With bulbs, it gets more complex because it's not just a function of the temperature of the white
It is exactly a function of the temperature of the white.. in fact, it's exactly function of the temperature of the filament. (minus a few absorption bands)
The 'temperature' in your presets is an approximation to the Blackbody spectrum at those temperatures. Warmer and Cooler are, however, reversed when people discuss the whites of pictures etc. I suspect it's because for much of our history light would be either the sun or a fire - and everyone knows a fire is warm. (even though it is much cooler than the sun)
Regardless, given enough complexity, leds could surely approximate a solar spectrum, but it would be very difficult for incandescents to reach the temperature required to actually emit a solar spectrum. (first you have to find a filament material that won't melt/vaporize at solar temperature.)
But incandescents STILL don't match solar illumination.. which is why there are lights coming out that try to simulate it. I would guess that it would be possible to more closely approximate the solar spectrum with leds than incandescents eventually unless you can find a filament that can survive ~6300 K.
I don't mind movie ads. Even though i pay for the tickets
There a fairly standard practice in the theater industry, which is very superstitious, to never start the show on time. Always a little bit late, maybe 7 minutes give or take. This has the added benefit of letting people who cut things close to arrive in time for opening curtain.
Movie ads accomplish the same thing: 7 minute or so buffer on showtime. It lets me show up just in time, or even a little late, and still see the movie. If i show up early, at least the ads are more interesting than the slideshow ads many theaters have now. Sometimes I'm curious about new movies. The ads let me know if they will be visually stunning enough to watch in theater or wait for TV. In this case I make sure to show up early.
What really annoys me are the "PSA" type no-talking, turn off cellphones business where the theaters basically call you an idiot, shut up your damn phone. Don't tell me how annoying the phones are, I already know. Just put up a quick reminder like, "Don't forget to turn off your phone" or something less condescending. I avoid Charlie Sheen movies because of that stupid ad.
organisms that *can* mate and produce offspring capable of same.
This does sound as close as any evidence so far however, since unwilling and unable produce the same end result - extinct. Can you point in the direction of more information?
I know i'm splitting hairs here, but it would be nice to have undeniable evidence, non? The point is that we haven't, with the possible exception of the example you cited, any direct observation of evolution (in higher species). A counterexample by analogy would be the possibility that social pressures would cause two human races to avoid mating together, even though they are capable of it.
I haven't read any articles on this project however so if this example is real speciation, then we know that it can occur since it did at least once.
Creationists will still be able to hang their hat on one point though: Just because it has happened once to one species does not prove that it has happened to us specifically. It is probably not possible to devise an experiment to show this either way.
adaptation is not evolution (or proof of evolution) nor is extinction evolution (or proof of it) There is only one way to prove that evolution is possible: run an experiment in which speciation occurs. An experiment in which an actual new species develops from an existing one.
Organisms are considered of the same species if they are capable of producing offspring which can also reproduce. (I am not sure how to define it for asexual organisms, though obviously the first experiments will take place in this regime)
Lets hold off on judging people having faith in creation until the theory of evolution no longer requires a similar faith.
under mccain feingold, you can't buy an advert 90 days before an election to criticize an incumbent on some issue you have with him/her. You can however, buy an entire media outlet and have your reporters/commentators wail all day about horrible he/she is.
So how does this keep the rich from unduly influencing politics?
For instance, many people assume that people will be able to continue to produce at the same level despite having reduced capital and increased costs as a result of tax increases and payroll tax increases and increased cost of supplies as a result of same.
Yeah but it's like the pinto: How many other (1 minute) improvements would actually have been better to add, but the aggregate of which would exceed a reasonable viewing time.
Also just because they may not be including the leopard bit, doesn't mean there won't be some kind of quick montage ending with a shot of the beware of leopard sign. or something equally hillarious (perhaps some kind of fires of mt. doom reference) The point is that a movie isn't just the words (dialogue) it's also the movie.
Why does everyone misquote that line?? or is that the line from the radio series?
In the books it's, "The answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything" Which sets up the joke later on that the question itself is unknown. The joke is that the scientists assumed that life, the universe and everything WAS the question.. kind of like you're doing now...
