I think people are using the term more informally. Yes, legally a 'refugee' is someone who has left their country fleeing danger (not necessarily political persecution). Colloquially, though, these people are certainly refugees in the sense that they are fleeing disaster and need refuge.
It seems to me that a large part of the problem is that some people feel that being a 'refugee' is something shameful, or that it is somehow impossible for an 'American' to be a refugee. Such bigoted attitudes are inexcusable.
Note the 'to a foreign country or power' in the definition you cited.
I call them refugees myself, but the definition you cited certainly does not support this. I guess technically they are 'internally displaced persons'.
I can guess. From TFA, in safe mode the probe orients its solar panels very directly toward the sun, to maximize the power received. Presumably it uses its rockets to do that, burning lots of fuel. In normal operation, the probe probably keeps its orientation with gyros, and doesn't try to always be pointed exactly at the sun. It would use batteries to keep it running when the received power is low.
They did. From TFA, in safe mode "[t]he spacecraft...communicates with Earth on its low-gain antenna only." The low-gain antenna is there as a backup communications channel for 'safe mode'.
You missed the point: 'safe mode' is the fallback system. The probe is not in a 'known state'. They do not yet know what fault caused the probe to go into safe mode. Safe mode is a generic state designed to maintain power and communications with Earth when an unknown fault has occurred, to give the operators time to find a solution or just to check that everything is OK. When they are sure everything is OK they will send a command to exit safe mode.
There is reason to be cautious. An important satellite was lost a few years ago because the operators rushed their diagnosis of the problem. The satellite's operating state was not what they thought it was--two of the gyros had failed. The operators misinterpreted the data and switched the satellite from its last working gyro to one of the nonworking ones, resulting in total loss of communications and destruction of the satellite. Not good. Before they do anything, they need to be sure they understand what has happened and what state the probe is in.
But only limited communications. The primary channel, which allows high bandwidth communications, is more fussy to maintain (antenna has to be pointed in the right direction, etc.) In 'safe mode' the probe uses a secondary communications method that is more reliable but much lower bandwidth.
I recall reading about a parasite that affects rodents, that sounds similar to what you describe. My recollection is that the change in the rodent's behavior was more specific than that: it makes the rodent unafraid of cats, but otherwise no more reckless than usual.
Why do you presume that NASA has done the color correction wrong? I understand the difficulties with color correction and getting 'true' color, but I don't see why you think your color correction is better than NASA's. I presume they do the best they can to convert their data into an accurate color image. Am I wrong on this?
What you have said is true, but I don't see why you think this is incompatible with anything the gp said.
This is part of the problem with 'true color' rendering: in some sense 'color' really only exists in the mind of the beholder. There is more to color than just red, green, and blue in the proper proportions.
I would think that etching would depend strongly on the energy (temperature) of the plasma. Perhaps the plasma in the displays is less energetic than that used in plasma etching. Also, doesn't wafer-fab plasma etching use reactive ions, like oxygen?
Not to mention that there is a way better way to implement a calculator with a pen computer: Just have the thing give the answer to any mathematical expression you write, so if you write "5+3=" the pen would say "eight". There is no need to draw a calculator to do math, and kids would learn more from writing expressions. This seems like a lost opportunity.
And typing. It seems to me that typing ought to be a required subject. Unless some technological change on the horizon is going to eliminate keyboards, everyone ought to be graduation from high school able to touch type at least 30 words per minute. Anyone going to college or a desk job anywhere is going to need this, and it will come in handy for many other things as well.
And for those who complain that teenagers type in 'AOL speak', the best preventative to that is to make sure they know how to type.
I agree. The problem is not computers vs. no computers, it is the focus on rote memorization and preparing for tests rather than learning how to think. I understand your concern that computers may make this worse by distracting attention from needed reforms.
Searching a library card catalog requires understanding categorization: how is the entire field of subject matter broken down into categories. What category do you look in to find a book on medieval castles? How does that relate to the categories for history, or architecture? The same skill is certainly useful in computers too, for navigating a directory tree or understanding how to create a database.
Searching the internet, on the other hand, uses a different set of skills. To get good results from a Google search, you have to understand how to choose good keywords and how to make good use of wild cards, quotes, and other things that narrow your search. The ability to quickly skim material and determine what is useful and what is not also comes in handy. Some of those skills certainly have non-computer uses.
Both, of course, require you to have an understanding of the subject matter you are searching for, and how the information resource you are searching is organized. I agree with you that some things carry over from one medium to another, but that does not change the fact that the best place to learn how to search for information using a computer is on a computer. The world is changing. The skills students need to do well in college and careers are changing. Yes, they can pick up some of what they need through means that don't involve technology. The most direct way to become familiar with technology and the skills needed to use it well, though, is to actually use it. I'm not arguing that technology is the answer to all education or that it should replace everything else, but I do think that students who do not get enough experience using computers in elementary and high school are going to arrive at college or in the workforce unprepared.
For the record, I agree. I'm arguing here in favor of students learning computer skills in school. I don't think everything they do needs to be done on a computer, any more than everything one does outside school is done on a computer.
However, the mental skills needed to do google searches well are different from those needed to use a library card catalog. (Of course, how many libraries still have card catalogs these days?)
You can't just teach students to use research tools in general. You have to teach them a variety of specific tools, and computers are clearly going to be the most important of those tools in the future.
Nothing, that is, except learn how to use a computer. And if you think that it isn't important for today's students to learn how to use computers, you are completely crazy.
