Brainstyle's picture I agree with. It does look a lot like a forest or brush patch. You're right as well about it being logical to assume it's abiological. We don't even have precedence on Mars for small life...certainly not for anything that large scale...unless perhaps it's something related to coral. If you look carefully at the full-res picture, you'll notice lines radiating from the center of each "grove," which definitely supports something like a geyser or outgasing, but still doesn't completely rule out coral-like life.
That is honestly the first good answer I've heard to the retort "if guns kill people, spoons cause Americans to be fat." I meant it to be mostly a slightly humerous ending to, rather than the "meat" of my comment, but you're right, I will contend that guns don't kill people. When somebody dies from by the gun, the problem lies with the person who pulls the trigger. There's definitely too much to discuss on this topic in a Grokster thread, so we'll have to wait another day to have our say. Too bad I don't have any mod points to give you an insightful rating.
I have to admit, that article was actually passable, once you got past the "the plaintiffs are...............the defendents are........" part, the initial statement wasn't too hard to read. It even opened with this little gem of an anecdote(pg 9): "From the advent of the player piano, every new means of reproducing sound has struck a dissonant chord with musical copywrite owners, often resulting in federal litigation."
Better anecdote: If grokster causes people to download, and guns kill people, then spoons cause Americans to be fat.
I've seen the spiders before, and never thought they looked at all like vegetation. Looking at the pictures again, my impression was they are one of:
Some sort of errosion pattern
Pattern formed by soil shifting as ice/dry ice forms and melts/sublimates
Result of some sort of erruption of gases trapped in the soil during the winter
I went to the homepage of the spider site you linked, and they had links to papers suggesting the third point. While I like his short stories, I think Clarke is looney on this one.
Beyond the clock radio, what's ever worked better from putting two different functions together?" (from the article)
I prefer a regular alarm clock and a seperate radio with better sound, so even that one doesn't fly.
Sure I like doing lot's of things on my PC, but when I make a phone call, I like to do it from a telephone. When I fix my car, I like ordinary ratchets with regular sockets (sorry Bob Vila, no pocket socket). When I want a fork or a spoon, I do not want a spork. The Mega-Gadget 2000 may look cool, but using any one feature is far more cumbersome than using the individual tools it replaced, and if it breaks, I no longer have my whatcha-ma-callit, my doo-hickey, or my whirli-bob. Plus, if I buy a PSX, I still can't play Halo.
This may eventually be a great option, but I don't think so for the short term. We still haven't figured out a good way to get one or two things there, much less 1000. Plus, if you're investing a huge amount of money delivering them, you want useful data. Pictures are useful, but can only tell you so much, which is why you add on features like infrared imagers, spectrometers, and microscopes. Additionally, 1000 robots taking pictures of one spot after being released from a "hive" isn't as valuable as 2 rovers taking pictures of different terrain.
Regarding the response that cited cost concerns: It is true that getting a rover to Mars is a very significant cost, but not the majority. The program cost $820 million for everything through the end of the 90 day primary mission. Launch costs were reported at $160 million a piece, IIRC, so that leaves $500 million that were devoted to R&D, building, planning, and operation. I suppose, though, launch might be the largest single cost if you seperate R&D from building.
I've been told that you really can't discern any difference above 60 fps. In my experience playing games, things seem choppy and I seem to start dying more when my framerates drop below 45, so that may be about right. The other interesting part of the trivia was the claim that it is an American case. Our eyes are used to lights running at 60 Hz, which is why some visitors countries running on 50 Hz may think the lights flicker constantly for the first couple of days. Of course, I've never done any testing or further research on this.