Assuming that it's not there (I haven't seen the film that's not out yet), the additional dialogue about the leopard did enhance the humor (though in a typical wordy brittish way), but is unnecessary for the overall gag: namely that the notice was on "public display" in a very unpublic place. The leopard bit just dresses it up a bit by pointing out how rediculously un-public the public display was.
The cheapest resource in a book is its words: you can have as many of them as you want really, no matter how long it takes to read.
By contrast, the most valuable resource in a film is, arguably, the time. If you want to fit the film into one sitting, you need take advantage of films strengths: it is a visual medium.. drop some dialogue and tell the rest of the joke with the visual portion. Which no doubt will be stunning if the trailer is typical of the film.
The solution is to publish the exact wording of the actual questions. (also might be good to publish the exact method of choosing the pool of questionees)
But the exact wording of the questions would, to a certain degree, "open-source" opinion polling.
speaking of which.. is there a format for animated files? things with a few lines and not much else? On a project i'm working on uses a lot of low-color animated graphs. It seems really wasteful to encode as bitmap,(so we're generating the animations on-the-fly) but mpeg is definately not appropriate for such things: too many artifacts. Is there an "animated-postscript" format?
Actually i had to look to see which keys they were. I normally don't even think about where the keys are once my fingers are in the right place. I suppose it doesn't really matter WHICH two keys as long as they're for different hands. Anyone use dvorak want to tell us which two they are on?
No matter how bad enterprise is it's still better than "Martin"
Fortunately, the less interesting stuff is available, the less tempeted i will be two watch the stuff. maybe i'll finally be able to ween myself from the "time burglar."
Wasn't Nixon helping stir the rivalry between china and ussr to ease some of the pressure from eastern europe? I would think that a key event in the ending of the cold war would be kind of important. Of course at some point you do have to consider the plight of tibet and taiwan regardless of lofty goals.
(it does always concern me when countries strike agreements about specific levels of trade rather than general trade policy: if you want more trade, just get out of the way and let the businesses on both sides find each other, right?)
The wiki article about it makes some errors in its key assumptions: namely that fertility increases with increasing economy. It can be shown that the most affluent countries (US and Western Europe) have the lowest birthrates and afaik population growth. Evidence suggest that the more wealth is available to a population, the more intereseted in that wealth they become, putting more pragmatic interests like reproduction on 'the back burner' as it were. I would suggest that this need not even be greed: people in affluent societies simply have more diversions to occupy their time and they may want to try them all (which would be experience-greed i guess)
Unfortunately, none of those advances were directly the result of the space program. Their existance either predates usage in the space program or in the rare case, may have been accelerated slightly due to the funding levels.
"Water purification systems" have been most influenced by the submarine industry for instance. The current reverse-osmosis desalination techniques were developed for use on nuclear submarines. (this is not to say that the advances would not have occured without submarine investment.)
"weather forcasting" is a very good example of a direct benefit of space operations, but a very bad example of a direct benefit of manned spaceflight.
It is not enough to rattle off a list of ancillary benefits to human spaceflight research. There must be a direct space-related benefit to motivate spending there. Off-site backup is the most long-term reason. At current technological levels it might not be practical, but should be the ultimate goal of space research. (Interestingly, no one seems to be talking about last-ditch right-before-the-disaster offsite backup, in which our options would be less limited: launching a fleet of atomic rockets might not be practical now with the poisoning of the atmosphere that would result, but in light of an earth-destroying asteroid or mad-scientist with laser sharks, it may be that the impact would be less relevant--atomic rockets are the present-day technology that even *could* be used to build huge space-arks. Why not build a couple now and leave them in a mountain in the desert?
Developing space-based resources poses another challenge: suppose you discover a platinum asteroid? In order to make it worthwile you not only have to figure out how to mine it, but also at a cost that takes into account the massive devaluation of platinum that would occur on developing that resource. As a result the primary benefit in extra-terrestrial mining is the low cost to orbit the resources: it reduces the cost to develop in-space industry, which basically brings us back to reason 1: off-site backup.
So why aren't we working on two things: Figuring out how to build nuclear rockets and figuring out how to mitigate their fallout? (if the radioactive elements can be eliminated (highly radioactive products that decay very quickly could be sufficient) or contained, all of a sudden such rockets become practical.)
