Consider this - suppose the investigator was looking for a fleeing prisoner and used binoculars to search as he traveled through the city. While engaged in that search he saw a robbery in progress through the binoculars and called the city police to make the arrest. Would he have violated the law by making that search? Should there be a legal difference between searches by photon versus those by electron?
Nope, bad analogy. Try a car chase or something....
The binocular search is in the public view. The computer search goes into private territory. The better analogy in your case would be if the investigator had to enter someone's house (without a warrant) to view a potential crime. Can't do that.
Seriously, a load of bull. "If we can't kill Cancer". You'd like that, wouldn't you? No, the Medical industry and corporations would like that disinfo so they can keep selling placebo medicine and useless overpriced medicine to people, as well as all the devices and aperture. If we get a cure for Cancer, the corporations and medical industry stand to lose billions and trillions in the long term.
We've had the means and we know the means, to kill Cancer, for years. We've had the means to make a special bacteria, or use a special solution, that identifies a specific type of cell in the human body, any specific type. If you have the means to identify it and designate it, then you have the means to eliminate it. Nano-technology helps there, if not specially designed bacteria.
I know! Let's improve this discussion by talking about vaccines.
Won't happen. If any country finds a cure we'll bomb the shit out of them because, as Madeleine Albright stated so clearly, WE ARE AMERICA. Submit to our rule or be destroyed!
Could you please go back to reading the backs of road signs and trying to map out UN invasion routes?
Human beings are flawed, even scientists. People pursue agendas and that which will make them both money and garner attention. The problem is that group think impacts scientists every bit as much as any other profession. The question is, how can we verify science when most of the population don't even understand it? Much like politicians and covert policy, the public has to trust experts in their fields. With so little oversight what can we do?
Science is, eventually, self correcting. It may take months (in this case), decades (cf, Plate Tectonics) or hundreds of years (the nonsense spouted by Pliny and Aristotle). There are probably large swaths of what we take for scientific understanding that are still wrong (or not even wrong). But there is a self correcting mechanism. In this, Science is rather unique among human endeavors.
.. why doesn't the ISS have some sort of light maneuvering craft? A small 2-3 person craft could access satellites, do research away from the ISS, or even (with a slightly larger craft) do mapping and surveying missions of the moon.
Look up Delta V and get back to us with your handy 'little' spacecraft.
These are SPORTS ANNOUNCERS! People who hold down the left-hand side of the bell-curve for any "dim" metaphor you can try to apply.
Oh please. We have weather forecasters and politicians to deal with. A Sports Announcer is going to be like a 3V LED hooked up to house mains compared to those two.
It's everything the Shuttle should have been (second time's a charm). They know how to build things.
So does SpaceX. Unfortunately, the winner will likely be the one with the most political clout (YoYoDyne), but engineering wise, they both are good designs and both companies can execute.
The best we can hope for is that SpaceX gets enough tossed at them to keep going.
That's actually a silly argument. We don't have to get off this rock. We could learn how to play nice with this very comfortable spaceship that just popped up out of nowhere. Even if we want to get off this rock, we don't have to do it just now. We could use the money for more important things or just spend less.
No, the real reason to go into space (and the ocean, don't forget the ocean) is because it's cool. The rest is just filler for a grant proposal.
Slashdot Mirror
Consider this - suppose the investigator was looking for a fleeing prisoner and used binoculars to search as he traveled through the city. While engaged in that search he saw a robbery in progress through the binoculars and called the city police to make the arrest. Would he have violated the law by making that search? Should there be a legal difference between searches by photon versus those by electron?
Nope, bad analogy. Try a car chase or something....
The binocular search is in the public view. The computer search goes into private territory. The better analogy in your case would be if the investigator had to enter someone's house (without a warrant) to view a potential crime. Can't do that.
"What do I think of Western Civilization?"
"I think it would be a very good idea."
Remember that conversation?
