Right, but if you combine this with the assertion that water from these wells did not previously contain methane (which can not be proven since they did not check them beforehand) you can conclude that the methane is a result of the mining operations. I'm not saying it's true, but the isotopic analysis is sound and it can be used to support their conclusion.
Such a notification is intended for exactly that purpose. And you're talking to an anarchist, so you don't need to try to convince me that the government's bad news.
I think they're meaning to bring the emergency broadcast system to you phone. I certainly hope they wouldn't be sending out anything other than disaster alerts. You should be able to opt out completely. Still, I'm impressed that they're rolling this thing out. I'd be even happier if they could set up a website so you can file your 1040 online without going through some shady business that's trying to screw you, but I suspect that may be beyond their level of technical competence.
Methane from the mining operations has a different ratio of Carbon 13 to Carbon 12 than methane formed by biological processes from atmospheric CO2. This is what they mean when they refer to isotopic analysis, the the ratios of the various isotopes of carbon.
No one knows exactly how sparsely these micrometeors are distributed, so the vehicle might not hit any of them at all. And depending on their size, they might not be all that powerful either (hitting a single molecule or atom will not hurt you even if you're going 1/2 the speed of light). In any case, it's better to try.
What I mean specifically is that I don't think there are many people at NASA interested in using the solid fuel boosters from the space shuttle to launch payloads into orbit. It is a bizarre requirement that is obviously meant to keep people employed at the expense of anything resembling reasonable thought on the matter.
The thing about SpaceX is that using them gets you away from a lot of congressional oversight which has been adding unnecessary cost and constraints to NASA because many power-brokers in washington see NASA as nothing more than a vehicle for their pork. If you issue a contract with a fixed price, you can't go back and add new constraints without re-negotiating the contract, and if they did that it would raise a lot of questions in the minds of the public.
I think that if you look (unfortunately, there are numerous examples I could quote; however, I think I still sort of like my job...) - and please, go look - you'll find that when NASA gets a chance to compete with private enterprise - we usually school them.
That may be true when it's an even playing field, but that's not how it is when it comes to building space launchers. The space shuttle is a perfect example. NASA should have scrapped it as soon as it was it clear that it was going to cost a lot more than a conventional launch system (the whole idea was that it was supposed to be cheaper, after all). But it wasn't canceled because it would look bad politically, and cost jobs. Now 14 astronauts are dead and there are still people in congress pushing for a shuttle derived launch system. NASA answers to a bunch of know-nothing politicians and bean counters who couldn't care less about space exploration. You can't compete with an elephant like that riding on you back.
And if you think that handing this over to the "new kids on the block" is going to get us back into space faster, safer, cheaper, or in a more lasting manner. Then all I can say is that I wish you the best of luck.
There's a lot of experienced people working at SpaceX, and it shows because of how successful they've been so far. I will reserve my judgement until they succeed or fail, and you should too. When they fist launched the Falcon 9, I told my brother that it'd better not go like Falcon 1 or it would sink them for sure. And I really expected that thing to explode on the launch pad, to be honest, because many rockets do on the first (or second, etc. ..) try. But it didn't. Maybe they got lucky. Maybe they know something you don't know. All I know is, they're doing fine now, so I wouldn't count them out just yet.
NASA wants to replace the Shuttle with Orion (another piece of bloat) instead of using one of the much cheaper alternatives (as well as ready sooner, more reliable, etc.) being offered by outfits like SpaceX
I don't think there are many in NASA who want to use Orion. The people who want that senators from states like Utah who would benefit from the program.
The problem is distinguishing the lie from the truth is becoming more and more impossible for people...
The "problem" is that the increased availability of information is causing the trust held in media organizations and government to fall away. And it's not the problem, it's the solution.
For the time being people are scared and confused because they're beginning realize that they don't know the whole story and that there's no one they can turn to for the truth. So they're searching out anything that makes sense and promises them truth. Over time, hopefully, people will come to terms with the reality that there's only a little bit you can really know, and stop worrying about the rest. Hopefully they will stop putting their faith in the lies people in power have told them over the years. Then the world will be a better place.
This is about the feeling a lot of people have that socialists aren't really american. They look at the things Obama and the democrats are saying about taking their money and giving it to other people in the name of fairness and social responsibility, and they feel it is un-american. The birth certificate, and the idea that Obama wasn't born here, resonates with the idea that he's not one of "us" and so it is accepted. It doesn't matter whether or not it's factually true, because it is fundamentally true for them on an emotional level.
And apple makes money from this how? It would be very counter-productive for Apple to support users who are willing to go to such lengths to avoid paying for the new features they would be getting.
