"In roughly the same orbit around the sun, a much smaller mass has to travel MUCH slower than the Earth to maintain that orbit."
No, any object in the same orbital path travels the same velocity.
Think about it this way. If I have a heavy object and a light object orbiting at Earth's distance from the sun, by your hypothesis one will travel faster than the other. So if I duct-tape them together they should travel at a speed somewhere in-between the fast one and the slow one. But the taped-together object masses the sum of both smaller objects so it should travel faster. It can't travel both faster than and slower than its larger half, so the hypothesis can't be right.
I know you found at least
one
page disagreeing with you, because you shared its link with us.
"Rainforests are vegetation types dominated by broad-leaved trees that form a dense upper canopy (layer of foliage). And the CANOPY is the key to calling it a 'rainforest.' Because of this canopy, very little sunlight will actually reach the forest floor and only ferns and other plants requiring very little sunlight can survive there...
Jungles, on the other hand, occur where... a large amount of sunlight reaches the ground and the vegetation and undergrowth is extremely dense..."
"Call it what it is, a jungle. Rainforest is politically correct newspeak."
I guess some memes never die. I heard that one ten years ago on a BBS.
It took me about 30 seconds to learn the difference between a jungle and a rainforest. And now we have Google so I expect it won't take nearly as long for you...
This "person" is obviously an invention of Microsoft marketing... no name. (Apple made a great move to have everyone in their "switch" ads identify themselves at the end. Microsoft didn't even try.)
The added touches of this "person" being 5-foot-3 and her husband six feet, and the "Lexus we rented once," was predicted by Philip K. Dick in his short story
The Mold of Yancy.
If you've read it, go read the Microsoft ad with an eye toward the similarity. It's creepy.
SE Linux may be the NSA's last direct contribution to open-source security, however. Because of loud criticism, the NSA will have a far less direct role in the creation of more secure versions of open-source software.
"We didn't fully understand the consequences of releasing software under the GPL (General Public License)," said Dick Schafer, deputy director of the NSA. "We received a lot of loud complaints regarding our efforts with SE Linux."
Many complaints criticized the agency for providing the fruits of research to everyone, not just U.S. companies, and thus hurting American business.
While stressing that the agency received a loud chorus of support as well, the chagrined Schafer said that the issue was contentious enough that "we won't be doing anything like that again."
Sources familiar with events said that aggressive Microsoft lobbying efforts have contributed to a halt on any further work. [emphasis added] "Microsoft was worried that the NSA's releasing open-source software would compete with American proprietary software," said a source familiar with the complaints against the NSA who asked not to be identified.
As far as I can tell, the WorldTechTribune position is:
Liberal = bin Laden = Clinton = communist = godless = inferior = open-source
Conservative = superior = Microsoft
Well, maybe not quite that bad, but close. Here are some samples from their articles:
"What makes open source the secure, stable and elegant software panacea open source cultists claim it is?... say you are the IT director at a bank and you buy into the Linux is stable, secure and bulletproof hype.... Welcome to the lazy, cut-and-paste world of open source 'innovation' where people who should be smart enough to know better still think you can get something for nothing. It would be humorous if it wasn't so pathetic..." ("Thanks to open source methods, only 2 out of 500 job-hunting programmers pass skills test")
"many customers who purchased those inherently more stable, secure and virus-proof Linux servers are probably wishing there was a multi-million dollar virus protection industry to help them out." ("New Linux virus creates peer-to-peer terror network")
"The SE Linux project was developed during the Clinton administration... NSA officials say their cyber security enhancements made for SE Linux have not only benefited the NSA, but because of the terms of the GPL have also strengthened the security architecture of computers used by malicious cyber terrorists around the world."
("NSA deputy director says 'never again' to Open Source")
That last article is just hysterical. The NSA administrators, under pressure from Microsoft, stopped development on SELinux -- because Microsoft didn't like the fact that government-developed code was released freely under the GPL. Microsoft objected to the competition. WorldTechTribune is using all its quotes out of context, and pretending that the objection was concerning national security and terrorism. Amazing.
"I used to like Tori. Now she's just too fscking stupid. Takes herself way too seriously if you know what I mean...
...it seems to me a lot of artists are good when they have a struggle in their life...you know, like before they're famous. Then they get bazillions of people telling them how wonderful they are and (as I'm sure anyone would) they start believing it...well, they probably thought they were to begin with and now they really accept it."