I'm also dissapointed that the tone of this post seems to have taken an anti-manned-spaceflight tack. I do think we should have a manned program and like everyone else would certainly like to be part of it. I'm just not sure I have a better reason to offer than Sir Edmond Hillary's, "Because its there"
the difficulty with folks who do not examine evolution-ary ideas is that they tend to be extremely narrow in their perspective and logic is not part of their thought process. What the textbook says is right and they will justifiy that right-ness regardless of the number of mental hoops through which they must jump. Add to that the notion that because they are using "science" it must be right and the current situation is easy to understand.
The solution? There may not be one as long as pronouncements of the holy order of the labcoat continues to hold popular sway in the media and textbook manufacturers are content to propogate popular falsehoods.
The problem is that while many have blind faith in the "tenets of science," those same people are either unwilling or unable to critically analyse the results brought forth by scientists. As any adherent to the scientific method will attest, as well as quite a few epicureans, there are no known facts in science. There are only theories and laws which we believe to be a very close approximation to the real workings of the universe. To simply accept these as the ULTIMATE TRUTH is to commit the very sin you accuse your straw man of "christian conservatives" (a group which must also contain moslems, orthodox jews, and many others) as science-hating luddites. The odd thing is that, while faith is not a virtue in the field of science, it is a high virtue of most any religion you can find. In this regard, your position is less self-consistant than the "lowest common denominator" you lambaste.
The drivers that came with my motherboard are not signed, the driver for my monitor is not signed (it's quite old), I forget about the graphics card.. printer drivers not signed - what am i supposed to do? use my computer with the "default" monitor at much lower resolution and refresh rate than my monitor is capable of, and never print anything?
I would like to ammend: reset the counter (or lower it or something) for each rewrite. I'd expect the pages in "edit wars" would also get a lot of votes.
Slashdot Mirror
With bulbs, it gets more complex because it's not just a function of the temperature of the white
It is exactly a function of the temperature of the white.. in fact, it's exactly function of the temperature of the filament. (minus a few absorption bands)
The function is given by Planck, Planck's Law of Blackbody Radiation
The 'temperature' in your presets is an approximation to the Blackbody spectrum at those temperatures. Warmer and Cooler are, however, reversed when people discuss the whites of pictures etc. I suspect it's because for much of our history light would be either the sun or a fire - and everyone knows a fire is warm. (even though it is much cooler than the sun)
Regardless, given enough complexity, leds could surely approximate a solar spectrum, but it would be very difficult for incandescents to reach the temperature required to actually emit a solar spectrum. (first you have to find a filament material that won't melt/vaporize at solar temperature.)
But incandescents STILL don't match solar illumination.. which is why there are lights coming out that try to simulate it. I would guess that it would be possible to more closely approximate the solar spectrum with leds than incandescents eventually unless you can find a filament that can survive ~6300 K.
Pretty dangerous if you pick your nose or scratch your crotch, though, don't you think?
So it's an interface for third base coaches?
I don't mind movie ads.
Even though i pay for the tickets
There a fairly standard practice in the theater industry, which is very superstitious, to never start the show on time. Always a little bit late, maybe 7 minutes give or take. This has the added benefit of letting people who cut things close to arrive in time for opening curtain.
Movie ads accomplish the same thing: 7 minute or so buffer on showtime. It lets me show up just in time, or even a little late, and still see the movie. If i show up early, at least the ads are more interesting than the slideshow ads many theaters have now. Sometimes I'm curious about new movies. The ads let me know if they will be visually stunning enough to watch in theater or wait for TV. In this case I make sure to show up early.
What really annoys me are the "PSA" type no-talking, turn off cellphones business where the theaters basically call you an idiot, shut up your damn phone. Don't tell me how annoying the phones are, I already know. Just put up a quick reminder like, "Don't forget to turn off your phone" or something less condescending. I avoid Charlie Sheen movies because of that stupid ad.
That's not a very good way to hide a missile base.
Anyone else find it odd that the swastika is forbidden on most things in germany except the Official Currency
organisms that *can* mate and produce offspring capable of same.
This does sound as close as any evidence so far however, since unwilling and unable produce the same end result - extinct. Can you point in the direction of more information?
