Hence, this stupid notion of fixed minimum wages needs to stop; come up with a legislative baseline. Have that baseline increase (or decrease) every year based on indicies such as inflation and CoL. Then we won't have to deal with this every damn few years and we can move on to more important matters, like geeking.
The ISS is a modular structure; the habitats were designed in such a way that they fit together, and extend each other. Why on earth give it a static lifecycle, when you can replace those modular habitats and other components as required? It seems an unintelligent and short-sighted notion to give it such an abbreviated life when it's technically not necessary. I guess the decision is all political...funny how politics is nearly always the mechanism which needlessly destroys cool and useful things:P
Well, being the cooler sheep is obviously far more preferable;)
This notion that Macs are more secure can last only for so long, particularly if Apple gains more market share. It works for now, but the confidence of security will only go down with any associated increase. If anything, the Mac is the easier target--the best OS X has built-in, at this point, is a firewall. Windows has at least the appearance of malware defense. Also, Windows has a firewall plus it warns you if you don't have any kind of virus protection. And I know of few who own a Mac who run AV of any kind.
So, if an appreciable increase does come such that the hacker community out there sees more value in targeting that platform, there is going to be a rather large rude awakening for the Mac user base up front.
That being said, Apple is awesome at marketing; doesn't matter how well-represented the truth is, they just make things look good.
They gained rep with the iPhone, and it grew from there. That's why we're not carrying Newtons these days...Apple didn't have the rep back in those days. Mac OS, in the 90s, was far from awesome in terms of stability. People had prejudices against their platforms because of that, I'm sure. Perhaps that's also part of why Palm took off as it did. It's also part of why so many flocked to the Windows platform, and why Windows (at least in the PC realm) has such a huge share today.
I could see a gigantic consequence of this being that people go online for the quick answer and people start losing the ability to conceptualize exactly what that answer means--they'll be so wrapped up in finding the right and narrow answer that their point of view in the subject matter will be greatly narrowed. I think we've seen it manifest itself already in the past couple of decades.
A great concept, this notion of mass cheating on an overwhelming level (or so it seems) when you're talking about passing a test or turning in a paper. But, in the long term, I could see this concept as being a tool to humanity's intellectual demise.
Not that there's any way you can stop it, I suppose. It's like a train that you see coming in the distance, and you're entranced by it like a deer in headlights and it seems there's nothing you can do to move out of the way.
I don't think for an instant that cheating kids get excited about learning new things. I think they're just trying to do what they can to get the A, and little do they know they're potentially trading out a little bit of cognitive enrichment pertaining to the subject on which they're so desperate for that answer to get that A.
Not to say I didn't have my own bouts with cheating back in the day (I'm only human). In retrospect, however, now I can see the bigger picture a bit better. And I can also see how it likely robbed me of some of the essence of the subject...and, if you're getting a degree in higher education, aren't you there because of a certain passion for the subject? In that case, shouldn't essence be everything? A physics professor of mine once said it best: it's not all about the answer, it's all about the journey.
I'm an advocate of the notion that you learn more when you fail than when you succeed; stumbling through to come to a wrong answer can be more beneficial than breezing through to get the right one.
There were some pretty hefty reassurances during the Clinton Administration about the nature of nuclear proliferation when they gave North Korea nuclear reactors; they'd never make nuclear weapons as a result of having the reactors. Flash forward to a week ago, and they've detonated a ~20KT nuclear device.
Some of this may just be the government playing C.Y.A., and flashing a "Don't Panic" sign. And, as you point out, dirty bombs aren't that hard to make. They may not have the bang that their fission/fusion cousins have, but they'll certainly make you miserable.
...like most MSM coverage doesn't mention any privacy implications.
Yes, because privacy really is a right outlined in the Constitution of the United States...oh, wait...*flips through the Bill of Rights* Nope! Implications are largely subjective, so don't even start down that road:P
What about when purchase is impossible? I've been looking for War of the Worlds Season 2 on Torrent. Paramount will more than likely never release it on DVD. It was sub-par, especially in comparison to the first season, but it was something I didn't see as a kid because of all of that parental advisory crap. So, I have to resort to what's probably extremely low-res capture from VHS and piss-poor cable TV off of Torrent to finally catch up on a series that's nearly 20 years dead.
I, as I'm sure many geeks have, wondered what I would weigh on such a world.
I came up with gravity being 2.145x what it is on Earth on Gliese C.
