The concept of dark matter was formulated as a direct result of experiments in which observations did not correspond to predictions. New experiments have been proposed to test the existence and nature of dark matter, although I don't believe any have yet been performed. Regardless, the existence of dark matter is observable (and should it exist, its nature can be determined through experimentation).
So Theorem 1 does not preclude dark matter from being scientific, and it is consistent to believe both that the study of dark matter is scientific and that math is not a science. There is a difference between "observed" and "observable".
Maybe you had in mind the mickey-mouse mathematics that is indeed used as a tool of physics.
From calculus and Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics to stochastics, group theory, and topology, physics is often the driving force behind development of new branches of mathematics. If these are mickey-mouse, then I cannot imagine what would be considered satisfactory.
More to the grandparent's point, though... the advancement of mathematics can be a very creative enterprise, but mathematical proofs are ironclad once created because of their basis of deduction and logic. Science, by its empirical nature, is incapable of certainty. The two are fundamentally different systems of acquiring knowledge, and whatever work that goes into discovering that knowledge has no relevance to the distinction.
The article left me with the impression that six bottles were used serially, with the two showing high concentrations taking samples approximately two minutes into the flight.
Data from three of the devices ["catch bottles"] showed gaseous oxygen levels during flight were normal. Data from a fourth was corrupt, officials said.
Every time I read something about the space shuttle program, I learn another mildly disturbing fact. If the bottles are important enough to have, and are prone to failure, then why aren't they made redundant? Sigh.
Last I heard, the United Kingdom had a split criminal/civil system of law. In the United States, and I thought mostly everywhere else, copyright infringement is a civil offense. Either I am wrong, or this means that the UK allows punishment of civil offenses with jail time!
We all know (now, if not before reading the summary) that carbon nanotubes and asbestos particles have similar shapes. How do their dimensions compare? Methinks this would be particularly relevant to their biochemical properties, and might make any similarities meaningless.
Consider also that nanotubes grow at around 10^-5 meters/s. Geosynchronous orbit is about 3.6*10^7 meters away. Here, really is the fundamental problem if we're going to try to grow a space elevator. If you go through the math, it would take about 10^5 years with today's technology, which makes the prediction of centuries very optimistic.
... if we produce one long string from one source. If we have say 100 sites, each producing 1000 strings of nanotubes, we have enough material after 14 months. Nanotubes are still very strong when bound together. If we figure out a way to make them strong enough to support a space elevator, the roadblock to its construction will certainly not be nanotube production time.
You pointed this out at the end of your comment; I just wanted to make it a little clearer.
Many Office users (my employers included) feel Office 2003 is just fine, and have no plans whatsoever for Office 12. Other offices I've seen have standardized on Offive XP, or even Office 2000, and steadfastly refuse to upgrade. When these holdouts finally do upgrade, it's only because they are having issues with using documents from other facilities that are in the new format (non-backward-compatible by design...thank you so much, Bill), and when they do, they commonly skip at least one release.
From TFA: "Users of previous versions of Office will like that Office 12.0 files are backward compatible through Office 97."
The foam is really light, comparable with... well, with foam! When you're moving fast enough to move into orbit, even light things become very dangerous. It is not known for certain due to lack of data, but some suspect that the original foam did not break off so often. It contained Freon, and even though NASA was allowed to use it, they chose a replacement to show their environmental responsibility.
Sorry for picking nits, but scientific explanations cannot support such a weighty concept as "proof". That aside, yours is definitely one of the more intelligent Slashdot comments on Intelligent Design. Kudos to you for your clear understanding of the distinction between faith and science.
I still use Windows 2000 Professional because I didn't like the vibe I got from XP, what with product activation and all. My thinking was, even if it turns out to be harmless and never rejects valid copies (ha!) or if I find a way to bypass it, they will sneak something in after the fact. Well, not only was I dead right, but they back-ported the requirement to Windows 2000 as well with Windows Genuine Advantage!
I want no part of WGA, for the same reasons I wanted no part of XP. I have offline access to SP4 and SP4 Update Rollup 1, but that doesn't help me get other security updates (which are still available to everyone for the time being), desired gratis software (DirectX, Windows Media Player,.NET Framework), or desired purchased software updates (Office). Is there a way to get these without installing WGA at all?
