Step One: Use free service that you are in no way obligated to use. Step Two: Complain about how the service records your usage of said free site Step Three: Request a compilation of all data that you agreed to put on said free site Step Four: ???? Step Five: UnProfit (for Facebook)
The larger gas giants are much easier to detect. And frankly with a UID as low as yours, I am surprised at your jaded view of exoplanet discovery. These are amazing times we live in and as Keppler's observation time goes up, it will detect planets further from its host star. By this time next year, we should start to get confirmations of planets with the same orbital period as our Earth. We may not find hundreds of them with the g's you are looking for in 2012, but statistically we will almost certainly find some.
This is when things will get really exciting. Even though I have become jaded about space travel over the last three decades, I am still excited about the prospect of being able to observe the galaxy. Once we've cataloged a few hundred planets very similar to our own, we will finally get some good statastical support around how common life is in the universe. The first step is obviously finding them. The next is analyzing them.
If we can keep our society from falling apart and at least somewhat focused on science, we will see some pretty amazing discoveries this century.
I am glad that you are a practicing lawyer in New Zealand and have educated us on this wonderful workaround. Could you please give us the contact information for your legal practice just in case someone in law enforcement questions the validity of your fine resolution to this problem? Because clearly your method trumps the employer-employee agency laws.
Maybe I am oversimplifying as I am not trained in this area... but I got that most of the side effects were due to how much cancer had taken over the body... two pounds of waste in one article I read. If you used a variant of this technique earlier, I was thinking that it might not be such a traumatic experience.
Any chance of using this technique in a preventative way? I mean, could you give an inoculation to train your body to fight off the cancer when it first starts? Not an MD by any stretch.
There is one think I really wish I'd see in the summary: what stage of "discovery" are we at. Is this the first pass of the raw data? Or is this confirmation of unconfirmed data. We've seen some pretty high-profile new planets evaporate into thin air^h^h^h^h ether.
At the same time, I am still excited about this explosion of new discovery. If, somehow, we can continue to not self-destruct for another 50 years or so, we will see a cataloging of our galaxy that was only imagined in science fiction
Following up, I think I see where the logical error was.
Your assumption is that an increase from 7B to 8B in population means 1B briths in that time span. The reality is it will be more like 2B births with 1B dying across all demographic groups. So, roughly 2B of the 8B people alive in ten years will be 10 or younger.
This population increase of one billion people in ten years means that one in every seven people on this planet is under the age of majority.
Ummmm.... even if we had a steady-state poulation, I would certainly hope that one in every seven people on the planet is under the age of majority. Assuming the age of majority is 18 and the typical lifespan is 90 (I know it is not... but it makes the math simpler), I'd expect a full 20% of the population to be 18 or younger.
I did some simply google-fu and found that today over 26% of the population is 14 or younger. Extrapolating, this means about one in THREE people on the planet is under tha age of majority with a median age of 28.
How much faster do you think we can make it? Oh... and it needs to stop or at least slow down when it gets to the star. Orbit would be nice but not absolutely necessary, I would think.
"The [Helios] probes are notable for having set a maximum speed record among spacecraft at 252,792 km/h (157,078 mi/h or 43.63 mi/s or 70.22 km/s or 0.000234c)."
even our fastest probe is 1/4000 the speed of light, you might be a bit disappointed by the response time.
I am not a rocket scientist. i don't play one on TV either. But it seems like there are two separate problems with interplanetary travel. First, you must get to orbit from Earth, then you must get from orbit into a trajectory to get you where you want to go. It seems like our solution has been to create a vehicle to get you from Earth to wherever it is you are going... treating it as one problem.
I see something like this and wonder if this is the future of getting to orbit. Mach 20 is about half of escape velocity, and seems to be in the right range for actually getting into an orbit. Granted, I don't know that I'd want to be a passenger on the Falcon, g forces and all, but the point is that you can specialize... one vehicle is used to get you into orbit (and can focus its functionality). Another vehicle is used to actually do the transport (and can focus its functionality).
I wonder how many years were wasted with the whole "big dumb rocket" mentality...
First, let me say that I do like this type of story. Interesting, thought provoking, nerdy and mathematical in nature.
I will also preface what I am about to say by noting that people are free to make whatever life tradeoffs they want.
At the same time, I really wonder why anyone would want a property that takes three hours just to cut the grass. Life is short, why spend it maintaining a large property. I make low six figures now and could afford a lot more of a house than I have, and even when I upgrade to a nicer neighborhood next year will still way underbuy what the bank wants me to borrow.
If you are stinking rich and want the large property, go ahead... but hire someone to do it for you. Your time is more valuable than the cost of having someone cut your grass. Give some teenager or out of work adult the opportunity to earn some money. That is the real win-win of capitalism.
Finally, the article linked to seems light on the math itself, but seems very descriptive. I don't know that there is a purely mathematical solution to the problem but wonder if genetic algorithms would get you to where you want to be. I also wonder if you have a yard like mine with tree roots all over the place would change the outcome:)
Slashdot Mirror
And in what way is that relevant?
Step One: Use free service that you are in no way obligated to use.
Step Two: Complain about how the service records your usage of said free site
Step Three: Request a compilation of all data that you agreed to put on said free site
Step Four: ????
Step Five: UnProfit (for Facebook)
But you use Google, right?
This isn't the message board you are looking for.
That was so last week. Get with the program.
Chrome scares my from a privacy standpoint. Firefox wants updated between every keystroke. IE is my new browser of choice.
