercise on landing heavier and heavier things on mars.
1 - break into Windows Server XX with LM hash support 2 - get the hashes and bruteforce them (with LM hash this is trivial and fast today) 3 - enjoy your list of passwords
Slashdot Mirror
IMHO slightly better than
(AND (MULTIPLY (GO (LISP))))
blah blah slashdot filter mary had a little lamb
Not really
It is my understanding that other accelerators excluded Higgs at a higher energy range (>180GEv) (not sure how they did that)
From the bottom of my heart, a huge thank you
This is the way science should go. Not "disproving theories" with barely acceptable arguments just because it's against the current theory.
Oh, btw (not for you), Einstein's General Relativity is not a theory OF gravity, it's a theory of how things behave in a gravitational field, it doesn't matter if it's a field, particles, entropy or bunnies causing gravity.
Yeah, I mean, Jobs' salary was only one dollar a year, no wonder he resigned...
Yeah, and the whole thing smells of White Whine
Geez, wipe the darn thing and install Linux.
If they charge you for the 'optimization' tell them to fsck off and to 'undo' it
See again, Intel P3 at 1GHz compared to a single core G4 @ 500MHz (two leftmost columns)
Total time, P3 took ~80% of the time of the single core G4 @ 500MHz.
I'm not sure, apparently ZMQ has some problems over 'public internet' (not because of the link, but it does not work properly when receiving 'unknown messages')
If you want to know more about ZMQ see the videos http://www.zeromq.org/intro:read-the-manual
I never studied UDT, but if you only need point-to-point communication, then UDT may be better for you.
However, if you need other communication modes, like Publisher/Subscriber, multicasting, etc or even interprocess communication, try ZMQ
Second this
ZeroMQ is magic, and very easy to use.
Even better, use it to split loads between servers, processes, etc
Only downside I've seen is that some messages are still mysterious, so if you get a weird assert popping up, just google it (yeah, I know you would do it anyway)
Well, the G4 was very fast. example: http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/G4ZONE/photoshop_1GHzPCvsG4.html
Intel only became competitive when Moore's Law turned all the x86 crap irrelevant (in terms of die size). And then they went down the P4 fiasco.
Too bad IBM didn't improve the G5 (I'm sure it wasn't very easy for them. And of course, Intel has lots of R&D there)
As I pointed out, it's a big crater, they don't need to be precise.
Tell that to NASA. It's clear you know jack shit a) the size of the crater, b) where they need to be
No reason that a) they couldn't work on the delivery system for MER to be a bit more precise and b) no reason other than unfounded assertions from NASA that the MSL delivers any more precisely than a modified MER system would.
Tell that to NASA. Or to the engineers that build it. Surely a ./ commentator has more answers than them.
I'm not bothering with the rest f your post. You have really shown you can't comprehend written words and that it's pointless to discuss with you.
Call me when you speak my native language perfectly. Or any language that's not English, for that matter.
Oh and by the way, it's grasp OF the English language.
Well, from my perception, Samsung is way better than Motorola
At least you don't have to deal with the stupid Motoblur
Still, I have a Samsung Android, and I agree with the points you made
They may be great phone (hw) manufacturers, but in terms of software they are very, very incompetent, including wasting time on 'customization' that only bother the consumer and refusing to release updates (while Cyanogenmod runs circles around them)
I absolutely DON'T trust any of them to write a single line of code. Yes, I know how these companies operate.
And that's what you get by only looking at numbers.
Yes, MERs ARE PROOF the project/concept works. You only need ONE success for that.
If the project wasn't good you would have ZERO successes, no matter how many times you tried.
Of course, if it's a good success rate, sure, you would need more samples. Still, if it worked twice, the success rate is much higher than you assume.
And it's worth noting that NASA doesn't have a need to land in a narrowly defined landing zone, at least one much more narrowly defined than the MER were already capable of landing in.
Yeah, NASA doesn't know what they need...
Remember, Opportunity drove 20Mi/30km in 7 years. If you miss your target by 10km, that's a lot of time you'll need.
I would feel the "need" for a couple of billion dollars too. Keep in mind that this is a rover with a fair bit of range, allegedly more than the MERs. Further, its target is the Gale Crater, which, according to Wikipedia, is almost 100 miles in diameter. You don't need a pin-point landing.
See point above. And you want to target the rim of the crater usually. That's where the interesting geological formations are.
Finally, we have to consider both the degree of risk, namely, this is a riskier mission than one using a proven vehicle, and the concentration of risk, namely, the eggs are all in one vehicle. It matters because NASA, due to the way it structures space science missions, only has a few slots going to Mars. Any accident sets them back by years since they don't have another vehicle deployed which overlaps with the mission's goals or capabilities.
Of course, that's why they're testing Curiosity to death. No one wants to see it fail. But there's so much you can do with an existing vehicle. Maybe they could launch 8 MERs with different instruments, but it's probably more work than it's worth. Less risky, sure, but maybe not so scientifically groundbreaking.
And Curiosity is a needed exercise on landing heavier and heavier things on mars.
I think they should add an iPhone app with in-App purchase, so that the people of Kootol have to go to Mars to sue it
And still they did it.
With very slow computers and very little memory
Of course, if the Mars Atmosphere was thicker, they could have gone with a glider, parachute or something similar.
Yeah, I mean, it was probably made in the vaporized rocks of Mount Doom or something like it
What IT could do is set a Wake-on-Lan service, so that PCs turn on at 6am (example) so it's operational for even the earliest bird.
But of course Corporate IT would spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in a half-assed solution that doesn't work properly.
I'm guessing if IT needs it to be that paranoid they shouldn't be running windows...
You're right and I agree with you. Dark Matter is really a kludge.
It may of course exist, but I don't think it's 'the best' explanation
I wonder what's going to happen about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster
How about you go for facts instead?
Yeah, he's losing around 2% of the market, probably composed of old people, with old computers, or chronically stupid people.
"tremendous amount of potential" indeed
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_explorer.asp
What you see here is a corporation abusing the legal system for no other reason than to protect their ass.
Everybody would do the same in a similar situation.
Of course if the guy had been given the chance to debug the device, perhaps he would have found that pesky little antenna issue.
Well, of course he didn't get the problem, the iPhone was hidden inside a case!
Exactly!
Having to run Virtualbox (or any other virtualizer) is a waste of time and computing resources
HOWEVER, UML (or a chroot) would be very interesting
Still, not good
LHC@Home, you're doing it wrong!!
Well,
1 - break into Windows Server XX with LM hash support
2 - get the hashes and bruteforce them (with LM hash this is trivial and fast today)
3 - enjoy your list of passwords