Yeah, that doesn't make sense. Only men have to compete for mates, women, the baby makers, don't need to fight just to get the chance at mating, only for quality of mate.
You don't need to hit it head-on, and you don't need to bleed all of the orbital energy to put the debris chunk into a rapidly decaying orbit.
Presuming that there is only a countable number of objects (a few thousand, tens of thousand, even a million), it's much more reasonable to approach "just enough" to knock them into a month-long freefall instead of a decades long, one at a time. A computational nightmare, perhaps, and definitely extremely tricky to line up the right piece of debris without putting yourself in the retrograde path of the wrong piece, but it's not going to get easier as we accumulate more trash.
Aerogel is pretty brittle, though. One can imagine flaking as a result of impact and no real net benefit debris-wise. I think something ductile would be a better choice. Like, say, steel foil, perhaps.
You want every impact to slow down the object enough that de-orbit occurs within months instead of years, and any detached pieces of the cloak should also have a similar profile. Only the intact cloak itself should be able to orbit for a time, until it is decided to de-orbit it, as well.
He's not proposing 18,000 spaceflights manned or otherwise. He's proposing a gigantic billiards shot where all the balls are in motion, salvaging the motion of some of the balls to line up the next one and eventually encounter and sink all the balls in one shot.
Then he's got some weird ideas about orbital energy this "net" concept that seems tricky (although a sufficiently strong, ductile net would increase the target area for intercept and it doesn't matter if the net gets torn to shreds as long as the shreds stay attached), but the underlying idea is interesting, and it certainly doesn't need to be so tricky as to sink all the debris in only one flight with no inter-object maneuvering.
For the past ten years or so (at least... My first distro was Mandrake in 2000), you could hit alt-f2 in most linux window managers and get a text box that works like a single-line command line. (i.e. including tab completion, but with the output turned off)
There are no fewer than six terminals running behind your X session all the time. In most distributions you can get to them by hitting ctrl-alt-F[1-6] (if in X) and alt-F# if in one of the terminal sessions. You can get back to X by hitting alt-F7.
But the 10th amendment and the Declaration make it pretty clear that the rights enumerated in the constitution are so to enshrine them. Not to disparage other natural rights that exist but are not listed.
As traveling by airplane does not in any way interfere with anyone else's rights whatsoever, I think that it's a pretty specious argument. Note also that only us plebs have to deal with the indignity and offense. If you have enough money or influence, you travel by private jet, and board in another part of the airport not restricted by airport screeners.
The public has accepted the unconstitutional search for weapons and explosives. It's so much a part of the zeitgeist now that people would feel naked (ironically) without the security line at the airport. The ACLU won't win that fight, and they would rather spend time trying to free the mumia abu jabars of the world, anyway. Defending actual rights is too much of a hassle.
Ahh well. There is a hidden benefit of all this rights-raping: Airport security is an excellent date screener. Everyone past the perimeter either has a job (possibly crappy, but they're employed nonetheless) or can otherwise afford the extravagance of a couple hundred dollars for a day's travel. That doesn't weed out all of the riff raff, but it certainly cuts it down a little.
The merchant agreement requires them to set the same price for cash and credit transactions. Ish. I think they can only require that the merchant not have an extra fee for credit cards. However, they do not prevent merchants from offering a discount for using cash, so it's effectively the same thing a as a credit card fee, if you know to ask.
Not particularly recently any more, but we found many of those old books and there was a lot of garbage. Further, you discount the protestant religions, whose solution to "cherry picked books in bible" was to have bibles with even fewer books.
Wait.. eight hours a day? Add in eight hours to sleep and eight hours to work, where are these average people fitting in time to eat and poop (hopefully not combining the two)?
Speaking of airplanes, I don't fully understand how the pilot converts sensory input to control surface instructions, and I'm certain that there are many cases where the pilot's reaction will be absolutely the worst thing possible. Still, the risk is worth it when you consider the alternative of not having high-speed continental or global travel.