The larger gas giants are much easier to detect. And frankly with a UID as low as yours, I am surprised at your jaded view of exoplanet discovery. These are amazing times we live in and as Keppler's observation time goes up, it will detect planets further from its host star. By this time next year, we should start to get confirmations of planets with the same orbital period as our Earth. We may not find hundreds of them with the g's you are looking for in 2012, but statistically we will almost certainly find some.
This is when things will get really exciting. Even though I have become jaded about space travel over the last three decades, I am still excited about the prospect of being able to observe the galaxy. Once we've cataloged a few hundred planets very similar to our own, we will finally get some good statastical support around how common life is in the universe. The first step is obviously finding them. The next is analyzing them.
If we can keep our society from falling apart and at least somewhat focused on science, we will see some pretty amazing discoveries this century.
I am glad that you are a practicing lawyer in New Zealand and have educated us on this wonderful workaround. Could you please give us the contact information for your legal practice just in case someone in law enforcement questions the validity of your fine resolution to this problem? Because clearly your method trumps the employer-employee agency laws.
Buckyballs wouldhave been funnier.
Maybe I am oversimplifying as I am not trained in this area... but I got that most of the side effects were due to how much cancer had taken over the body... two pounds of waste in one article I read. If you used a variant of this technique earlier, I was thinking that it might not be such a traumatic experience.
Any chance of using this technique in a preventative way? I mean, could you give an inoculation to train your body to fight off the cancer when it first starts? Not an MD by any stretch.
There is one think I really wish I'd see in the summary: what stage of "discovery" are we at. Is this the first pass of the raw data? Or is this confirmation of unconfirmed data. We've seen some pretty high-profile new planets evaporate into thin air^h^h^h^h ether.
At the same time, I am still excited about this explosion of new discovery. If, somehow, we can continue to not self-destruct for another 50 years or so, we will see a cataloging of our galaxy that was only imagined in science fiction
And yes... it was a damn lame joke.
If you would have seen ALL of my post, you would have noticed
"And please don't correct me.... I can't go "woosh" in outerspace."
But I will go normal account to say this:
I can't beleive they'd use a cube for a satellite. I mean, you'd be hard pressed to come up with a less aerodynamic design.
And please don't correct me.... I can't go "woosh" in outerspace.
Following up, I think I see where the logical error was.
Your assumption is that an increase from 7B to 8B in population means 1B briths in that time span. The reality is it will be more like 2B births with 1B dying across all demographic groups. So, roughly 2B of the 8B people alive in ten years will be 10 or younger.
This population increase of one billion people in ten years means that one in every seven people on this planet is under the age of majority.
Ummmm.... even if we had a steady-state poulation, I would certainly hope that one in every seven people on the planet is under the age of majority. Assuming the age of majority is 18 and the typical lifespan is 90 (I know it is not... but it makes the math simpler), I'd expect a full 20% of the population to be 18 or younger.
I did some simply google-fu and found that today over 26% of the population is 14 or younger. Extrapolating, this means about one in THREE people on the planet is under tha age of majority with a median age of 28.
Oh boy... a real wack job has surfaced.
How much faster do you think we can make it? Oh... and it needs to stop or at least slow down when it gets to the star. Orbit would be nice but not absolutely necessary, I would think.
Well... considering
"The [Helios] probes are notable for having set a maximum speed record among spacecraft at 252,792 km/h (157,078 mi/h or 43.63 mi/s or 70.22 km/s or 0.000234c)."
even our fastest probe is 1/4000 the speed of light, you might be a bit disappointed by the response time.
In fact, I posted my first hack there fifteen minutes ago. Wait... why's my doorbell ringing? No one ever visits...
I am not a rocket scientist. i don't play one on TV either. But it seems like there are two separate problems with interplanetary travel. First, you must get to orbit from Earth, then you must get from orbit into a trajectory to get you where you want to go. It seems like our solution has been to create a vehicle to get you from Earth to wherever it is you are going... treating it as one problem.
I see something like this and wonder if this is the future of getting to orbit. Mach 20 is about half of escape velocity, and seems to be in the right range for actually getting into an orbit. Granted, I don't know that I'd want to be a passenger on the Falcon, g forces and all, but the point is that you can specialize... one vehicle is used to get you into orbit (and can focus its functionality). Another vehicle is used to actually do the transport (and can focus its functionality).
I wonder how many years were wasted with the whole "big dumb rocket" mentality...
Georgia Schools voted to not allow teachers to include this in their Computer Science programs.
First, let me say that I do like this type of story. Interesting, thought provoking, nerdy and mathematical in nature.
I will also preface what I am about to say by noting that people are free to make whatever life tradeoffs they want.
At the same time, I really wonder why anyone would want a property that takes three hours just to cut the grass. Life is short, why spend it maintaining a large property. I make low six figures now and could afford a lot more of a house than I have, and even when I upgrade to a nicer neighborhood next year will still way underbuy what the bank wants me to borrow.
If you are stinking rich and want the large property, go ahead... but hire someone to do it for you. Your time is more valuable than the cost of having someone cut your grass. Give some teenager or out of work adult the opportunity to earn some money. That is the real win-win of capitalism.
Finally, the article linked to seems light on the math itself, but seems very descriptive. I don't know that there is a purely mathematical solution to the problem but wonder if genetic algorithms would get you to where you want to be. I also wonder if you have a yard like mine with tree roots all over the place would change the outcome :)