The 3GS is available today for $50 with a new contract, so it's not like Apple is asking a lot with the upgrade. The 3G does more today than it did when the last one was sold. Apple shouldn't support users who have long since stopped providing a financial benefit to apple if it would mean hobbling new devices purchased by paying customers today. It isn't worth it for them to try to keep "customers" who aren't even willing to pay $50 for the new features.
These schools are just interested in making a quick buck, and they don't care about the long term consequences of such behavior. This kind of narrow-minded, short sighted thinking is the same as you find across all industries these days. One more reason not to go to college (or get a job, for that matter).
the "risk" of you leaving somehow coincidentally equates, in monetary value, to the same as someone getting a phone subsidy while locked in.
I think a better way to say it is that the benefit of vendor lock-in is, to them, worth the cost of subsidizing the phones. It's really the same as what you said, but it sounds a lot more plausible for some reason.
All they have to do is stop buying our debt and the country implodes
That's kind of like saying an alcoholic will die if you stop selling him alcohol. In reality they'd be doing us a favor because it would force us to deal with economic realities now instead of putting them off 'till later (when it will be worse). Of course, it would be nice if we would deal with it before it becomes an imminent problem. For the time being the Chinese seem to feel that our debt is the most sound investment they can make (and they're not the only ones who feel that way).
It's a common error, and I think there probably are a lot of people who don't know the difference. I don't really mind misspellings (though these days there isn't much of an excuse for it) but getting "their" wrong can actually lead to confusing sentences. It's not like I was being an ass about it, I just specified the difference between the two words in case anyone didn't know. The editors aren't the only ones reading the comments, after all.
Yeah, you could probably twist my words that way if you were motivated enough...
From wikipedia:
Experience as a general concept comprises knowledge of or skill in or observation of some thing or some event gained through involvement in or exposure to that thing or event.
Practicing the test fits the definition of experience perfectly. I'm not twisting your words.
In a larger sense, this presents a problem for IQ tests because it disproves the notion that prior experience does not influence the results of the test. You could say "well other types of experience won't influence the result" but it would require a leap of faith. People who are experienced with solving puzzles and playing word games will have a better shot at getting a high IQ score regardless of whether or not they have worked the problems presented in whatever test they are taking.
IQ tests are supposed to measure the aspects of intelligence which aren't related to . . . experience.
Yes you can (and should!) practice IQ tests to get better.
If you can practice it to get better, isn't your performance on the test related you your experience? Who is to say that where you end up with experience is an accurate reflection of your overall intelligence, since people are often faced with novel challenges? Is it worthwhile to practice taking a test for the sake of the test itself? Is someone who enjoys spending their time this way actually smarter than someone who does not, or does the test simply rate them higher because of their personal preferences?
Slashdot Mirror
Right, but if you combine this with the assertion that water from these wells did not previously contain methane (which can not be proven since they did not check them beforehand) you can conclude that the methane is a result of the mining operations. I'm not saying it's true, but the isotopic analysis is sound and it can be used to support their conclusion.
Such a notification is intended for exactly that purpose. And you're talking to an anarchist, so you don't need to try to convince me that the government's bad news.
I think they're meaning to bring the emergency broadcast system to you phone. I certainly hope they wouldn't be sending out anything other than disaster alerts. You should be able to opt out completely. Still, I'm impressed that they're rolling this thing out. I'd be even happier if they could set up a website so you can file your 1040 online without going through some shady business that's trying to screw you, but I suspect that may be beyond their level of technical competence.
I'm always a little surprised when I hear about the government doing something it should be doing. The system works!
Methane from the mining operations has a different ratio of Carbon 13 to Carbon 12 than methane formed by biological processes from atmospheric CO2. This is what they mean when they refer to isotopic analysis, the the ratios of the various isotopes of carbon.
The world's first human powered helicopter maybe?
How do you know this?
No one knows exactly how sparsely these micrometeors are distributed, so the vehicle might not hit any of them at all. And depending on their size, they might not be all that powerful either (hitting a single molecule or atom will not hurt you even if you're going 1/2 the speed of light). In any case, it's better to try.
What I mean specifically is that I don't think there are many people at NASA interested in using the solid fuel boosters from the space shuttle to launch payloads into orbit. It is a bizarre requirement that is obviously meant to keep people employed at the expense of anything resembling reasonable thought on the matter.
The thing about SpaceX is that using them gets you away from a lot of congressional oversight which has been adding unnecessary cost and constraints to NASA because many power-brokers in washington see NASA as nothing more than a vehicle for their pork. If you issue a contract with a fixed price, you can't go back and add new constraints without re-negotiating the contract, and if they did that it would raise a lot of questions in the minds of the public.
