It appears I wasn't clear - whilst we do have lots of information on some microgravity scenarios, there's little available for the specific case that will be experience in a mars mission of several months micro-g followed by a short period of high-g (during landing/take-off at mars) followed by several more months at micro gravity.
I'm not sure I'd call Mars gravity "micro-g", since it's really about 1/3 g. But anyway, you might be interested in the Mars Society's upcoming Translife mission, which will test how well mice do in 1/3 g, hopefully indicating whether adult humans can not only survive 1/3 g but also reproduce after living on Mars for a while. The mice will be brought back to Earth, and during the fall to Earth, the mice will experience the high-g you're talking about.
the weight cost of a spun module is very high, and this I suspect would be crippling to the viability of a spun habitat module
You can use the spent upper stage of the rocket, which should already be going at about the same velocity as the hab. I'm not sure how much energy it takes to get the two spinning around each other, though.
I strongly support manned exploration of space, however long term desireability must be balanced against short term practicality - whilst we could initiate a manned mars mission program today it wouldn't be practical, and I doubt it will be practical for another 20-30 years.
I think it's practical today, and I don't think it will become more practical 20-30 years from now if all we do is wait.
Because bash recognizes $1, substitutes it, and concatenates it with 'foo'.
That's not a justification any more than "Windows crashes because it dereferences dangling pointers" is a justification for Windows crashing.
If variables really are lists (like you said), then $1foo means "concetenate foo to the last term in the list". How often do you want to do that? I'd bet that $1foo is more often typed by someone who didn't realize $1 could contain a space than by someone who actually wants to treat $1 as a list and concatenate foo to the last term. We just saw an example where $1foo not being a syntax error led to severe data loss. Can you give a reason why bash shouldn't issue an error or warning when it sees $1foo outside of quotes?
It's reasonable to expect a site to not try to take over your computer (pop-up ads), but you shouldn't expect to find a lot of porn sites that are completely free of advertising; porn sites have to make money to pay for bandwidth and content. What do you find so annoying about porn banner ads, by the way? It's only when I'm reading text (at news sites) that I find myself hitting the Esc key to stop animations. I haven't encountered many annoying porn banner ads recently.
I used to avoid clicking on porn banner ads because they often lead to pop-ups, but now I block pop-ups and often click on banner ads. (See my URL for why I never simply disabled javascript.)
This immediately rules out any of the usual spiel of the site using ActiveX/DHTML etc. because Mac IE is pretty standards compliant.
Mac IE supports many W3C standards better than Win IE does, but I'm pretty sure it also supports MS extensions to the dom such as document.all. Remember that these specs are very open-ended (to allow for forwards compatibility), so implementing support for standards doesn't require throwing out support for browser-specific extensions.
Similarly, the HTML spec doesn't tell you what to do when a page contains invalid HTML. Most browsers will try to guess what the author meant or at least ignore the errors, and IE tends to do the former more than other browsers. Since Mozilla developers can't see IE's source code, they have to play black box in order to emulate what IE does on non-standard pages. As a result, Mozilla engineers couldn't copy every one of IE's quirks even if they wanted to, but Microsoft could make a HTML4-compliant browser that included most of these quirks.
Google's "which pages link to mine" feature only gives you a fraction of the sites that link. If I search for 'link:joaniesthoughts.blogspot.com' (my friend's page), I don't get any hits, but if I search for 'jcc slashdot squarefree', I do get the part of my site that links to her site.
(Signetics near ("Write Only Memory" or "write-only memory")) or ("dark emitting diode") or ("light emitting resistor")
I'd just do three searches:
Signetics "write only memory"
Dark emitting diode
Light emitting resistor
I'd split the search into three searches even if I was using Altavista, because with separate searches I can tell if one of my search terms is giving irrelevant results, and I can learn which terms give no hits at all. The only thing Google doesn't give you from your example is the "near" operator, which isn't really a boolean operator.
The OR operator only gives you an advantage if several of your search terms have alternate spellings: (crash and (find or search) and (close or cancel)). I often use that kind of search when I'm looking for known Mozilla bugs in bugzilla, but I rarely need to use queries that complex when searching the web.
Currently we have the standard banner size on top of all pages, but soon the article pages will instead have those huge square things that you see on CNet or ZD.