For some, that's true. Some of that is the "sophomore slump," which is probably largely statistical. (If a band's quality of output varies up and down, and if only the best work will get a band signed, it makes sense that most bands' quality, immediately after their first on-label effort, will go down. It's the same reasons sports figures have this superstition about slumping after appearing on the cover of Sports Illustrated -- if you did something cover-worthy, chances are whatever you do next week won't be.)
But for many musical artists, I think it's the opposite. Tori Amos's early work was good, don't get me wrong - I like Little Earthquakes and Under the Pink.
But once she broke away from the traditional song format, and didn't try to do radio-friendly, market-listenable stuff, her work just got amazing. Boys For Pele is one of the greatest albums of all time.
I'm not totally in love with From the Choirgirl Hotel, and I haven't listened to Strange Little Girls more than once, but... she'll hit her stride again. Genius recurs.
Real artists, I think, can always find that struggle and draw from it. In fact it kind of cheapens the idea of internal struggle to say that it can only be about "oh, my life is so hard, I'm on the road all the time" or "woe is me, I have to play in clubs by day and write music by night, and I eat cruddy food." If that's the worst thing that's ever happened to you, I can tell you, your well of inspiration to draw from is pretty shallow.
"there was ONE thing I could not explain. In some of the photos, the camera's crosshair is *partially behind* the scene. How is that possible unless the photos were airbrushed?"
Film is not perfect. Lenses are not perfect. Bright portions bleed into dark. When the dark portion is a very thin line like a crosshair, an adjacent light portion of the image will make the crosshair appear to be lighter, thinner, or just plain not there.
"The thing I don't like about Mach numbers is it's not consistent. Reason being, the speed of sound changes based on your altitude. Higher, where the air is thinner, sound travels slower."
Untrue. Sound travels slower because the air is colder, not thinner. The speed of sound in the Earth's atmosphere is proportional to the square root of the temperature, nothing else. http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/mach.htm
Here's an
atmosphere simulator
where you can pick an altitude and see the speed of sound. As it says, "the speed of sound depends on the temperature and the gas," not on pressure.
And I should add,
the law continues
to make it expressly clear that the author's right against destruction and distortion are not transferred except by explicit contract, nor are they conferred by simple sale of the artwork as you suggested, nor are they conferred by purchasing the copyright.
In other words, if I paint a painting and sell you both the original and its copyright, you can make prints of it and sell them. But you cannot legally destroy or deface my original. I retain that right, and it is not transferred to you as part of an ordinary copyright sale.
The rights conferred by subsection (a) may not be transferred, but those rights may be waived if the author expressly agrees to such waiver in a written instrument signed by the author.
Ownership of the rights conferred by subsection (a) with respect to a work of visual art is distinct from ownership of any copy of that work, or of a copyright or any exclusive right under a copyright in that work.
This is a weakened version of droit moral as enshrined in most European copyright law. (At least last I heard -- I don't know what's up with the EU recently.) In France, for example, an artist cannot give away the right to deface or destroy an original work of art, even by explicit contract.
"I'm pretty darn sure you're backwards on this, Jamie. Once I buy anything, period, I am free to do anything I wish to it...short of distributing copies which would be copyright infringement."
Copyright law is extremely complex. Making blanket statements about it is not recommended. I'm holding its text as of September 1996 and it's a 170-page book.
Sec. 106A. - Rights of certain authors to attribution and integrity
(a) Rights of Attribution and Integrity. -
Subject to section 107 and independent of the exclusive rights provided in section 106, the author of a work of visual art -
[...]
(3)
subject to the limitations set forth in section 113(d), shall have the right -
(A)
to prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation, and any intentional distortion, mutilation, or modification of that work is a violation of that right, and
(B)
to prevent any destruction of a work of recognized stature, and any intentional or grossly negligent destruction of that work is a violation of that right.
"Except that this idea doesn't even work with traditional art. Once an artist sells me their artwork, be it a sculpture, painting, whatever, the artist has no standing in telling me that i can't spray paint it any way i choose."
You're 100% wrong on this, according to U.S. copyright law. If an artist sells you one of his or her works of art such as a painting, the artist retains the copyright on that work. In the cases you describe (original works of painting or sculpture), you are not allowed to destroy or deface the work.
If you want to buy the copyright to a work of art, that's entirely different. That would be highly unusual for the examples you give.
