But seriously, why does the explosion need to be nuclear.
You could probably do it with conventional high explosives, you would just need A LOT (tens of thousands of tonnes) of them, which would be tricky to set.
It has to do with the GPS system tangentially. It's part of the GCCS/WAAS system, which augments the GPS system for flight navigation purposes. It also relays TV signals.
2 8GB solid state disks. One primary, one redundant.
They'll already be sending data while on their way to a KBO. They have about 5 years to work with from when it passes Pluto to when the signal is too weak to send back data at a useful rate.
Also, the probe can't transmit data and take imagery at the same time.
Regardless of how much storage they have on board, they're still limited by the the transmission rate. Assuming they were able to maintain a 500bps average over the entire 5 years after pluto, they would only be able to send about 9.2GB total.
Recording is no problem, it's sending it back. New Horizons will only be able to send back about 8GB of data. Even with the big dish it has and a 70 metre dish on the ground here, you only get about 1 kilobit per second of transfer out at Pluto.
What? I haven't seen a wifi card that isn't capable of that, aside from ones that pointblank don't work on Linux without annoying hacks (NDISwrapper), like broadcom-based ones.
You typically can't do that kind of thing on Windows, but it's trivial on Linux.
The effect is called Canadian raising. It's partially dependent on the listener. Someone who speaks in the same manner (other Canadians, people from the northwest states and New England, some Brits) will hear it as "abowt" as normal, whereas someone who speaks it differently may hear it as "aboat" or "aboot".
They're trying to do that (Roughly 3 million litres collected so far), but the weather is not cooperating. It's too windy for that to work well. It's also hampering the effectiveness of the containment booms.
Can anybody tell me about the chemical dispersants? what happens to the 'dispersed' oil plus these chemicals? This is a naive question, please educate me but surely this means you now have oil+chemical in your water rather than just oil in your water - is the dilution level so low that it doesn't affect the sealife that is later caught to ea
Remember, oil floats, so an oil spill doesn't have oil in the water. It has oil on the water. You've got a layer of toxic pure oil sitting on top of the water. The dispersants allow it dilute into the depth of the water. This then allows the oil to be broken down by microorganisms. Oil is biodegradable (Remember, it once was animal and plant matter), but only low concentrations due to the toxicity. Over time, it will be broken down back into hydrogen and carbon.
No, 47 states allow women to expose their breasts strictly for the purpose of breastfeeding. Of those 47, 7 of those allow women to expose their breasts under any circumstances. 43 states do not allow women to expose their breasts, and of those, 3 do not make an exception for breastfeeding.
Technically yes, but whether the law would hold up in court is a different consideration, as is whether people pay any attention to the legal protection.
Depends on your definition of "most places". It's illegal for a woman to expose her breasts in public (excluding for breastfeeding, which is protected in 47 states) in most of the USA. Exceptions are California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, New York, Ohio, and Texas.
When you've got drive by exploits in ads appearing on otherwise reputable sites (nytimes.com, for example), it doesn't really matter how careful and sensible you are when you're using IE.
One theory I've heard thrown around is that the trait exists in some small percentage of people, but is only triggered by an outside factor sometimes, possibly population density. As density rises, the probability of the homosexual individual finding another homosexual individual rises sharply. If the density is insufficient, they reproduce as normal and the gene carries on. I suspect that the advent of Judaism, Christianity, and other monogamous anti-homosexual religions may have affected this in recent times.
As an aside, a trait doesn't have to be beneficial to stay in the gene pool, it just has to not be (sufficiently) harmful.
Another tidbit is also likely explains why I get moderated to hell is that many mental illnesses also show up on MRIs. Which suggests diseases such as sociopaths and psychopaths, among many others, are not actually diseases. You can't have it both ways. If you follow the logical conclusion, either these are not diseases or they are
How do you figure that? The root cause of something does not determine whether it is or is not a disease. For example, a bacterial infection and gut flora both have the same root cause, but one is a disease and the other is normal, as the former is harmful and the latter is typically beneficial or at least neutral.
IMO, the big grand treaties method is the wrong approach. From an emission standpoint, the developing nations and other small countries are irrelevant and will remain so for some time yet.
It would be a better idea to just work on the G8+China+EU and maybe Australia, agreeing on something, or even just getting the US and China to agree on something. It would achieve the majority of the results for a lot less work and get it done a lot faster. Once that's done, then they can work on hashing things out with the developing nations and other small emitters.
1. News breaks overnight that will make people want to buy company FOO stock. 2. The instant (as determined by the very accurate clocks on their servers) the market opens, trading firm BAR buys up all the available FOO stock and then instantly puts it back up for sale for a little bit more. 3. The rush of people buying the stock buy it from firm BAR.
Rinse and repeat every day and you're talking about billions of dollars made by firm BAR that people without ultra accurate clocks and time distribution can't make, thus you get an arms race to get more and more accurate timing.
Slashdot Mirror
You're missing about 3 zeros off your cold war bombs. Those bombs were in the 25 Megatonne range.
But seriously, why does the explosion need to be nuclear.
You could probably do it with conventional high explosives, you would just need A LOT (tens of thousands of tonnes) of them, which would be tricky to set.
It has to do with the GPS system tangentially. It's part of the GCCS/WAAS system, which augments the GPS system for flight navigation purposes. It also relays TV signals.
Sibling post has a link to a PDF with tons of info.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1644504&cid=32132182
2 8GB solid state disks. One primary, one redundant.