Slashdot is a geek site. We know how to block ads if it becomes necessary. Instead of making the ads more annoying, make them more interesting. Allow readers to support Slashdot -- and get other readers to keep their eyes on the ad space -- by creating a mechanism through which readers can post joke ads and ads for their personal sites. Create discussion forums for the ads, where readers can comment on the ad, the company, or the product. Allow readers to vote for their favorite ads.
Re:Ads are not necessarily bad...
on
Slashdot Updates
·
· Score: 2
Aren't they called pop-unders? Am I the only one to not wonser why they're not called "pop-behinds"?
They're not really either. They're pop-ups followed by the main window jumping in front of *all* other windows. They only seem like pop-unders if you limit yourself to using one browser window at a time.
I gave Google $50 by advertising my site under several low-traffic keywords for a month. Even though that didn't give me any revenue (my site is free), I'd do it again, because it was fun and it allowed me to support a site I love. Why can't I do something simliar on Slashdot -- for example, advertise my site on Mozilla stories?
I'd also like to see ad moderation. If people like your ad, it gets displayed more often, at no cost to you. This would encourage advertisers to put up ads that don't annoy readers. There could also be a discussion forum (sid) for each ad, allowing readers to give public feedback to the advertisers, and encouraging karma whores to visit advertisers' sites.
I've also hit about 5 different "lameness filters", several of them many times, and I've seen several posts from ASCII-porn trolls that were probably created only to show they can get around those filters.
I get that with IE about 5% of the time. It's especially annoying in IE because IE won't remember what I typed in this textarea when I hit the back button.
One interesting feature of Konqueror is that it allows you to change the User-Agent string on the fly... it's the frog icon on the alternate toolbar.
That's the wrong way to solve the problem, because when a site has a good reason to check your UA, such as a known crash in your version of Konq, they won't be able to redirect you away from the crash.
It's possible to opt out of telemarketing, and a telemarketer actually has to spend money to advertise, so phone companies don't try to prevent telemarketers from making calls. I don't understand what you mean by a "spam-friendly bank" or a "spam-friendly legal firm": you can't send spam through a bank or a legal firm, so it wouldn't make sense to bounce e-mail coming through one.
Executive Summary: Any measure for stopping spam must ensure that all non-spam messages reach their intended recipients.
I'd much rather have my ISP _bounce_ the message, informing the sender that I did not receive the message, than have to set up filters to delete the message once it reaches my computer. I can't bounce the message myself, because that would inform the spammer that my address is active.
There is a fundamental free speech right to be able to send and receive messages, regardless of medium. Unless that right is being abused by a particular individual, that individual must not be restricted.
If you're using an ISP that has been blocked due to allowing spam (or not helping to find the individuals who spam using the service), you can switch to another ISP that hasn't been blocked. You cannot use a spam-friendly ISP and expect to be able to send messages to users at other ISPs.
Same experience here. I was at a Radio Shack on Saturday, buying floppy disks. As I was leaving, my brother noticed something that looked like a computer mouse but was shaped to look like a cat. I noticed that it had a colon on it, and realized out loud that it was the cuecat Slashdot is always talking about. (I didn't know the cuecat was shaped like a cat!) Someone working the store mentioned that it was free, but I didn't take one.
So here's a plan to decrease piracy. Every band has a back catalogue of covers, garage recordings, and so on that will probably never get released and are next to worthless commerically. All they have to do is say "From now on, we're monitoring KaZaA/Morpheus/Gnutella/etc, and every fortnight where there's an average of less than XYZ files shared from us, we release new material for you to legally download free of charge".
So if I don't like Metallica, I should pirate each of their songs once a day?
Re:Mozilla 0.9.5 is getting better and better
on
Mozilla 0.9.5
·
· Score: 1
I think what he meant was "Plus, I don't have to keep a mozilla window open all the time". Which, for me, is the major advantage to having quicklaunch enabled. (I don't care whether it starts quickly right after I start my computer.)
IIRC, talkbalk only starts recording uptime after the first time you crash. So if you use the browser for 304 hours before the first time it crashes, the talkbalk server won't know.
Slashdot Mirror
It appears I wasn't clear - whilst we do have lots of information on some microgravity scenarios, there's little available for the specific case that will be experience in a mars mission of several months micro-g followed by a short period of high-g (during landing/take-off at mars) followed by several more months at micro gravity.