The bar of plugging something in instead of a pilot is not at "do we understand what it will do in all circumstances" but the much more attainable, "will it perform at least as well as all pilots have." If the fly-brain neural-net software can be prevented from consuming the software equivalent of alcohol, that's a very low bar to reach.
The idea being that a large investment firm, and possibly others and their clients, are all using certain code to help them decide when to execute trades. An unscrupulous third party could use knowledge of that code to place investments that trigger trades by GS, which is large enough to affect the market. In effect manipulating the market by manipulating GS.
The market gets manipulated by the sheer size of GS, and the main loser would be GS, as well, since they're already using their software to maximize their own benefit.
Which brings to mind the issue that the sheer size of GS is the real issue, not the software that they use. Someone here once said, "too big to fail? More like too big to be allowed to exist!" Everyone that received bail-out money should be broken into smaller entities on a staggered basis when the economy recovers.
Government is not universally bad, although it doesn't start out on good footing (All governments, even our own, establish themselves through bullying and blood). But although there are needs that can only be efficiently met through the use of government, expansion of government should always be looked at warily.
The greater the fraction of activities that the government undertakes, the greater the chance that it IS the problem in those areas. If government is responsible for 100% of the economy, any problems with the economy are, ipso facto, caused by the government.
With the health care mistake we're about to undertake, the federal government will be eventually increasing its presence by 50%, accounting for more than half the economy by itself (~1/3 before, + ~1/6: the size of medicine according to pundits). And that doesn't even take into account the proportion occupied by state and local governments.
Please don't collect data on "screen resolution" or make *any* assumptions at all about it.
People don't browse with the browser window maximized unless they have to, and in the era of wide-screen monitors, it's getting less and less useful to have such a set up anyway.
Furthermore, everyone doesn't have the same dot pitch or visual acuity or character-recognition. The last one is my pet peeve. Somehow we got stuck setting a pretty fixed "standard font size" in pixels from back in the day when people thought 640x480 was unnecessary extravagance. I personally find sharper, less pixelated glyphs to be much more quickly identified and therefore easier to read.
The most important thing to measure are things you *can't* measure anyway. What you really want to know is the angle subtended by the usable area in the browser window in the user's vision. But to know that, you need to know their viewing distance as well as the screen size in length units, not pixels.
So, please try to be kind in your layouts to people who don't feel like sitting 12 inches away from their HD monitor to be able to read 10 pt. text on fully maximized browser windows. Slashdot is a particularly awful offender of people who want to resize text: the sidebars are fixed and the main column has no minimum width in ems, so more than a stop or two and the bulk of the text is one word per line with gigantic borders for useless sidebar info.
And don't give us that "but images are in pixels so the text has to line up" malarkey. Browsers have gotten pretty good at resizing images on the fly if you let them, and have done down-sizing adequately since before Netscape 2. Just do what gnome and apple have done with icons for the past several years: use much bigger images and downscale them to fit the layout. If you must, size the image so large that the lengths have common factors with a number of common sizes you expect. You don't even get much of a size penalty what with image compression and all.
I don't know much about good web design, but I know what I'm sick of.
I like your ideas. Someday, you should build them into a home.
Now, I'd also suggest that bang-bang control is less than ideal depending on your power plant. (I have electric heat with bang-bang control for some stupid reason, for example)
Convection goes like dT^3, so it's much more efficient to hold the temperature as close to the average temperature as possible, to avoid excessive heat loss during the too-high period.
Agreed. Also, all laws must be read into the record. That'll put an upper bound on the sheer magnitude of legislation and guaranteed that the aforementioned laws have been read at least once.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, that doesn't make sense. Only men have to compete for mates, women, the baby makers, don't need to fight just to get the chance at mating, only for quality of mate.
You don't need to hit it head-on, and you don't need to bleed all of the orbital energy to put the debris chunk into a rapidly decaying orbit.
Presuming that there is only a countable number of objects (a few thousand, tens of thousand, even a million), it's much more reasonable to approach "just enough" to knock them into a month-long freefall instead of a decades long, one at a time. A computational nightmare, perhaps, and definitely extremely tricky to line up the right piece of debris without putting yourself in the retrograde path of the wrong piece, but it's not going to get easier as we accumulate more trash.