They'll already be sending data while on their way to a KBO. They have about 5 years to work with from when it passes Pluto to when the signal is too weak to send back data at a useful rate.
Also, the probe can't transmit data and take imagery at the same time.
Regardless of how much storage they have on board, they're still limited by the the transmission rate. Assuming they were able to maintain a 500bps average over the entire 5 years after pluto, they would only be able to send about 9.2GB total.
Recording is no problem, it's sending it back. New Horizons will only be able to send back about 8GB of data. Even with the big dish it has and a 70 metre dish on the ground here, you only get about 1 kilobit per second of transfer out at Pluto.
That depends entirely on if the speed limit is set with any regard to what a safe speed is for the area.
Has the B43 project page (http://wireless.kernel.org/en/users/Drivers/b43) been down for awhile or is it getting slashdotted?
Though I do have one of the unsupported cards in my laptop, namely the BCM-4321, which is an N card.
What? I haven't seen a wifi card that isn't capable of that, aside from ones that pointblank don't work on Linux without annoying hacks (NDISwrapper), like broadcom-based ones.
You typically can't do that kind of thing on Windows, but it's trivial on Linux.
The effect is called Canadian raising. It's partially dependent on the listener. Someone who speaks in the same manner (other Canadians, people from the northwest states and New England, some Brits) will hear it as "abowt" as normal, whereas someone who speaks it differently may hear it as "aboat" or "aboot".
They're trying to do that (Roughly 3 million litres collected so far), but the weather is not cooperating. It's too windy for that to work well. It's also hampering the effectiveness of the containment booms.
Can anybody tell me about the chemical dispersants? what happens to the 'dispersed' oil plus these chemicals? This is a naive question, please educate me but surely this means you now have oil+chemical in your water rather than just oil in your water - is the dilution level so low that it doesn't affect the sealife that is later caught to ea
Remember, oil floats, so an oil spill doesn't have oil in the water. It has oil on the water. You've got a layer of toxic pure oil sitting on top of the water. The dispersants allow it dilute into the depth of the water. This then allows the oil to be broken down by microorganisms. Oil is biodegradable (Remember, it once was animal and plant matter), but only low concentrations due to the toxicity. Over time, it will be broken down back into hydrogen and carbon.
The 47 states statement is separate from the listed states, hence the parenthesis.
7 states allow exposed breasts whenever.
40 allow exposed breasts only for breastfeeding.
3 don't allow exposed breasts period.
No, 47 states allow women to expose their breasts strictly for the purpose of breastfeeding. Of those 47, 7 of those allow women to expose their breasts under any circumstances. 43 states do not allow women to expose their breasts, and of those, 3 do not make an exception for breastfeeding.
it's 40 (exemption for breastfeeding) + 7 (allowed, period) + 3 (not allowed, period).
My statement made perfect sense to me, though maybe I'm tripping over something specific to American English.
Technically yes, but whether the law would hold up in court is a different consideration, as is whether people pay any attention to the legal protection.
Depends on your definition of "most places". It's illegal for a woman to expose her breasts in public (excluding for breastfeeding, which is protected in 47 states) in most of the USA. Exceptions are California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, New York, Ohio, and Texas.
When you've got drive by exploits in ads appearing on otherwise reputable sites (nytimes.com, for example), it doesn't really matter how careful and sensible you are when you're using IE.
As far as I've heard, Opera has been gaining users like crazy since the "choose your browser" thing came out.
One theory I've heard thrown around is that the trait exists in some small percentage of people, but is only triggered by an outside factor sometimes, possibly population density. As density rises, the probability of the homosexual individual finding another homosexual individual rises sharply. If the density is insufficient, they reproduce as normal and the gene carries on. I suspect that the advent of Judaism, Christianity, and other monogamous anti-homosexual religions may have affected this in recent times.
As an aside, a trait doesn't have to be beneficial to stay in the gene pool, it just has to not be (sufficiently) harmful.
Another tidbit is also likely explains why I get moderated to hell is that many mental illnesses also show up on MRIs. Which suggests diseases such as sociopaths and psychopaths, among many others, are not actually diseases. You can't have it both ways. If you follow the logical conclusion, either these are not diseases or they are
How do you figure that? The root cause of something does not determine whether it is or is not a disease. For example, a bacterial infection and gut flora both have the same root cause, but one is a disease and the other is normal, as the former is harmful and the latter is typically beneficial or at least neutral.
IMO, the big grand treaties method is the wrong approach. From an emission standpoint, the developing nations and other small countries are irrelevant and will remain so for some time yet.
It would be a better idea to just work on the G8+China+EU and maybe Australia, agreeing on something, or even just getting the US and China to agree on something. It would achieve the majority of the results for a lot less work and get it done a lot faster. Once that's done, then they can work on hashing things out with the developing nations and other small emitters.
And you be first by jumping exactly when the market opens, which is why the accurate timing is needed.
One example goes kinda like this
1. News breaks overnight that will make people want to buy company FOO stock.
2. The instant (as determined by the very accurate clocks on their servers) the market opens, trading firm BAR buys up all the available FOO stock and then instantly puts it back up for sale for a little bit more.
3. The rush of people buying the stock buy it from firm BAR.
Rinse and repeat every day and you're talking about billions of dollars made by firm BAR that people without ultra accurate clocks and time distribution can't make, thus you get an arms race to get more and more accurate timing.
That's why the title of the story says "heart surgery". Your link is about a gallbladder removal.
According to available information, roughly 1/4 of the US population cares what this guy thinks.