U.S. copyright law does not go as far as "droit moral" in Europe, but there are some things you can't do.
"Another option would be to enable gzip compression on Apache. That would save probably 3/4 of the bandwidth they use"
Gzip is already enabled. It saves more than 75%. It also obviates whitespace-compression and many of the other things that have been discussed in this thread...
"how can putting living creatures (yeast) into a dish allow it to stay vegan?"
Well, (A), nutritional yeast is not alive, and (B) it isn't a creature (animal), it's a fungus. Vegans have no problem with eating plants, fungus, or bacteria -- it's just members of the animal kingdom that we have issues with.
Nutritional yeast has been killed and doesn't have any leavening power. It's actually quite tasty, with a sweet nutty, or a cheesy kind of flavor. I use it ground up with blanched almonds, in a shaker, to top pasta and pizza where others might use Parmesan cheese. One part sliced blanched almonds, food-process until ground, add two parts nutritional yeast and a pinch of salt.
Brewer's Yeast is different from nutritional yeast apparently. But it's allegedly the same species as well (Saccharomyces cerevisiae). Prepared differently? I don't know.
Saccharomyces Genome Database. It turns out this yeast is "clearly the most ideal eukaryotic microorganism for biological studies. The 'awesome power of yeast genetics' has become legendary and is the envy of those who work with higher eukaryotes." Delicious.
"I was logged in that time, the preview even fucking showed me as logged in, then I go to submit and I become AC again"
Sounds like a bug. If you can
file a bug report
with info about what browser you're using, I'd appreciate it.
Best test: try posting one more time, making double-sure that "Post Anonymously" is not checked. If it still comes up anonymous, please
log out of Slashdot,
delete all slashdot.org cookies from your browser, quit browser, relaunch browser, and
log back in --
then try posting again.
I haven't seen anyone else mention this as a problem, so my guess is something is screwy in your browser...
"I think the reason they worked so well is that they were basically very highly evolved versions of the Ranger probes to the Moon... There's some interesting stuff on these probes in a book called 'Beyond Selene'"
Jeffrey Kluger's Journey Beyond Selene is a great book (thanks for lending it to me Daniel, I still need to get it back to you:). Here's its best info on the Pioneer spacecraft, pp. 174-5:
In March 1972 and April 1973 -- years before the Voyagers were even scheduled to leave the ground -- the aptly named Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 blasted off the pad in Cape Canaveral and into space toward their own planned rendezvous with Jupiter and Saturn. The ships were not designed and built by one of the grand NASA facilities in Houston or Florida or Pasadena, but rather, by the comparatively obscure Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, California. Ames, like JPL, was an old facility, having been in operation for years before joining the NASA family in 1958. Unlike JPL, however, Ames did not begin its life as an academic institution, but rather as a military one, serving as a research base and a training ground where new airplanes were developed and tested.
With its more modest scientific credentials, Ames was never considered one of NASA's frontline labs and was rarely given the glamorous mission-planning and spacecraft-building jobs JPL was.... It thus came as something of a surprise in the early 1970s when Ames announced that it was planning to strike out on its own, building a pair of brand-new spacecraft and flying them to the same two planets that were the Voyager mission's prime targets.
The ambition -- to say nothing of the presumptuousness -- of the project took the space community by surprise. For all its derring-do, however, the Pioneer project was a relatively simple one, mostly because the spacecraft themselves were simple, too. The ships Ames were building were spindly little things, weighing barely 570 pounds apiece. Lightweight ships could carry only lightweight hardware, and the Pioneers would not be carrying much at all -- a camera, a few Geiger counter-like sensors, a radio, and a computer. A putt-putt spacecraft like this could be built on the cheap, and when the Ames researchers presented their plan to NASA and Congress, the administrators and lawmakers quickly approved it. If the Pioneers failed, there'd be little in the way of resources lost; if by chance they succeeded, much would be gained scientifically. Meanwhile, JPL could continue working on its own, more ambitious project scheduled for later in the decade.
... Ames, abiding by the compulsory esprit de corps NASA expected of its labs, shared all of its Jupiter findings with the scientists at JPL, who thanked their fellow engineers for their data, and then promptly put the information to use, adjusting their asteroid-belt flight path to follow Pioneer's own, and reinforcing their spacecraft with radiation shielding that would prevent the ships from growing sick the way Ames's had.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a bug. I'm fixing it.