That may be true when it's an even playing field, but that's not how it is when it comes to building space launchers. The space shuttle is a perfect example. NASA should have scrapped it as soon as it was it clear that it was going to cost a lot more than a conventional launch system (the whole idea was that it was supposed to be cheaper, after all). But it wasn't canceled because it would look bad politically, and cost jobs. Now 14 astronauts are dead and there are still people in congress pushing for a shuttle derived launch system. NASA answers to a bunch of know-nothing politicians and bean counters who couldn't care less about space exploration. You can't compete with an elephant like that riding on you back.
There's a lot of experienced people working at SpaceX, and it shows because of how successful they've been so far. I will reserve my judgement until they succeed or fail, and you should too. When they fist launched the Falcon 9, I told my brother that it'd better not go like Falcon 1 or it would sink them for sure. And I really expected that thing to explode on the launch pad, to be honest, because many rockets do on the first (or second, etc. . .) try. But it didn't. Maybe they got lucky. Maybe they know something you don't know. All I know is, they're doing fine now, so I wouldn't count them out just yet.
I don't think there are many in NASA who want to use Orion. The people who want that senators from states like Utah who would benefit from the program.
The "problem" is that the increased availability of information is causing the trust held in media organizations and government to fall away. And it's not the problem, it's the solution.
For the time being people are scared and confused because they're beginning realize that they don't know the whole story and that there's no one they can turn to for the truth. So they're searching out anything that makes sense and promises them truth. Over time, hopefully, people will come to terms with the reality that there's only a little bit you can really know, and stop worrying about the rest. Hopefully they will stop putting their faith in the lies people in power have told them over the years. Then the world will be a better place.
This is about the feeling a lot of people have that socialists aren't really american. They look at the things Obama and the democrats are saying about taking their money and giving it to other people in the name of fairness and social responsibility, and they feel it is un-american. The birth certificate, and the idea that Obama wasn't born here, resonates with the idea that he's not one of "us" and so it is accepted. It doesn't matter whether or not it's factually true, because it is fundamentally true for them on an emotional level.
And apple makes money from this how? It would be very counter-productive for Apple to support users who are willing to go to such lengths to avoid paying for the new features they would be getting.
The 3GS is available today for $50 with a new contract, so it's not like Apple is asking a lot with the upgrade. The 3G does more today than it did when the last one was sold. Apple shouldn't support users who have long since stopped providing a financial benefit to apple if it would mean hobbling new devices purchased by paying customers today. It isn't worth it for them to try to keep "customers" who aren't even willing to pay $50 for the new features.
These schools are just interested in making a quick buck, and they don't care about the long term consequences of such behavior. This kind of narrow-minded, short sighted thinking is the same as you find across all industries these days. One more reason not to go to college (or get a job, for that matter).
I think a better way to say it is that the benefit of vendor lock-in is, to them, worth the cost of subsidizing the phones. It's really the same as what you said, but it sounds a lot more plausible for some reason.
That's not good, because we're counting on them to buy our bonds to continue funding our government's operation over at least the next decade or so.
That's kind of like saying an alcoholic will die if you stop selling him alcohol. In reality they'd be doing us a favor because it would force us to deal with economic realities now instead of putting them off 'till later (when it will be worse). Of course, it would be nice if we would deal with it before it becomes an imminent problem. For the time being the Chinese seem to feel that our debt is the most sound investment they can make (and they're not the only ones who feel that way).
No worries, it happens to the best of us.
It's a common error, and I think there probably are a lot of people who don't know the difference. I don't really mind misspellings (though these days there isn't much of an excuse for it) but getting "their" wrong can actually lead to confusing sentences. It's not like I was being an ass about it, I just specified the difference between the two words in case anyone didn't know. The editors aren't the only ones reading the comments, after all.
Glad I could help.
"Their" denotes ownership, "They're" is short for they are.
From wikipedia:
Practicing the test fits the definition of experience perfectly. I'm not twisting your words.
In a larger sense, this presents a problem for IQ tests because it disproves the notion that prior experience does not influence the results of the test. You could say "well other types of experience won't influence the result" but it would require a leap of faith. People who are experienced with solving puzzles and playing word games will have a better shot at getting a high IQ score regardless of whether or not they have worked the problems presented in whatever test they are taking.
It's also stupid and pointless. Thoughtlessness is much more harmful to society than immorality ever could be.
If you can practice it to get better, isn't your performance on the test related you your experience? Who is to say that where you end up with experience is an accurate reflection of your overall intelligence, since people are often faced with novel challenges? Is it worthwhile to practice taking a test for the sake of the test itself? Is someone who enjoys spending their time this way actually smarter than someone who does not, or does the test simply rate them higher because of their personal preferences?