Looking at the pictures and the description of what went wrong, it looks like they needed more clearance between the top and bottom rotors. The Russian Helix, with the same eggbeater setup, has probably got about 5 feet of clearance between blades that are much stiffer to begin with. The Canadian appeared to have maybe a foot, with blades that are probably just as big, if not larger, but much less stiff. Finally, I'm sure that their hub probably had a little bit of play in it due to it's light weight that would become evident in any sort of wind. Overall though, I like the eggbeater design because it provides the necessary countertorque while still providing lift. Plus, they were able to repair it with cellophane in 17 minutes and made a second attempt! Unfortunately, the chain broke. Maybe they should've gone with a SRAM powerlink?
Also, the article stated incorrectly that the helicopter didn't have enough buoyancy. Buoyancy is a force due to differences in density of fluids and supports blimps and boats. The proper term is lift, which is pressure-related and makes wings and water-skis work. A nitpick that someone else already mentioned, but that comment has gotten buried in the responses.
A final point to those wondering about the feasibility of the project: The article (hint) states that two other teams have gotten craft to fly, they just haven't gotten high enough.
This really isn't anything new. Check out this article from a year or two ago about a $200 AOL optimized computer. Better yet, here's an article by The Register referring to a similar Compuserve move and AOL's planned response, dated 1999!
Plus, I'm sure everyone saw these computers advertised at some point. I know the $200 emachines ads caught my eye a couple years ago. It seems the original submission is about 5 years behind in the news.
Although it's an interesting idea, it wouldn't happen. Why would I pay to use a format that at best will get me a marginal improvement over my current format? Billing would be a headache as well. If I made one image in a billing cycle, would it really be worthwhile to send the bill?
That's actually normal. If you want to turn around with chemical rockets, you can only do it at certain points. During the Apollo 13 mission, the engine on the command module actually had enough power and fuel to do a "direct abort," where they turn it around and fire in the opposite direction. The Cassini probe, however, could only make enough adjustment to park itself in orbit around Saturn. It wouldn't have come close even stopping it's radial velocity. The bottom line is, you're not losing any safety, expcept perhaps on short-distance missions where chemical propulsion will probably continue being the norm anyways, simply for speed.
Re: the last hundred something posts: In Soviet Russia, pong pings you! (had to)
Slashdot Mirror
Brainstyle's picture I agree with. It does look a lot like a forest or brush patch. You're right as well about it being logical to assume it's abiological. We don't even have precedence on Mars for small life...certainly not for anything that large scale...unless perhaps it's something related to coral. If you look carefully at the full-res picture, you'll notice lines radiating from the center of each "grove," which definitely supports something like a geyser or outgasing, but still doesn't completely rule out coral-like life.
That is honestly the first good answer I've heard to the retort "if guns kill people, spoons cause Americans to be fat." I meant it to be mostly a slightly humerous ending to, rather than the "meat" of my comment, but you're right, I will contend that guns don't kill people. When somebody dies from by the gun, the problem lies with the person who pulls the trigger. There's definitely too much to discuss on this topic in a Grokster thread, so we'll have to wait another day to have our say. Too bad I don't have any mod points to give you an insightful rating.
I have to admit, that article was actually passable, once you got past the "the plaintiffs are...............the defendents are........" part, the initial statement wasn't too hard to read. It even opened with this little gem of an anecdote(pg 9): "From the advent of the player piano, every new means of reproducing sound has struck a dissonant chord with musical copywrite owners, often resulting in federal litigation."
Better anecdote: If grokster causes people to download, and guns kill people, then spoons cause Americans to be fat.
- Some sort of errosion pattern
- Pattern formed by soil shifting as ice/dry ice forms and melts/sublimates
- Result of some sort of erruption of gases trapped in the soil during the winter
I went to the homepage of the spider site you linked, and they had links to papers suggesting the third point. While I like his short stories, I think Clarke is looney on this one.Beyond the clock radio, what's ever worked better from putting two different functions together?" (from the article)
I prefer a regular alarm clock and a seperate radio with better sound, so even that one doesn't fly.
