Producer #5: Uh, no, actually, it was called "Animal Patrol".
Producer #1: But the ID idiots didn't want a show about evolutionary primates that shoot laser beams from their teeth!
Producer #2: So we asked ourselves, "Who's behind the teeth?"
Producer #3: Monkeys...
Producer #4: Cops...
Producer #5: "Monkey Cops."
1UP is my top source for spam. I don't remeber signing up for any of their junk and I've never managed to sucessfully unsubscribe. The unsubscribe link in the email points straight to their page where you're told you have to log in to edit mailing preferences. Having never created an account this can be somewhat difficult...
...there is no stopping them; the quotes will soon be here.
I, for one, welcome this new variation on the "I, for one, welcome our new {x} overlords". And I'd like to remind/. readers that as a trusted moderater, I can be helpful in modding up other variations to the effect that more/. readers are made to toil over such musings in their underground sugar caves.
"They work like racing cars," Altshuler said. "Racing cars can reach higher revolutions per minute but enable the driver to go faster in higher gear. But like honeybees, they are inefficient."
Wikipedia to the rescue as always, Hubble's wiki page. I have no idea how they did but a quick scan of the afore mentioned article seems to indicate that the hubble had its orbit 'boosted' during shuttle missions sts-61 and sts-82 (1993 and 1997 respectivly).
From wiki; Hubble orbits the Earth in the extremely tenuous upper atmosphere, and over time its orbit decays due to drag. If it is not re-boosted by a shuttle or other means, it will re-enter the Earth's atmosphere sometime between 2010 and 2032, with the exact date depending on how active the Sun is and its impact on the upper atmosphere.
The article also talks about de-orbiting it with the shuttle but says NASA is investigating the possibility of an external propulsion module. Im guessing this would allow de-orbiting without the need for an expensive shuttle mission.
I think that's primarily the problem. Failing electronics and gyroscopes mean you can't just 'leave it alone' or it will become useless, and also a potential danger. Hubble is also in LEO and as such needs its orbit boosting on a regular basis.
So you can't just leave it the fuck alone, you have to make extremely expensive manned missions to continualy repair and resupply it. Of course, there is another option. De-orbit it while we still have control and can safely do so and with the money saved you can launch a new telescope, in a more efficient/usefull orbit, that can do stuff the hubble can't.
see more of the antics of Frye, Leela, Bender and a cuddly alien that excretes spaceship fuel.
what about the rest?
Fry: What's so wonderful about Leela being normal? The rest of us aren't normal. And that's what makes us great. Like Dr. Zoidberg. He's a weird monster who smells like he eats garbage and does.
Dr. Zoidberg: Damn right.
Fry: And the professor's a senile amoral crackpot.
Professor: Oyeeaii.
Fry: Hermes is a Rastafarian accountant.
Hermes: Tally me banana.
Fry: Amy is a klutz from Mars.
Amy: Whoops.
Professor: And Fry, you've got that brain thing.
Fry: I already did!
Ok heres how I understand evolution and why mutation is important. There are two basic processes, introducing new genetic variation into a population, and selection affecting the frequencies of existing variation. A populationg cannot evolve without genetic variation. The priciple cause of genetic variation is the creation of new alleles and correct me if I'm wrong but mutations are the only way new alleles can be created. So excuse me if i don't repeat after you "mutation means nothing".
I think you're mistaking what exactly I was refering to, and would consider to be a high probability event.
The chances would be low of all the basic elements being present, on an rocky, temperate planet, the right distance from the star etc. etc. Yes the chances of this, from what we've observed (which isnt very much at all) would be low.
What I was refering to as likely, is once all the unprobable requirements have been met and you have a world capable allowing these complex organic molecules to form, then given billions of years and interactions, they would eventually have to arrange in the correct way to form said molecular structures. Well not have to, but given the time span would seem quite probable. After all, once the conidtions were met for life on earth it sprang up pretty quick.
As I understand it this sort chemistry can be reproduced in the lab.
The whole universe, which we can't even figure out where it ends, if it ends, if it is expanding, if so, how fast, etc... so it could very well be an ever-widening scope... potentially infinite elements.
Wouldn't this suggest that in a infinite universe there would be infinite opportunities for the elements to all be present. This is the first time we've observed some of the required elements in forming star system.
If these observations are correct, (gasses required to form organic matter found around a star much like our own in a region similar to earths) then it further supports the theory;
"that many of the molecular building blocks of life were present in the solar system even before planets formed, thus assisting the initial formation of complex organic molecules and the start of life itself."
I think the point is if all the required elements are present, then there is quite a high probability of them arranging in the correct way given a few billion years. Sure those ingredients in your bathroom aren't blue cheese now, but in a few billion years...?
Wasn't the probe mounted inside three large inflated airbags? It was supposed to use a 'hit, bounce and roll' landing technique so surley it should have been capable of withstanding a controlled impact on any point of the airbag.
I think it's more likely either the parachutes failed, leading to higher landing speeds than the airbags could cushion, or the air bags themselves failed to inflact
Rubbish, and your analogy is way off. Yea, right, if people don't pay what companies ask then they'll stop making them... Infact it works the other way round, companies charge what they think consumers are willing to pay.
If people stopped paying the premium price they currently pay for bleeding edge technology, (which drops in price in however many months when ATI or Nvidia make the next 'breakthrough') they wouldn't artificially inflate the prices in the first place.
I wish there weren't idiots out there who'll pay £370 for a graphics card. That way these companies wouldn't be able to charge the exorbinate prices they do and I'd be able to afford one!
Honestly who's daft enough to pay for bleeding edge technology so they can run at 1600x1200 instead of 1280x960.