So, unless I've made a mathematical error or bad assumption below (feel free to chide me for doing so), I would
weigh over 400lb on Gliese C. I guess I'd better stop eatin' the junk.
d_E radial distance from center of the Earth
d_G radial distance from center of Gliese C
m_E mass of Earth
m_G mass of Gliese C
F_gE acceleration of gravity on Earth
F_gG acceleration of gravity on Gliese C
gP Gravitational proportionality of Gliese C over Earth
The size of Gliese C (per space.com) is 50% greater than earth
d_E = r_Earth = 6,372,797 m
d_G = r_Gliese = r_Earth * 1.5 = 9,559,196 m
The mass of Gliese C (per wikipedia.org) is 4.83 earth masses
m_E = 5.9736x10^24 kg
m_G = m_Gliese = m_Earth*4.83 = 28.852x10^24 kg
G = 6.6742x10^-11 N m^2/kg^2
F_g = (G*m_1*m_2)/d^2 (Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation)
Find the gravitational acceleration on Earth,
F_gE = (G*m_E)/d^2 = (6.6742x10^-11 N m^2/kg^2 * 5.9736x10^24 kg) /
(6.37101x10^6 m)^2
F_gE = 9.822 m/s^2 (already known, but I calculated it for giggles as a way to check myself)
Find the gravitational acceleration on the Gliese C,
F_gG = (G*m_G)/d^2 = (6.6742 x 10^-11 N m^2/kg^2 * 28.852x10^24 kg) /
(9.559196x10^6 m)^2
F_gG = 21.073 m/s^2
There's one thing that these types of scientists tend to forget: people are a part of nature. We're not the only species that build things, either. Beavers affect the environment on their own, with the dams that they build, or birds with the nests that they make, or bees with the hives that they construct. It takes resources to make those, as well, albeit on a smaller scale. We just happen to be animals who make the most of tools and resources. It doesn't mean that the earth would be better off without us, it just means that the earth would be different. People try too often to place humanity in some isolated objective context when, really, we're a part of the cycle of nature on this planet.
It's not good or bad, it's just how it is. We can't be guilty about existing, especially when there isn't any conclusive data pointing to global warming being caused by humanity. We've only been tracking changes in the environment for the past few hundred years; given the superfluous conjecture, it's equally likely that we're still coming out of the last ice age, or that the solar cycles are undergoing changes.
About the only way we could truly destroy the Earth is if we were to completely obliterate it into itty bitty pieces, or burn the atmosphere away. Other than that, the Earth will invariably heal itself from whatever we can throw at it. It's in a constant state of healing; nature finds a balance, and we're not the toughest thing it's faced.
People do tend to be rather vocal, and sometimes violent, in the "battle" between science and religion. I don't really know how that war began. Perhaps it dates back to the days of witch burnings and alchemy.
There are agnostics who believe in the supreme power of the scientific method, whereas those of faith are driven purely by that. Each thinks that the other is narrow-minded and foolish.
Personally, I think they're all fools. IMHO, science is merely a tool for us to use to explain the mechanics of how the Almighty (whomever/whatever that might be to you) did it all; how He put the universe together, how He populated our little blue globe with life.
Science and religion are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Even the Catholic Church sees this. It was just almost a decade ago that John Paul II declared evolution as a very plausible theory.
Once people get over this opinion that theirs is the only way, there will more than likely be a lot more peace in this world:-P Once they see this, the idea of a war between science and religion just seems trite and foolish.
Ok.. The FAA is the Federal Aviation Administration, not the Federal Astronautics Administration. The authority of the FAA extends only as far as the stratosphere...right?
I'm pretty sure what they mean is that it's amazing the station is still up there and running after some pretty substantial backsteps in manned spaceflight.
After Apollo ended, there wasn't much going on. They had Skylab, but in the end no one cared about that and it burned in the atmosphere.
Then came the shuttle, essentially a pickup truck to ferry parts back and forth to-and-from orbit, including parts for the space station. In many ways, it was a couple of steps backward from Apollo.
In this case in our time, the space station is up there and functioning. Despite the fact that no construction has proceeded because of the grounded shuttle fleet, people are still up there.
I can only hope and pray that this isn't another example of government administrators scheduling a shuttle flight (ala Challenger), thinking that they know more about the problem than engineers. To a degree, this is also what brought down Columbia.
Godspeed, STS-114..
Slashdot Mirror
Hence, this stupid notion of fixed minimum wages needs to stop; come up with a legislative baseline. Have that baseline increase (or decrease) every year based on indicies such as inflation and CoL. Then we won't have to deal with this every damn few years and we can move on to more important matters, like geeking.
What if your explanation is "a wizard did it", and science is merely the exploration of how it was done?