No, any object in the same orbital path travels the same velocity.
Think about it this way. If I have a heavy object and a light object orbiting at Earth's distance from the sun, by your hypothesis one will travel faster than the other. So if I duct-tape them together they should travel at a speed somewhere in-between the fast one and the slow one. But the taped-together object masses the sum of both smaller objects so it should travel faster. It can't travel both faster than and slower than its larger half, so the hypothesis can't be right.
I know you found at least one page disagreeing with you, because you shared its link with us.
I guess some memes never die. I heard that one ten years ago on a BBS.
It took me about 30 seconds to learn the difference between a jungle and a rainforest. And now we have Google so I expect it won't take nearly as long for you...
Microsoft testimonial
stock photo
The added touches of this "person" being 5-foot-3 and her husband six feet, and the "Lexus we rented once," was predicted by Philip K. Dick in his short story The Mold of Yancy. If you've read it, go read the Microsoft ad with an eye toward the similarity. It's creepy.
As for the Monarch, the gold color on its chrysalis "comes from cardenolides in the milkweed that larvae eat." Sorry.
That's the original submitter's text, not Michael's.
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-950083.html
Microsoft vs. the NSA
SE Linux may be the NSA's last direct contribution to open-source security, however. Because of loud criticism, the NSA will have a far less direct role in the creation of more secure versions of open-source software.
"We didn't fully understand the consequences of releasing software under the GPL (General Public License)," said Dick Schafer, deputy director of the NSA. "We received a lot of loud complaints regarding our efforts with SE Linux."
Many complaints criticized the agency for providing the fruits of research to everyone, not just U.S. companies, and thus hurting American business.
While stressing that the agency received a loud chorus of support as well, the chagrined Schafer said that the issue was contentious enough that "we won't be doing anything like that again."
Sources familiar with events said that aggressive Microsoft lobbying efforts have contributed to a halt on any further work. [emphasis added] "Microsoft was worried that the NSA's releasing open-source software would compete with American proprietary software," said a source familiar with the complaints against the NSA who asked not to be identified.
Well, maybe not quite that bad, but close. Here are some samples from their articles:
"What makes open source the secure, stable and elegant software panacea open source cultists claim it is? ... say you are the IT director at a bank and you buy into the Linux is stable, secure and bulletproof hype. ... Welcome to the lazy, cut-and-paste world of open source 'innovation' where people who should be smart enough to know better still think you can get something for nothing. It would be humorous if it wasn't so pathetic..." ("Thanks to open source methods, only 2 out of 500 job-hunting programmers pass skills test")
"The outcry against Palladium doesn't really stem from a concern about your privacy, but more from a vocal minority who wish to impose their anarchistic schemes onto us under the guise of 'freedom' and 'liberty.'" ("Microsoft's Palladium transforms Internet from Wild West to suburban neighborhood")
"many customers who purchased those inherently more stable, secure and virus-proof Linux servers are probably wishing there was a multi-million dollar virus protection industry to help them out." ("New Linux virus creates peer-to-peer terror network")
"The SE Linux project was developed during the Clinton administration ... NSA officials say their cyber security enhancements made for SE Linux have not only benefited the NSA, but because of the terms of the GPL have also strengthened the security architecture of computers used by malicious cyber terrorists around the world."
("NSA deputy director says 'never again' to Open Source")
That last article is just hysterical. The NSA administrators, under pressure from Microsoft, stopped development on SELinux -- because Microsoft didn't like the fact that government-developed code was released freely under the GPL. Microsoft objected to the competition. WorldTechTribune is using all its quotes out of context, and pretending that the objection was concerning national security and terrorism. Amazing.
For some, that's true. Some of that is the "sophomore slump," which is probably largely statistical. (If a band's quality of output varies up and down, and if only the best work will get a band signed, it makes sense that most bands' quality, immediately after their first on-label effort, will go down. It's the same reasons sports figures have this superstition about slumping after appearing on the cover of Sports Illustrated -- if you did something cover-worthy, chances are whatever you do next week won't be.)
But for many musical artists, I think it's the opposite. Tori Amos's early work was good, don't get me wrong - I like Little Earthquakes and Under the Pink.
But once she broke away from the traditional song format, and didn't try to do radio-friendly, market-listenable stuff, her work just got amazing. Boys For Pele is one of the greatest albums of all time.