Aerogel is pretty brittle, though. One can imagine flaking as a result of impact and no real net benefit debris-wise. I think something ductile would be a better choice. Like, say, steel foil, perhaps.
You want every impact to slow down the object enough that de-orbit occurs within months instead of years, and any detached pieces of the cloak should also have a similar profile. Only the intact cloak itself should be able to orbit for a time, until it is decided to de-orbit it, as well.
Maybe the spend the extra bits on reducing fringing and/or increased color depth? BluRay is still a little weak in those areas.
Pavlov had dogs, Chekov had a gun.
Did you even read TFS?
He's not proposing 18,000 spaceflights manned or otherwise. He's proposing a gigantic billiards shot where all the balls are in motion, salvaging the motion of some of the balls to line up the next one and eventually encounter and sink all the balls in one shot.
Then he's got some weird ideas about orbital energy this "net" concept that seems tricky (although a sufficiently strong, ductile net would increase the target area for intercept and it doesn't matter if the net gets torn to shreds as long as the shreds stay attached), but the underlying idea is interesting, and it certainly doesn't need to be so tricky as to sink all the debris in only one flight with no inter-object maneuvering.
I don't think a white dwarf can orbit a red giant. Rather the opposite, I would guess, if the configuration is at all possible.
Might want to use a different calculator, though. By my count, you have accounted for 105% of your computing time...
Mohave? Wasn't that just Kubuntu with a different splash screen?
For the past ten years or so (at least... My first distro was Mandrake in 2000), you could hit alt-f2 in most linux window managers and get a text box that works like a single-line command line. (i.e. including tab completion, but with the output turned off)
There are no fewer than six terminals running behind your X session all the time. In most distributions you can get to them by hitting ctrl-alt-F[1-6] (if in X) and alt-F# if in one of the terminal sessions. You can get back to X by hitting alt-F7.
Linux had it before Macs.
I've learned years ago, that journalists are the *only* true force opposed to corruption.
Communications major, I assume? There are plenty of corrupt journalists, too. And idiot sycophants who fawn over corrupt officials blindly.
That's what they think, too, I suppose.
But the 10th amendment and the Declaration make it pretty clear that the rights enumerated in the constitution are so to enshrine them. Not to disparage other natural rights that exist but are not listed.
As traveling by airplane does not in any way interfere with anyone else's rights whatsoever, I think that it's a pretty specious argument. Note also that only us plebs have to deal with the indignity and offense. If you have enough money or influence, you travel by private jet, and board in another part of the airport not restricted by airport screeners.
The public has accepted the unconstitutional search for weapons and explosives. It's so much a part of the zeitgeist now that people would feel naked (ironically) without the security line at the airport. The ACLU won't win that fight, and they would rather spend time trying to free the mumia abu jabars of the world, anyway. Defending actual rights is too much of a hassle.
Ahh well. There is a hidden benefit of all this rights-raping: Airport security is an excellent date screener. Everyone past the perimeter either has a job (possibly crappy, but they're employed nonetheless) or can otherwise afford the extravagance of a couple hundred dollars for a day's travel. That doesn't weed out all of the riff raff, but it certainly cuts it down a little.
The merchant agreement requires them to set the same price for cash and credit transactions. Ish. I think they can only require that the merchant not have an extra fee for credit cards. However, they do not prevent merchants from offering a discount for using cash, so it's effectively the same thing a as a credit card fee, if you know to ask.
Not particularly recently any more, but we found many of those old books and there was a lot of garbage. Further, you discount the protestant religions, whose solution to "cherry picked books in bible" was to have bibles with even fewer books.
Depending on how you define "square" and the shape of space, you can have something that fits the definition with only three sides.
First, come up with a definition of "square" that does not require four sides (say, all angles 90 degrees, all sides of equal length.
well, there is at least one geometry where this can occur: the surface of a sphere.
Well, there goes the used laptop market.
six words, my friend: Fecal Coliform Bacteria Under The Keys.