Yeah, I forgot about the Slashdot link blocking. Anyway, Bugzilla Bug 214269 pretty much covers it. You may want to vote on it, add some comments, and/or CC yourself. It has been idle since February.
Kudos to you. That is a wonderful idea! Bugzilla seems to be down right now, so I can't see if it has already been submitted as a feature request, but you definitely should check (and submit if it has not).
It is unclear from your post whether or not you are still using Firefox, but if you are then you should be very interested in the Single Window extension, which can trap all new window requests to new tabs. I apologize if you already knew about this, no longer use Firefox, and/or are annoyed by yet another extension-based fix instead of built-in functionality.
I don't know about you, but I definitely want my condoms to be topologically equivalent to spheres. And large enough to include a closed loop on their surfaces that remains very close to (< ) the base of my, er, locally connected space.
Police officers can speed to get to an emergency and NOT use lights if its deemed safe by the police officer to speed without the requirement of people pulling over to the side of the road.
Not in the State of Michigan (on paper; we all know how police power is handled in the real world). Emergency vehicles (police, fire, and medical) are exempted from speed limitations only while using siren(s) and/or flashing red or blue light(s), unless a lack of such warning is required by the specific law enforcement mission. I consider it a very logical way to handle the situation.
It already is widespread. That ship has sailed. If it helps, this article proves that people don't see it as "especially evil".
Aye, she sailed long ago. A solid crew o' forty ne'er-do-wells and one monkey in search of precious booty, with a black flag flying high! "Especially evil" would hardly do her justice. Arrr!
I refrained from replying to the rest of your lunacy, but there is only so much a person can take.
With respect to money, there are two ways to acquire it unearned. The first is to take it, either physically or electronically, which is theft because the rightful owner no longer has it (or cannot withdraw it). The second is to create it, either physically or electronically, which is not theft (but is illegal because government maintains a monopoly on the creation of money). With respect to value, you miss the point of its importance to the definition of theft. It matters as a measure of what a person or entity no longer has. It is neither abstract nor potential. To make a copy is not to deprive of actual, existing value, and so is not stealing!
Finally, your sample phrases have nothing to do with copyright, though they do represent theft. I'll explain: When "his life was stolen", he was deprived of his life, just as "she stole your heart" by (figuratively) depriving you of your decisions. If you insist upon using "theft" with respect to copyright, at least use it logically and say that what was "stolen" was exclusive control of a work's reproduction.
The planet's density is irrelevant. Gravity has a "shell theorem" (Newton's Shell Theorem, in fact), proving that both a sphere of mass m and a point of mass m located at the sphere's center will exert the same force on an object outside the surface of the sphere. The planet's mass and radius (and shape, but we're assuming spherical because it's a very good approximation) define the gravitational field at its surface.
Another point is, since ACKs would not work, you would have to accept plain old TCP SYN packets with data, check it, etc, but there is a problem with file integrity this way.
I don't think ACKs are an issue, since they prefer (maybe require) the use of UDP instead of TCP.
CRC and hash checks of each chunk like BT currently uses would be pretty much mandatory, as well.
When referring to the company or organization as an entity, it is a singular noun. Rarely will it be a plural noun. I see this incorrect usage in nearly every thread. Simply looking at the company's webpage and seeing how they refer to themself would give you a pretty good idea of the proper usage.
It is correct (and preferred, possibly exclusively) in British English (and Australian, etc.) to refer to refer to companies and organizations using plural forms.
Slashdot Mirror
And we can use Firefox's old RSS icon! (bug 261354)
The concept of dark matter was formulated as a direct result of experiments in which observations did not correspond to predictions. New experiments have been proposed to test the existence and nature of dark matter, although I don't believe any have yet been performed. Regardless, the existence of dark matter is observable (and should it exist, its nature can be determined through experimentation).
So Theorem 1 does not preclude dark matter from being scientific, and it is consistent to believe both that the study of dark matter is scientific and that math is not a science. There is a difference between "observed" and "observable".
From calculus and Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics to stochastics, group theory, and topology, physics is often the driving force behind development of new branches of mathematics. If these are mickey-mouse, then I cannot imagine what would be considered satisfactory.