The mobile site is still active and usable. I would hardly call it a "full" outage.
More like a long and arduous process of developing dumbass manufacturer interface overlays and bloatware.
The ISS is a modular structure; the habitats were designed in such a way that they fit together, and extend each other. Why on earth give it a static lifecycle, when you can replace those modular habitats and other components as required? It seems an unintelligent and short-sighted notion to give it such an abbreviated life when it's technically not necessary. I guess the decision is all political...funny how politics is nearly always the mechanism which needlessly destroys cool and useful things :P
Given the general lack of AV, maybe there is. Right now ;)
Well, being the cooler sheep is obviously far more preferable ;)
This notion that Macs are more secure can last only for so long, particularly if Apple gains more market share. It works for now, but the confidence of security will only go down with any associated increase. If anything, the Mac is the easier target--the best OS X has built-in, at this point, is a firewall. Windows has at least the appearance of malware defense. Also, Windows has a firewall plus it warns you if you don't have any kind of virus protection. And I know of few who own a Mac who run AV of any kind.
So, if an appreciable increase does come such that the hacker community out there sees more value in targeting that platform, there is going to be a rather large rude awakening for the Mac user base up front.
That being said, Apple is awesome at marketing; doesn't matter how well-represented the truth is, they just make things look good.
They gained rep with the iPhone, and it grew from there. That's why we're not carrying Newtons these days...Apple didn't have the rep back in those days. Mac OS, in the 90s, was far from awesome in terms of stability. People had prejudices against their platforms because of that, I'm sure. Perhaps that's also part of why Palm took off as it did. It's also part of why so many flocked to the Windows platform, and why Windows (at least in the PC realm) has such a huge share today.
I could see a gigantic consequence of this being that people go online for the quick answer and people start losing the ability to conceptualize exactly what that answer means--they'll be so wrapped up in finding the right and narrow answer that their point of view in the subject matter will be greatly narrowed. I think we've seen it manifest itself already in the past couple of decades.
A great concept, this notion of mass cheating on an overwhelming level (or so it seems) when you're talking about passing a test or turning in a paper. But, in the long term, I could see this concept as being a tool to humanity's intellectual demise.
Not that there's any way you can stop it, I suppose. It's like a train that you see coming in the distance, and you're entranced by it like a deer in headlights and it seems there's nothing you can do to move out of the way.
I don't think for an instant that cheating kids get excited about learning new things. I think they're just trying to do what they can to get the A, and little do they know they're potentially trading out a little bit of cognitive enrichment pertaining to the subject on which they're so desperate for that answer to get that A.
Not to say I didn't have my own bouts with cheating back in the day (I'm only human). In retrospect, however, now I can see the bigger picture a bit better. And I can also see how it likely robbed me of some of the essence of the subject...and, if you're getting a degree in higher education, aren't you there because of a certain passion for the subject? In that case, shouldn't essence be everything? A physics professor of mine once said it best: it's not all about the answer, it's all about the journey.
I'm an advocate of the notion that you learn more when you fail than when you succeed; stumbling through to come to a wrong answer can be more beneficial than breezing through to get the right one.
There were some pretty hefty reassurances during the Clinton Administration about the nature of nuclear proliferation when they gave North Korea nuclear reactors; they'd never make nuclear weapons as a result of having the reactors. Flash forward to a week ago, and they've detonated a ~20KT nuclear device. Some of this may just be the government playing C.Y.A., and flashing a "Don't Panic" sign. And, as you point out, dirty bombs aren't that hard to make. They may not have the bang that their fission/fusion cousins have, but they'll certainly make you miserable.
...like most MSM coverage doesn't mention any privacy implications.
:P
Yes, because privacy really is a right outlined in the Constitution of the United States...oh, wait...*flips through the Bill of Rights* Nope! Implications are largely subjective, so don't even start down that road
What about when purchase is impossible? I've been looking for War of the Worlds Season 2 on Torrent. Paramount will more than likely never release it on DVD. It was sub-par, especially in comparison to the first season, but it was something I didn't see as a kid because of all of that parental advisory crap. So, I have to resort to what's probably extremely low-res capture from VHS and piss-poor cable TV off of Torrent to finally catch up on a series that's nearly 20 years dead.
I, as I'm sure many geeks have, wondered what I would weigh on such a world.
I came up with gravity being 2.145x what it is on Earth on Gliese C.