Just a guess, but the DHCP components probably can't be in the cable because the whole point is to ensure that the digital signal goes only to the monitor and nowhere else. No splitting off the signal and running it into a recorder, for example.
keep in mind is that it was the Japanese that attacked the U.S. What in the hell were they thinking? It is like me attacking the local police department with a baseball bat
Keep in mind that the US was not then the superpower that it is now. IIRC, at the start of the war Japan's military was larger than the US's. They probably didn't think they had so much to lose.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems to me that a large part of the problem is that some people feel that being a 'refugee' is something shameful, or that it is somehow impossible for an 'American' to be a refugee. Such bigoted attitudes are inexcusable.
I call them refugees myself, but the definition you cited certainly does not support this. I guess technically they are 'internally displaced persons'.
Go ahead, and thanks.
Unruh effect
I can guess. From TFA, in safe mode the probe orients its solar panels very directly toward the sun, to maximize the power received. Presumably it uses its rockets to do that, burning lots of fuel. In normal operation, the probe probably keeps its orientation with gyros, and doesn't try to always be pointed exactly at the sun. It would use batteries to keep it running when the received power is low.
You missed the point: 'safe mode' is the fallback system. The probe is not in a 'known state'. They do not yet know what fault caused the probe to go into safe mode. Safe mode is a generic state designed to maintain power and communications with Earth when an unknown fault has occurred, to give the operators time to find a solution or just to check that everything is OK. When they are sure everything is OK they will send a command to exit safe mode.
There is reason to be cautious. An important satellite was lost a few years ago because the operators rushed their diagnosis of the problem. The satellite's operating state was not what they thought it was--two of the gyros had failed. The operators misinterpreted the data and switched the satellite from its last working gyro to one of the nonworking ones, resulting in total loss of communications and destruction of the satellite. Not good. Before they do anything, they need to be sure they understand what has happened and what state the probe is in.
But only limited communications. The primary channel, which allows high bandwidth communications, is more fussy to maintain (antenna has to be pointed in the right direction, etc.) In 'safe mode' the probe uses a secondary communications method that is more reliable but much lower bandwidth.
I recall reading about a parasite that affects rodents, that sounds similar to what you describe. My recollection is that the change in the rodent's behavior was more specific than that: it makes the rodent unafraid of cats, but otherwise no more reckless than usual.
Why do you presume that NASA has done the color correction wrong? I understand the difficulties with color correction and getting 'true' color, but I don't see why you think your color correction is better than NASA's. I presume they do the best they can to convert their data into an accurate color image. Am I wrong on this?
This is part of the problem with 'true color' rendering: in some sense 'color' really only exists in the mind of the beholder. There is more to color than just red, green, and blue in the proper proportions.
I would think that etching would depend strongly on the energy (temperature) of the plasma. Perhaps the plasma in the displays is less energetic than that used in plasma etching. Also, doesn't wafer-fab plasma etching use reactive ions, like oxygen?
Nor is this coincidence. Smart people can usually find a better way to make a living than crime. (There are rare exceptions, of course.)
Although, through much of human history it would not have been uncommon for 25 year olds to be killed in war or other violence.
Not to mention that there is a way better way to implement a calculator with a pen computer: Just have the thing give the answer to any mathematical expression you write, so if you write "5+3=" the pen would say "eight". There is no need to draw a calculator to do math, and kids would learn more from writing expressions. This seems like a lost opportunity.
One of the downsides to typing fast. :)
And for those who complain that teenagers type in 'AOL speak', the best preventative to that is to make sure they know how to type.
I agree. The problem is not computers vs. no computers, it is the focus on rote memorization and preparing for tests rather than learning how to think. I understand your concern that computers may make this worse by distracting attention from needed reforms.
Searching the internet, on the other hand, uses a different set of skills. To get good results from a Google search, you have to understand how to choose good keywords and how to make good use of wild cards, quotes, and other things that narrow your search. The ability to quickly skim material and determine what is useful and what is not also comes in handy. Some of those skills certainly have non-computer uses.
Both, of course, require you to have an understanding of the subject matter you are searching for, and how the information resource you are searching is organized. I agree with you that some things carry over from one medium to another, but that does not change the fact that the best place to learn how to search for information using a computer is on a computer. The world is changing. The skills students need to do well in college and careers are changing. Yes, they can pick up some of what they need through means that don't involve technology. The most direct way to become familiar with technology and the skills needed to use it well, though, is to actually use it. I'm not arguing that technology is the answer to all education or that it should replace everything else, but I do think that students who do not get enough experience using computers in elementary and high school are going to arrive at college or in the workforce unprepared.
They will be.
What, did you think we were preparing children for today's world?
For the record, I agree. I'm arguing here in favor of students learning computer skills in school. I don't think everything they do needs to be done on a computer, any more than everything one does outside school is done on a computer.
What was your point, exactly?
You can't just teach students to use research tools in general. You have to teach them a variety of specific tools, and computers are clearly going to be the most important of those tools in the future.
Nothing, that is, except learn how to use a computer. And if you think that it isn't important for today's students to learn how to use computers, you are completely crazy.
Just a guess, but the DHCP components probably can't be in the cable because the whole point is to ensure that the digital signal goes only to the monitor and nowhere else. No splitting off the signal and running it into a recorder, for example.
Keep in mind that the US was not then the superpower that it is now. IIRC, at the start of the war Japan's military was larger than the US's. They probably didn't think they had so much to lose.