I'm not sure I'd call Mars gravity "micro-g", since it's really about 1/3 g. But anyway, you might be interested in the Mars Society's upcoming Translife mission, which will test how well mice do in 1/3 g, hopefully indicating whether adult humans can not only survive 1/3 g but also reproduce after living on Mars for a while. The mice will be brought back to Earth, and during the fall to Earth, the mice will experience the high-g you're talking about.
the weight cost of a spun module is very high, and this I suspect would be crippling to the viability of a spun habitat module
You can use the spent upper stage of the rocket, which should already be going at about the same velocity as the hab. I'm not sure how much energy it takes to get the two spinning around each other, though.
I strongly support manned exploration of space, however long term desireability must be balanced against short term practicality - whilst we could initiate a manned mars mission program today it wouldn't be practical, and I doubt it will be practical for another 20-30 years.
I think it's practical today, and I don't think it will become more practical 20-30 years from now if all we do is wait.
Because bash recognizes $1, substitutes it, and concatenates it with 'foo'.
That's not a justification any more than "Windows crashes because it dereferences dangling pointers" is a justification for Windows crashing.
If variables really are lists (like you said), then $1foo means "concetenate foo to the last term in the list". How often do you want to do that? I'd bet that $1foo is more often typed by someone who didn't realize $1 could contain a space than by someone who actually wants to treat $1 as a list and concatenate foo to the last term. We just saw an example where $1foo not being a syntax error led to severe data loss. Can you give a reason why bash shouldn't issue an error or warning when it sees $1foo outside of quotes?
If variables are supposed to be lists, then why isn't $1foo (without quotes) a syntax error?
It's very hard to cause data loss with a missing semicolon. In all likelihood, you'll get a syntax error when you try to compile.
There's a bug in you pseudo-code. Attached is a patch which fixes the problem.
It's pseudocode. You can't patch pseudocode. You have to pseudopatch it, like this:
- return startInstall(instalDrive);
+ return startInstall(installDrive);
or like this:
Replace instalDrive with installDrive.
It's reasonable to expect a site to not try to take over your computer (pop-up ads), but you shouldn't expect to find a lot of porn sites that are completely free of advertising; porn sites have to make money to pay for bandwidth and content. What do you find so annoying about porn banner ads, by the way? It's only when I'm reading text (at news sites) that I find myself hitting the Esc key to stop animations. I haven't encountered many annoying porn banner ads recently.
I used to avoid clicking on porn banner ads because they often lead to pop-ups, but now I block pop-ups and often click on banner ads. (See my URL for why I never simply disabled javascript.)
This immediately rules out any of the usual spiel of the site using ActiveX/DHTML etc. because Mac IE is pretty standards compliant.
Mac IE supports many W3C standards better than Win IE does, but I'm pretty sure it also supports MS extensions to the dom such as document.all. Remember that these specs are very open-ended (to allow for forwards compatibility), so implementing support for standards doesn't require throwing out support for browser-specific extensions.
Similarly, the HTML spec doesn't tell you what to do when a page contains invalid HTML. Most browsers will try to guess what the author meant or at least ignore the errors, and IE tends to do the former more than other browsers. Since Mozilla developers can't see IE's source code, they have to play black box in order to emulate what IE does on non-standard pages. As a result, Mozilla engineers couldn't copy every one of IE's quirks even if they wanted to, but Microsoft could make a HTML4-compliant browser that included most of these quirks.
When I installed the Google toolbar, they installer made it very clear which options sent what data to Google and how to turn them off.
Google's "which pages link to mine" feature only gives you a fraction of the sites that link. If I search for 'link:joaniesthoughts.blogspot.com' (my friend's page), I don't get any hits, but if I search for 'jcc slashdot squarefree', I do get the part of my site that links to her site.
(Signetics near ("Write Only Memory" or "write-only memory")) or ("dark emitting diode") or ("light emitting resistor")
I'd just do three searches:
- Signetics "write only memory"
- Dark emitting diode
- Light emitting resistor
I'd split the search into three searches even if I was using Altavista, because with separate searches I can tell if one of my search terms is giving irrelevant results, and I can learn which terms give no hits at all. The only thing Google doesn't give you from your example is the "near" operator, which isn't really a boolean operator.The OR operator only gives you an advantage if several of your search terms have alternate spellings: (crash and (find or search) and (close or cancel)). I often use that kind of search when I'm looking for known Mozilla bugs in bugzilla, but I rarely need to use queries that complex when searching the web.