So, unless I've made a mathematical error or bad assumption below (feel free to chide me for doing so), I would weigh over 400lb on Gliese C. I guess I'd better stop eatin' the junk.
d_E radial distance from center of the Earth
d_G radial distance from center of Gliese C
m_E mass of Earth
m_G mass of Gliese C
F_gE acceleration of gravity on Earth
F_gG acceleration of gravity on Gliese C
gP Gravitational proportionality of Gliese C over Earth
The size of Gliese C (per space.com) is 50% greater than earth
d_E = r_Earth = 6,372,797 m
d_G = r_Gliese = r_Earth * 1.5 = 9,559,196 m
The mass of Gliese C (per wikipedia.org) is 4.83 earth masses
m_E = 5.9736x10^24 kg
m_G = m_Gliese = m_Earth*4.83 = 28.852x10^24 kg
G = 6.6742x10^-11 N m^2/kg^2
F_g = (G*m_1*m_2)/d^2 (Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation)
Find the gravitational acceleration on Earth,
F_gE = (G*m_E)/d^2 = (6.6742x10^-11 N m^2/kg^2 * 5.9736x10^24 kg) / (6.37101x10^6 m)^2
F_gE = 9.822 m/s^2 (already known, but I calculated it for giggles as a way to check myself)
Find the gravitational acceleration on the Gliese C,
F_gG = (G*m_G)/d^2 = (6.6742 x 10^-11 N m^2/kg^2 * 28.852x10^24 kg) / (9.559196x10^6 m)^2
F_gG = 21.073 m/s^2
gP = 21.073 m/s^2 / 9.822 m/s^2 = 2.145
Microsoft?! Innovate?!?! *falls out of chair, sides hurting*
There's one thing that these types of scientists tend to forget: people are a part of nature. We're not the only species that build things, either. Beavers affect the environment on their own, with the dams that they build, or birds with the nests that they make, or bees with the hives that they construct. It takes resources to make those, as well, albeit on a smaller scale. We just happen to be animals who make the most of tools and resources. It doesn't mean that the earth would be better off without us, it just means that the earth would be different. People try too often to place humanity in some isolated objective context when, really, we're a part of the cycle of nature on this planet.
It's not good or bad, it's just how it is. We can't be guilty about existing, especially when there isn't any conclusive data pointing to global warming being caused by humanity. We've only been tracking changes in the environment for the past few hundred years; given the superfluous conjecture, it's equally likely that we're still coming out of the last ice age, or that the solar cycles are undergoing changes.
About the only way we could truly destroy the Earth is if we were to completely obliterate it into itty bitty pieces, or burn the atmosphere away. Other than that, the Earth will invariably heal itself from whatever we can throw at it. It's in a constant state of healing; nature finds a balance, and we're not the toughest thing it's faced.
People do tend to be rather vocal, and sometimes violent, in the "battle" between science and religion. I don't really know how that war began. Perhaps it dates back to the days of witch burnings and alchemy.
There are agnostics who believe in the supreme power of the scientific method, whereas those of faith are driven purely by that. Each thinks that the other is narrow-minded and foolish.
Personally, I think they're all fools. IMHO, science is merely a tool for us to use to explain the mechanics of how the Almighty (whomever/whatever that might be to you) did it all; how He put the universe together, how He populated our little blue globe with life.
Science and religion are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Even the Catholic Church sees this. It was just almost a decade ago that John Paul II declared evolution as a very plausible theory.
Once people get over this opinion that theirs is the only way, there will more than likely be a lot more peace in this world :-P Once they see this, the idea of a war between science and religion just seems trite and foolish.
Some of the Rent a Coder users appear to be outsourcing their way through school, at low costs--probably less than $100 per assignment.
:P The other $50 would've been long since spent on games.
Oh, man. In my college days, I would've been lucky to see $50 at one time
Ok.. The FAA is the Federal Aviation Administration, not the Federal Astronautics Administration. The authority of the FAA extends only as far as the stratosphere...right?
I'm pretty sure what they mean is that it's amazing the station is still up there and running after some pretty substantial backsteps in manned spaceflight.
After Apollo ended, there wasn't much going on. They had Skylab, but in the end no one cared about that and it burned in the atmosphere.
Then came the shuttle, essentially a pickup truck to ferry parts back and forth to-and-from orbit, including parts for the space station. In many ways, it was a couple of steps backward from Apollo.
In this case in our time, the space station is up there and functioning. Despite the fact that no construction has proceeded because of the grounded shuttle fleet, people are still up there.
I can only hope and pray that this isn't another example of government administrators scheduling a shuttle flight (ala Challenger), thinking that they know more about the problem than engineers. To a degree, this is also what brought down Columbia. Godspeed, STS-114..