Wait.. eight hours a day? Add in eight hours to sleep and eight hours to work, where are these average people fitting in time to eat and poop (hopefully not combining the two)?
Speaking of airplanes, I don't fully understand how the pilot converts sensory input to control surface instructions, and I'm certain that there are many cases where the pilot's reaction will be absolutely the worst thing possible. Still, the risk is worth it when you consider the alternative of not having high-speed continental or global travel.
The bar of plugging something in instead of a pilot is not at "do we understand what it will do in all circumstances" but the much more attainable, "will it perform at least as well as all pilots have." If the fly-brain neural-net software can be prevented from consuming the software equivalent of alcohol, that's a very low bar to reach.
I think you're reading too much into it.
The idea being that a large investment firm, and possibly others and their clients, are all using certain code to help them decide when to execute trades. An unscrupulous third party could use knowledge of that code to place investments that trigger trades by GS, which is large enough to affect the market. In effect manipulating the market by manipulating GS.
The market gets manipulated by the sheer size of GS, and the main loser would be GS, as well, since they're already using their software to maximize their own benefit.
Which brings to mind the issue that the sheer size of GS is the real issue, not the software that they use. Someone here once said, "too big to fail? More like too big to be allowed to exist!" Everyone that received bail-out money should be broken into smaller entities on a staggered basis when the economy recovers.
Government is not universally bad, although it doesn't start out on good footing (All governments, even our own, establish themselves through bullying and blood). But although there are needs that can only be efficiently met through the use of government, expansion of government should always be looked at warily.
The greater the fraction of activities that the government undertakes, the greater the chance that it IS the problem in those areas. If government is responsible for 100% of the economy, any problems with the economy are, ipso facto, caused by the government.
With the health care mistake we're about to undertake, the federal government will be eventually increasing its presence by 50%, accounting for more than half the economy by itself (~1/3 before, + ~1/6: the size of medicine according to pundits). And that doesn't even take into account the proportion occupied by state and local governments.
Please don't collect data on "screen resolution" or make *any* assumptions at all about it.
People don't browse with the browser window maximized unless they have to, and in the era of wide-screen monitors, it's getting less and less useful to have such a set up anyway.
Furthermore, everyone doesn't have the same dot pitch or visual acuity or character-recognition. The last one is my pet peeve. Somehow we got stuck setting a pretty fixed "standard font size" in pixels from back in the day when people thought 640x480 was unnecessary extravagance. I personally find sharper, less pixelated glyphs to be much more quickly identified and therefore easier to read.
The most important thing to measure are things you *can't* measure anyway. What you really want to know is the angle subtended by the usable area in the browser window in the user's vision. But to know that, you need to know their viewing distance as well as the screen size in length units, not pixels.
So, please try to be kind in your layouts to people who don't feel like sitting 12 inches away from their HD monitor to be able to read 10 pt. text on fully maximized browser windows. Slashdot is a particularly awful offender of people who want to resize text: the sidebars are fixed and the main column has no minimum width in ems, so more than a stop or two and the bulk of the text is one word per line with gigantic borders for useless sidebar info.
And don't give us that "but images are in pixels so the text has to line up" malarkey. Browsers have gotten pretty good at resizing images on the fly if you let them, and have done down-sizing adequately since before Netscape 2. Just do what gnome and apple have done with icons for the past several years: use much bigger images and downscale them to fit the layout. If you must, size the image so large that the lengths have common factors with a number of common sizes you expect. You don't even get much of a size penalty what with image compression and all.
I don't know much about good web design, but I know what I'm sick of.
Recordable DVDs don't use pits, do they?
I like your ideas. Someday, you should build them into a home.
Now, I'd also suggest that bang-bang control is less than ideal depending on your power plant. (I have electric heat with bang-bang control for some stupid reason, for example)
Convection goes like dT^3, so it's much more efficient to hold the temperature as close to the average temperature as possible, to avoid excessive heat loss during the too-high period.
Agreed. Also, all laws must be read into the record. That'll put an upper bound on the sheer magnitude of legislation and guaranteed that the aforementioned laws have been read at least once.