Seriously, a load of bull. "If we can't kill Cancer". You'd like that, wouldn't you? No, the Medical industry and corporations would like that disinfo so they can keep selling placebo medicine and useless overpriced medicine to people, as well as all the devices and aperture. If we get a cure for Cancer, the corporations and medical industry stand to lose billions and trillions in the long term.
We've had the means and we know the means, to kill Cancer, for years. We've had the means to make a special bacteria, or use a special solution, that identifies a specific type of cell in the human body, any specific type.
If you have the means to identify it and designate it, then you have the means to eliminate it. Nano-technology helps there, if not specially designed bacteria.
I know! Let's improve this discussion by talking about vaccines.
I take it that you flunked statistics.
And calculus.
And biology.
But keep it up, positive thinking is good for you.
Won't happen. If any country finds a cure we'll bomb the shit out of them because, as Madeleine Albright stated so clearly, WE ARE AMERICA. Submit to our rule or be destroyed!
Could you please go back to reading the backs of road signs and trying to map out UN invasion routes?
Governments typically hate competition. Too many drones will spoil it for everybody^Hthe three letter agencies.
Oh look! A radionuclide! Run Away! Run Away!
Exactly how long do you want You Tube videos to be anyway?
Why do you hate America?
Pretty much this.
TL;DR, careful what you ask for, you might get it and peaceful conflict resolution always beats the alternative.
Well, it does say "Science Blog - Straight from the Source". So what were you expecting?
And, like everyone else, I can't make heads or tails out of it either, but at least your source has a cool picture.
No, this is just Microsoft's Marketing Move of The Month. They change marketing strategies faster than Miley Cyrus changes clothes.
Human beings are flawed, even scientists. People pursue agendas and that which will make them both money and garner attention. The problem is that group think impacts scientists every bit as much as any other profession. The question is, how can we verify science when most of the population don't even understand it? Much like politicians and covert policy, the public has to trust experts in their fields. With so little oversight what can we do?
Science is, eventually, self correcting. It may take months (in this case), decades (cf, Plate Tectonics) or hundreds of years (the nonsense spouted by Pliny and Aristotle). There are probably large swaths of what we take for scientific understanding that are still wrong (or not even wrong). But there is a self correcting mechanism. In this, Science is rather unique among human endeavors.
You can imagine lots of things (and please, keep it to yourself). Whether or not you would be correct is another thing.
No, you're not correct in this instance. It's complicated
OK folks, you heard it here first.
Slashdot. Ahead of everybody, all of the time.
Just ask us.
Look up Delta V and get back to us with your handy 'little' spacecraft.
They were purposely not invited. Then they were sort of not invited (Read the TFA, it's weird). Now they've invited everyone else to join their party.
If it's your party, you get to decide on the decorations and the cuisine.
These are SPORTS ANNOUNCERS! People who hold down the left-hand side of the bell-curve for any "dim" metaphor you can try to apply.
Oh please. We have weather forecasters and politicians to deal with. A Sports Announcer is going to be like a 3V LED hooked up to house mains compared to those two.
It's dark, silly.
Hey Bozo: Check out this Boeing Bad Boy.
It's everything the Shuttle should have been (second time's a charm). They know how to build things.
So does SpaceX. Unfortunately, the winner will likely be the one with the most political clout (YoYoDyne), but engineering wise, they both are good designs and both companies can execute.
The best we can hope for is that SpaceX gets enough tossed at them to keep going.
That's actually a silly argument. We don't have to get off this rock. We could learn how to play nice with this very comfortable spaceship that just popped up out of nowhere. Even if we want to get off this rock, we don't have to do it just now. We could use the money for more important things or just spend less.
No, the real reason to go into space (and the ocean, don't forget the ocean) is because it's cool. The rest is just filler for a grant proposal.
There's no universal method for constructing a prior. It's a big source of potential error.
Don't they just have to go into an monastery or something like that?
What's wrong with a party balloon and a hose?
Fall into a swamp, maybe.
We could print them, perhaps.