More to the grandparent's point, though... the advancement of mathematics can be a very creative enterprise, but mathematical proofs are ironclad once created because of their basis of deduction and logic. Science, by its empirical nature, is incapable of certainty. The two are fundamentally different systems of acquiring knowledge, and whatever work that goes into discovering that knowledge has no relevance to the distinction.
The article left me with the impression that six bottles were used serially, with the two showing high concentrations taking samples approximately two minutes into the flight.
Every time I read something about the space shuttle program, I learn another mildly disturbing fact. If the bottles are important enough to have, and are prone to failure, then why aren't they made redundant? Sigh.
Last I heard, the United Kingdom had a split criminal/civil system of law. In the United States, and I thought mostly everywhere else, copyright infringement is a civil offense. Either I am wrong, or this means that the UK allows punishment of civil offenses with jail time!
We all know (now, if not before reading the summary) that carbon nanotubes and asbestos particles have similar shapes. How do their dimensions compare? Methinks this would be particularly relevant to their biochemical properties, and might make any similarities meaningless.
The foam is really light, comparable with... well, with foam! When you're moving fast enough to move into orbit, even light things become very dangerous. It is not known for certain due to lack of data, but some suspect that the original foam did not break off so often. It contained Freon, and even though NASA was allowed to use it, they chose a replacement to show their environmental responsibility.
Sorry for picking nits, but scientific explanations cannot support such a weighty concept as "proof". That aside, yours is definitely one of the more intelligent Slashdot comments on Intelligent Design. Kudos to you for your clear understanding of the distinction between faith and science.
I still use Windows 2000 Professional because I didn't like the vibe I got from XP, what with product activation and all. My thinking was, even if it turns out to be harmless and never rejects valid copies (ha!) or if I find a way to bypass it, they will sneak something in after the fact. Well, not only was I dead right, but they back-ported the requirement to Windows 2000 as well with Windows Genuine Advantage!
.NET Framework), or desired purchased software updates (Office). Is there a way to get these without installing WGA at all?
I want no part of WGA, for the same reasons I wanted no part of XP. I have offline access to SP4 and SP4 Update Rollup 1, but that doesn't help me get other security updates (which are still available to everyone for the time being), desired gratis software (DirectX, Windows Media Player,
Yeah, I forgot about the Slashdot link blocking. Anyway, Bugzilla Bug 214269 pretty much covers it. You may want to vote on it, add some comments, and/or CC yourself. It has been idle since February.
Kudos to you. That is a wonderful idea! Bugzilla seems to be down right now, so I can't see if it has already been submitted as a feature request, but you definitely should check (and submit if it has not).
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org
It is unclear from your post whether or not you are still using Firefox, but if you are then you should be very interested in the Single Window extension, which can trap all new window requests to new tabs. I apologize if you already knew about this, no longer use Firefox, and/or are annoyed by yet another extension-based fix instead of built-in functionality.
I don't know about you, but I definitely want my condoms to be topologically equivalent to spheres. And large enough to include a closed loop on their surfaces that remains very close to (< ) the base of my, er, locally connected space.
I refrained from replying to the rest of your lunacy, but there is only so much a person can take.
With respect to money, there are two ways to acquire it unearned. The first is to take it, either physically or electronically, which is theft because the rightful owner no longer has it (or cannot withdraw it). The second is to create it, either physically or electronically, which is not theft (but is illegal because government maintains a monopoly on the creation of money). With respect to value, you miss the point of its importance to the definition of theft. It matters as a measure of what a person or entity no longer has. It is neither abstract nor potential. To make a copy is not to deprive of actual, existing value, and so is not stealing!
Finally, your sample phrases have nothing to do with copyright, though they do represent theft. I'll explain: When "his life was stolen", he was deprived of his life, just as "she stole your heart" by (figuratively) depriving you of your decisions. If you insist upon using "theft" with respect to copyright, at least use it logically and say that what was "stolen" was exclusive control of a work's reproduction.
The planet's density is irrelevant. Gravity has a "shell theorem" (Newton's Shell Theorem, in fact), proving that both a sphere of mass m and a point of mass m located at the sphere's center will exert the same force on an object outside the surface of the sphere. The planet's mass and radius (and shape, but we're assuming spherical because it's a very good approximation) define the gravitational field at its surface.