I know i'm splitting hairs here, but it would be nice to have undeniable evidence, non? The point is that we haven't, with the possible exception of the example you cited, any direct observation of evolution (in higher species). A counterexample by analogy would be the possibility that social pressures would cause two human races to avoid mating together, even though they are capable of it.
I haven't read any articles on this project however so if this example is real speciation, then we know that it can occur since it did at least once.
Creationists will still be able to hang their hat on one point though: Just because it has happened once to one species does not prove that it has happened to us specifically. It is probably not possible to devise an experiment to show this either way.
adaptation is not evolution (or proof of evolution) nor is extinction evolution (or proof of it) There is only one way to prove that evolution is possible: run an experiment in which speciation occurs. An experiment in which an actual new species develops from an existing one.
Organisms are considered of the same species if they are capable of producing offspring which can also reproduce. (I am not sure how to define it for asexual organisms, though obviously the first experiments will take place in this regime)
Lets hold off on judging people having faith in creation until the theory of evolution no longer requires a similar faith.
under mccain feingold, you can't buy an advert 90 days before an election to criticize an incumbent on some issue you have with him/her. You can however, buy an entire media outlet and have your reporters/commentators wail all day about horrible he/she is.
So how does this keep the rich from unduly influencing politics?
For instance, many people assume that people will be able to continue to produce at the same level despite having reduced capital and increased costs as a result of tax increases and payroll tax increases and increased cost of supplies as a result of same.
Yeah but it's like the pinto: How many other (1 minute) improvements would actually have been better to add, but the aggregate of which would exceed a reasonable viewing time.
Also just because they may not be including the leopard bit, doesn't mean there won't be some kind of quick montage ending with a shot of the beware of leopard sign. or something equally hillarious (perhaps some kind of fires of mt. doom reference) The point is that a movie isn't just the words (dialogue) it's also the movie.
Why does everyone misquote that line?? or is that the line from the radio series?
In the books it's, "The answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything" Which sets up the joke later on that the question itself is unknown. The joke is that the scientists assumed that life, the universe and everything WAS the question.. kind of like you're doing now...
Assuming that it's not there (I haven't seen the film that's not out yet), the additional dialogue about the leopard did enhance the humor (though in a typical wordy brittish way), but is unnecessary for the overall gag: namely that the notice was on "public display" in a very unpublic place. The leopard bit just dresses it up a bit by pointing out how rediculously un-public the public display was.
The cheapest resource in a book is its words: you can have as many of them as you want really, no matter how long it takes to read.
By contrast, the most valuable resource in a film is, arguably, the time. If you want to fit the film into one sitting, you need take advantage of films strengths: it is a visual medium.. drop some dialogue and tell the rest of the joke with the visual portion. Which no doubt will be stunning if the trailer is typical of the film.
What makes you think removing the tax will result in less government revinue? haven't you ever heard of the laffer curve?
It's one thing to suggest that we're on one side or the other, but quite another to ignore it completely.
The solution is to publish the exact wording of the actual questions. (also might be good to publish the exact method of choosing the pool of questionees)
But the exact wording of the questions would, to a certain degree, "open-source" opinion polling.
speaking of which.. is there a format for animated files? things with a few lines and not much else? On a project i'm working on uses a lot of low-color animated graphs. It seems really wasteful to encode as bitmap,(so we're generating the animations on-the-fly) but mpeg is definately not appropriate for such things: too many artifacts. Is there an "animated-postscript" format?
Actually i had to look to see which keys they were. I normally don't even think about where the keys are once my fingers are in the right place. I suppose it doesn't really matter WHICH two keys as long as they're for different hands. Anyone use dvorak want to tell us which two they are on?
No matter how bad enterprise is it's still better than "Martin"
Fortunately, the less interesting stuff is available, the less tempeted i will be two watch the stuff. maybe i'll finally be able to ween myself from the "time burglar."
(crap i'm posting on slashdot now.)
we need a two bumps: one for the f and one for the j. other than that, we don't even need VISUAL feedback.
Wasn't Nixon helping stir the rivalry between china and ussr to ease some of the pressure from eastern europe? I would think that a key event in the ending of the cold war would be kind of important. Of course at some point you do have to consider the plight of tibet and taiwan regardless of lofty goals.