Sure I like doing lot's of things on my PC, but when I make a phone call, I like to do it from a telephone. When I fix my car, I like ordinary ratchets with regular sockets (sorry Bob Vila, no pocket socket). When I want a fork or a spoon, I do not want a spork. The Mega-Gadget 2000 may look cool, but using any one feature is far more cumbersome than using the individual tools it replaced, and if it breaks, I no longer have my whatcha-ma-callit, my doo-hickey, or my whirli-bob. Plus, if I buy a PSX, I still can't play Halo.
This may eventually be a great option, but I don't think so for the short term. We still haven't figured out a good way to get one or two things there, much less 1000. Plus, if you're investing a huge amount of money delivering them, you want useful data. Pictures are useful, but can only tell you so much, which is why you add on features like infrared imagers, spectrometers, and microscopes. Additionally, 1000 robots taking pictures of one spot after being released from a "hive" isn't as valuable as 2 rovers taking pictures of different terrain.
Regarding the response that cited cost concerns: It is true that getting a rover to Mars is a very significant cost, but not the majority. The program cost $820 million for everything through the end of the 90 day primary mission. Launch costs were reported at $160 million a piece, IIRC, so that leaves $500 million that were devoted to R&D, building, planning, and operation. I suppose, though, launch might be the largest single cost if you seperate R&D from building.
I've been told that you really can't discern any difference above 60 fps. In my experience playing games, things seem choppy and I seem to start dying more when my framerates drop below 45, so that may be about right. The other interesting part of the trivia was the claim that it is an American case. Our eyes are used to lights running at 60 Hz, which is why some visitors countries running on 50 Hz may think the lights flicker constantly for the first couple of days. Of course, I've never done any testing or further research on this.
at 1600x1200!
Too bad the rest of my computer is 5 years too old for the game...and it's only 3 years old.
Looking at the pictures and the description of what went wrong, it looks like they needed more clearance between the top and bottom rotors. The Russian Helix, with the same eggbeater setup, has probably got about 5 feet of clearance between blades that are much stiffer to begin with. The Canadian appeared to have maybe a foot, with blades that are probably just as big, if not larger, but much less stiff. Finally, I'm sure that their hub probably had a little bit of play in it due to it's light weight that would become evident in any sort of wind. Overall though, I like the eggbeater design because it provides the necessary countertorque while still providing lift. Plus, they were able to repair it with cellophane in 17 minutes and made a second attempt! Unfortunately, the chain broke. Maybe they should've gone with a SRAM powerlink?
Also, the article stated incorrectly that the helicopter didn't have enough buoyancy. Buoyancy is a force due to differences in density of fluids and supports blimps and boats. The proper term is lift, which is pressure-related and makes wings and water-skis work. A nitpick that someone else already mentioned, but that comment has gotten buried in the responses.
A final point to those wondering about the feasibility of the project: The article (hint) states that two other teams have gotten craft to fly, they just haven't gotten high enough.
This really isn't anything new. Check out this article from a year or two ago about a $200 AOL optimized computer. Better yet, here's an article by The Register referring to a similar Compuserve move and AOL's planned response, dated 1999!
Plus, I'm sure everyone saw these computers advertised at some point. I know the $200 emachines ads caught my eye a couple years ago. It seems the original submission is about 5 years behind in the news.
Although it's an interesting idea, it wouldn't happen. Why would I pay to use a format that at best will get me a marginal improvement over my current format? Billing would be a headache as well. If I made one image in a billing cycle, would it really be worthwhile to send the bill?
That's actually normal. If you want to turn around with chemical rockets, you can only do it at certain points. During the Apollo 13 mission, the engine on the command module actually had enough power and fuel to do a "direct abort," where they turn it around and fire in the opposite direction. The Cassini probe, however, could only make enough adjustment to park itself in orbit around Saturn. It wouldn't have come close even stopping it's radial velocity. The bottom line is, you're not losing any safety, expcept perhaps on short-distance missions where chemical propulsion will probably continue being the norm anyways, simply for speed.
Re: the last hundred something posts: In Soviet Russia, pong pings you! (had to)