I'm not totally in love with From the Choirgirl Hotel, and I haven't listened to Strange Little Girls more than once, but... she'll hit her stride again. Genius recurs.
Real artists, I think, can always find that struggle and draw from it. In fact it kind of cheapens the idea of internal struggle to say that it can only be about "oh, my life is so hard, I'm on the road all the time" or "woe is me, I have to play in clubs by day and write music by night, and I eat cruddy food." If that's the worst thing that's ever happened to you, I can tell you, your well of inspiration to draw from is pretty shallow.
No... CowboyNeal is just posting stories is all. :)
It's been known to happen.
Film is not perfect. Lenses are not perfect. Bright portions bleed into dark. When the dark portion is a very thin line like a crosshair, an adjacent light portion of the image will make the crosshair appear to be lighter, thinner, or just plain not there.
Here's a good webpage about that and the other so-called "anomalies" you already debunked: http://users.erols.com/igoddard/moon01.htm
Ralph 124C 41+, chapter 1
chapter 2
chapter 3
The specific terms of the award are here: Xbox Linux Award & Development Roadmap
They will award $100,000 for completion of Project A:
And $100,000 for completion of Project B:
Untrue. Sound travels slower because the air is colder, not thinner. The speed of sound in the Earth's atmosphere is proportional to the square root of the temperature, nothing else. http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/mach.htm
Here's an atmosphere simulator where you can pick an altitude and see the speed of sound. As it says, "the speed of sound depends on the temperature and the gas," not on pressure.
In other words, if I paint a painting and sell you both the original and its copyright, you can make prints of it and sell them. But you cannot legally destroy or deface my original. I retain that right, and it is not transferred to you as part of an ordinary copyright sale.
This is a weakened version of droit moral as enshrined in most European copyright law. (At least last I heard -- I don't know what's up with the EU recently.) In France, for example, an artist cannot give away the right to deface or destroy an original work of art, even by explicit contract.
Copyright law is extremely complex. Making blanket statements about it is not recommended. I'm holding its text as of September 1996 and it's a 170-page book.
17 USC 106A:
(Boldface added.)
You're 100% wrong on this, according to U.S. copyright law. If an artist sells you one of his or her works of art such as a painting, the artist retains the copyright on that work. In the cases you describe (original works of painting or sculpture), you are not allowed to destroy or deface the work.
If you want to buy the copyright to a work of art, that's entirely different. That would be highly unusual for the examples you give.
U.S. copyright law does not go as far as "droit moral" in Europe, but there are some things you can't do.
Gzip is already enabled. It saves more than 75%. It also obviates whitespace-compression and many of the other things that have been discussed in this thread...
Well, (A), nutritional yeast is not alive, and (B) it isn't a creature (animal), it's a fungus. Vegans have no problem with eating plants, fungus, or bacteria -- it's just members of the animal kingdom that we have issues with.
Nutritional yeast has been killed and doesn't have any leavening power. It's actually quite tasty, with a sweet nutty, or a cheesy kind of flavor. I use it ground up with blanched almonds, in a shaker, to top pasta and pizza where others might use Parmesan cheese. One part sliced blanched almonds, food-process until ground, add two parts nutritional yeast and a pinch of salt.
More info at:
Vitamin B12 in the Vegan Diet
Types of Yeast and Red Star brand propaganda
Brewer's Yeast is different from nutritional yeast apparently. But it's allegedly the same species as well (Saccharomyces cerevisiae). Prepared differently? I don't know.
Saccharomyces Genome Database. It turns out this yeast is "clearly the most ideal eukaryotic microorganism for biological studies. The 'awesome power of yeast genetics' has become legendary and is the envy of those who work with higher eukaryotes." Delicious.
Sounds like a bug. If you can file a bug report with info about what browser you're using, I'd appreciate it.
Best test: try posting one more time, making double-sure that "Post Anonymously" is not checked. If it still comes up anonymous, please log out of Slashdot, delete all slashdot.org cookies from your browser, quit browser, relaunch browser, and log back in -- then try posting again.
I haven't seen anyone else mention this as a problem, so my guess is something is screwy in your browser...
Jeffrey Kluger's Journey Beyond Selene is a great book (thanks for lending it to me Daniel, I still need to get it back to you :). Here's its best info on the Pioneer spacecraft, pp. 174-5:
Was, for a year. He stepped down in, IIRC, January 2001.