(it does always concern me when countries strike agreements about specific levels of trade rather than general trade policy: if you want more trade, just get out of the way and let the businesses on both sides find each other, right?)
The wiki article about it makes some errors in its key assumptions: namely that fertility increases with increasing economy. It can be shown that the most affluent countries (US and Western Europe) have the lowest birthrates and afaik population growth. Evidence suggest that the more wealth is available to a population, the more intereseted in that wealth they become, putting more pragmatic interests like reproduction on 'the back burner' as it were. I would suggest that this need not even be greed: people in affluent societies simply have more diversions to occupy their time and they may want to try them all (which would be experience-greed i guess)
Unfortunately, none of those advances were directly the result of the space program. Their existance either predates usage in the space program or in the rare case, may have been accelerated slightly due to the funding levels.
"Water purification systems" have been most influenced by the submarine industry for instance. The current reverse-osmosis desalination techniques were developed for use on nuclear submarines. (this is not to say that the advances would not have occured without submarine investment.)
"weather forcasting" is a very good example of a direct benefit of space operations, but a very bad example of a direct benefit of manned spaceflight.
It is not enough to rattle off a list of ancillary benefits to human spaceflight research. There must be a direct space-related benefit to motivate spending there. Off-site backup is the most long-term reason. At current technological levels it might not be practical, but should be the ultimate goal of space research. (Interestingly, no one seems to be talking about last-ditch right-before-the-disaster offsite backup, in which our options would be less limited: launching a fleet of atomic rockets might not be practical now with the poisoning of the atmosphere that would result, but in light of an earth-destroying asteroid or mad-scientist with laser sharks, it may be that the impact would be less relevant--atomic rockets are the present-day technology that even *could* be used to build huge space-arks. Why not build a couple now and leave them in a mountain in the desert?
Developing space-based resources poses another challenge: suppose you discover a platinum asteroid? In order to make it worthwile you not only have to figure out how to mine it, but also at a cost that takes into account the massive devaluation of platinum that would occur on developing that resource. As a result the primary benefit in extra-terrestrial mining is the low cost to orbit the resources: it reduces the cost to develop in-space industry, which basically brings us back to reason 1: off-site backup.
So why aren't we working on two things: Figuring out how to build nuclear rockets and figuring out how to mitigate their fallout? (if the radioactive elements can be eliminated (highly radioactive products that decay very quickly could be sufficient) or contained, all of a sudden such rockets become practical.)
I'm also dissapointed that the tone of this post seems to have taken an anti-manned-spaceflight tack. I do think we should have a manned program and like everyone else would certainly like to be part of it. I'm just not sure I have a better reason to offer than Sir Edmond Hillary's, "Because its there"
hmm.. could be a colloquialism.. in NY, they say online when they mean in line.
the difficulty with folks who do not examine evolution-ary ideas is that they tend to be extremely narrow in their perspective and logic is not part of their thought process. What the textbook says is right and they will justifiy that right-ness regardless of the number of mental hoops through which they must jump. Add to that the notion that because they are using "science" it must be right and the current situation is easy to understand.
The solution? There may not be one as long as pronouncements of the holy order of the labcoat continues to hold popular sway in the media and textbook manufacturers are content to propogate popular falsehoods.
The problem is that while many have blind faith in the "tenets of science," those same people are either unwilling or unable to critically analyse the results brought forth by scientists. As any adherent to the scientific method will attest, as well as quite a few epicureans, there are no known facts in science. There are only theories and laws which we believe to be a very close approximation to the real workings of the universe. To simply accept these as the ULTIMATE TRUTH is to commit the very sin you accuse your straw man of "christian conservatives" (a group which must also contain moslems, orthodox jews, and many others) as science-hating luddites. The odd thing is that, while faith is not a virtue in the field of science, it is a high virtue of most any religion you can find. In this regard, your position is less self-consistant than the "lowest common denominator" you lambaste.
The drivers that came with my motherboard are not signed, the driver for my monitor is not signed (it's quite old), I forget about the graphics card.. printer drivers not signed - what am i supposed to do? use my computer with the "default" monitor at much lower resolution and refresh rate than my monitor is capable of, and never print anything?
I would like to ammend: reset the counter (or lower it or something) for each rewrite. I'd expect the pages in "edit wars" would also get a lot of votes.