"write only memory" (with quotes) works fine for me and returns the same results as write.only.memory.
I use light mode, and I haven't seen the bar..
Currently we have the standard banner size on top of all pages, but soon the article pages will instead have those huge square things that you see on CNet or ZD.
Slashdot is a geek site. We know how to block ads if it becomes necessary. Instead of making the ads more annoying, make them more interesting. Allow readers to support Slashdot -- and get other readers to keep their eyes on the ad space -- by creating a mechanism through which readers can post joke ads and ads for their personal sites. Create discussion forums for the ads, where readers can comment on the ad, the company, or the product. Allow readers to vote for their favorite ads.
Aren't they called pop-unders? Am I the only one to not wonser why they're not called "pop-behinds"?
They're not really either. They're pop-ups followed by the main window jumping in front of *all* other windows. They only seem like pop-unders if you limit yourself to using one browser window at a time.
I gave Google $50 by advertising my site under several low-traffic keywords for a month. Even though that didn't give me any revenue (my site is free), I'd do it again, because it was fun and it allowed me to support a site I love. Why can't I do something simliar on Slashdot -- for example, advertise my site on Mozilla stories?
I'd also like to see ad moderation. If people like your ad, it gets displayed more often, at no cost to you. This would encourage advertisers to put up ads that don't annoy readers. There could also be a discussion forum (sid) for each ad, allowing readers to give public feedback to the advertisers, and encouraging karma whores to visit advertisers' sites.
*hand raised*
I've also hit about 5 different "lameness filters", several of them many times, and I've seen several posts from ASCII-porn trolls that were probably created only to show they can get around those filters.
what the hell is this invalid formkeys error?
I get that with IE about 5% of the time. It's especially annoying in IE because IE won't remember what I typed in this textarea when I hit the back button.
One interesting feature of Konqueror is that it allows you to change the User-Agent string on the fly ... it's the frog icon on the alternate toolbar.
That's the wrong way to solve the problem, because when a site has a good reason to check your UA, such as a known crash in your version of Konq, they won't be able to redirect you away from the crash.
I saw a similar ad for openxxx on a Mozilla newsgroup. I think it's just spam.
It's possible to opt out of telemarketing, and a telemarketer actually has to spend money to advertise, so phone companies don't try to prevent telemarketers from making calls. I don't understand what you mean by a "spam-friendly bank" or a "spam-friendly legal firm": you can't send spam through a bank or a legal firm, so it wouldn't make sense to bounce e-mail coming through one.
Executive Summary: Any measure for stopping spam must ensure that all non-spam messages reach their intended recipients.
I'd much rather have my ISP _bounce_ the message, informing the sender that I did not receive the message, than have to set up filters to delete the message once it reaches my computer. I can't bounce the message myself, because that would inform the spammer that my address is active.
There is a fundamental free speech right to be able to send and receive messages, regardless of medium. Unless that right is being abused by a particular individual, that individual must not be restricted.
If you're using an ISP that has been blocked due to allowing spam (or not helping to find the individuals who spam using the service), you can switch to another ISP that hasn't been blocked. You cannot use a spam-friendly ISP and expect to be able to send messages to users at other ISPs.
Same experience here. I was at a Radio Shack on Saturday, buying floppy disks. As I was leaving, my brother noticed something that looked like a computer mouse but was shaped to look like a cat. I noticed that it had a colon on it, and realized out loud that it was the cuecat Slashdot is always talking about. (I didn't know the cuecat was shaped like a cat!) Someone working the store mentioned that it was free, but I didn't take one.
So here's a plan to decrease piracy. Every band has a back catalogue of covers, garage recordings, and so on that will probably never get released and are next to worthless commerically. All they have to do is say "From now on, we're monitoring KaZaA/Morpheus/Gnutella/etc, and every fortnight where there's an average of less than XYZ files shared from us, we release new material for you to legally download free of charge".
So if I don't like Metallica, I should pirate each of their songs once a day?
I think what he meant was "Plus, I don't have to keep a mozilla window open all the time". Which, for me, is the major advantage to having quicklaunch enabled. (I don't care whether it starts quickly right after I start my computer.)
IIRC, talkbalk only starts recording uptime after the first time you crash. So if you use the browser for 304 hours before the first time it crashes, the talkbalk server won't know.