The point is though if the smaller, private company can put people into LEO and do the engineering more efficiently, than whats the point of NASA being involved in the engineering at all? Why not just devolve/evolve NASA into a pure theoretical research outfit and let a private company handle the engineering/exploring.
The problem then becomes there isnt really any money in space exploration. Your private company contracted by NASA is essentialy government funded. In 40 years your back where you started, but with two NASA's...
Slashdot Mirror
Producer #5: Uh, no, actually, it was called "Animal Patrol". ... ...
Producer #1: But the ID idiots didn't want a show about evolutionary primates that shoot laser beams from their teeth!
Producer #2: So we asked ourselves, "Who's behind the teeth?"
Producer #3: Monkeys
Producer #4: Cops
Producer #5: "Monkey Cops."
Especially ruffled ones!
Badum-tsch!
Is semantics a science?
I, for one, welcome this new variation on the "I, for one, welcome our new {x} overlords". And I'd like to remind /. readers that as a trusted moderater, I can be helpful in modding up other variations to the effect that more /. readers are made to toil over such musings in their underground sugar caves.
Rubbish, everyone knows there is but one irrefutable test in the field of witch identification.
Shouldn't that be
a galaxy so close we couldn't see it before.
Ohhhhhh, now I understand....
Welcome to /vertisement...
From wiki;
Hubble orbits the Earth in the extremely tenuous upper atmosphere, and over time its orbit decays due to drag. If it is not re-boosted by a shuttle or other means, it will re-enter the Earth's atmosphere sometime between 2010 and 2032, with the exact date depending on how active the Sun is and its impact on the upper atmosphere.
The article also talks about de-orbiting it with the shuttle but says NASA is investigating the possibility of an external propulsion module. Im guessing this would allow de-orbiting without the need for an expensive shuttle mission.
Oh come on, think about it. Typical motor oil has a minimum 400F flash point and how many times have you been cooking with oil it's ignited?
I think that's primarily the problem. Failing electronics and gyroscopes mean you can't just 'leave it alone' or it will become useless, and also a potential danger. Hubble is also in LEO and as such needs its orbit boosting on a regular basis.
So you can't just leave it the fuck alone, you have to make extremely expensive manned missions to continualy repair and resupply it. Of course, there is another option. De-orbit it while we still have control and can safely do so and with the money saved you can launch a new telescope, in a more efficient/usefull orbit, that can do stuff the hubble can't.
And?
what about the rest?
Fry: What's so wonderful about Leela being normal? The rest of us aren't normal. And that's what makes us great. Like Dr. Zoidberg. He's a weird monster who smells like he eats garbage and does.
Dr. Zoidberg: Damn right.
Fry: And the professor's a senile amoral crackpot.
Professor: Oyeeaii.
Fry: Hermes is a Rastafarian accountant.
Hermes: Tally me banana.
Fry: Amy is a klutz from Mars.
Amy: Whoops.
Professor: And Fry, you've got that brain thing.
Fry: I already did!
Ranarama! haha brilliant! Haven't played that since my old Amstrad 6128 packed in. emu/rom site here i come!
Ok heres how I understand evolution and why mutation is important. There are two basic processes, introducing new genetic variation into a population, and selection affecting the frequencies of existing variation. A populationg cannot evolve without genetic variation. The priciple cause of genetic variation is the creation of new alleles and correct me if I'm wrong but mutations are the only way new alleles can be created. So excuse me if i don't repeat after you "mutation means nothing".
The chances would be low of all the basic elements being present, on an rocky, temperate planet, the right distance from the star etc. etc. Yes the chances of this, from what we've observed (which isnt very much at all) would be low.
What I was refering to as likely, is once all the unprobable requirements have been met and you have a world capable allowing these complex organic molecules to form, then given billions of years and interactions, they would eventually have to arrange in the correct way to form said molecular structures. Well not have to, but given the time span would seem quite probable. After all, once the conidtions were met for life on earth it sprang up pretty quick.
As I understand it this sort chemistry can be reproduced in the lab.
The whole universe, which we can't even figure out where it ends, if it ends, if it is expanding, if so, how fast, etc... so it could very well be an ever-widening scope... potentially infinite elements.
Wouldn't this suggest that in a infinite universe there would be infinite opportunities for the elements to all be present. This is the first time we've observed some of the required elements in forming star system.
If these observations are correct, (gasses required to form organic matter found around a star much like our own in a region similar to earths) then it further supports the theory;
"that many of the molecular building blocks of life were present in the solar system even before planets formed, thus assisting the initial formation of complex organic molecules and the start of life itself."
Period. It doesn't prove it. It doesn't claim to.
I think the point is if all the required elements are present, then there is quite a high probability of them arranging in the correct way given a few billion years. Sure those ingredients in your bathroom aren't blue cheese now, but in a few billion years...?
I think it's more likely either the parachutes failed, leading to higher landing speeds than the airbags could cushion, or the air bags themselves failed to inflact
If people stopped paying the premium price they currently pay for bleeding edge technology, (which drops in price in however many months when ATI or Nvidia make the next 'breakthrough') they wouldn't artificially inflate the prices in the first place.
I wish there weren't idiots out there who'll pay £370 for a graphics card. That way these companies wouldn't be able to charge the exorbinate prices they do and I'd be able to afford one!
Honestly who's daft enough to pay for bleeding edge technology so they can run at 1600x1200 instead of 1280x960.
The problem then becomes there isnt really any money in space exploration. Your private company contracted by NASA is essentialy government funded. In 40 years your back where you started, but with two NASA's...
But the playing arena does travel in a parabolic arc. Well for all intents and purposes.