I'm not a chemist, scientist, etc. So I may be wrong here. But I'll give it a shot...
As I understand, there's nothing particularly "life-giving" about nitrogen. It's an inert gas that basically keeps the oxygen from blowing up. If you can get the oxygen, you can mix it with other inert gases besides nitrogen, if nitrogen isn't handy.
For example, I remember reading about scuba divers using a mixture of oxygen and helium to dive deeper and avoid the bends. Of course, it shrinks vocal chords so everyone would sound like Mickey Mouse. But I'm sure they can find some other inert gas up there to use.
"Do you really need a watch that displays the time down to the nanosecond?"
You must be new here.
Of course, I need a watch that displays time to the nanosecond and wirelessly updates itself via the NIST Atomic Clock. It should also be able to play music and operate as a cell-phone/video phone.
Turn in your geek license at the door on the way out...:^)
"If you had nothing to do with it, you should be able to say that publically."
Well, when it comes to national security, that's not entirely true.
It's sort of like the old nuclear weapons on ships thing. "We will neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons on board this vessel." If they didn't have any, why not just say so? Because, we want to keep our enemies guessing.
Well, the Bush Administration submitted it because they are indirectly involved. While EFF is going after AT&T it has to do with the government and therefore they have an opinion.
It may not have to do with anything specifically in this case, but it may be more of a general "the government can do what it wants because we're at war so you shouldn't be looking at anything that involves a government agency on the front-lines of the war against terror" type of thing.
First, I doubt you'll make it through the metal/bomb detector with them. So you'll have to stick them on the conveyor belt. Imagine the reaction from the TSA person when they see the X-Ray of your shoes. I'd allow at least another 45 minutes to get to your gate.
Also, what happens when your transmitter interferes with the airplane's navigation radios?
Silly you. You probably thought it was about WMDs, bringing democracy to Iraq, securing Iraqi oil supplies or some such nonsense. Actually, the plans for Iraq started as a bet between a couple of generals.
General #1: Y'know, I'll bet we could control a country with a fraction of the troops ordinarily needed if we just had the right networking gear. General #2: You're full of shit. General #1: Wanna bet? General #2: You're on!
Now comes the more interesting question: What do you think the prize was? I'm thinking it was $1.
The setup is similar to our own solar system in many ways: The outermost planet is located just within the star's habitable zone, where temperatures are moderate enough for liquid water to form
Okay, I'm missing this. How is this like our solar system?
Assuming we can spot Neptune sized planets, if we were looking at our Solar System, we would see four planets well outside the "habitable" zone. Here we see three big rocky planets where only one is "just inside" the habitable zone--and I rashly assume it's just within the too-hot side (the outermost planet has a year of 197 days, compared to Venus's 224).
How is this "similar"? Seems pretty different to me...
Actually, they're not Neptunian. They are Neptunian-sized overlords. Mistakes such as that will cause you to be one of the first against the wall when our Neptunian-sized overlords take over.
I will welcome that, for using such an old joke.:^)
Re:Why Then Not Now?
on
Back to the Moon
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I suppose it's my turn to play troll. Personally, I believe we landed on the moon, but it's always a fun debate.
"Didn't they stick a mirror up there for astronomers to be able to reflect off of to get a very accurate distance between the earth/moon?"
We certainly did. The question is, did men place it there?
I hear this one alot. We obviously went to the moon because Apollo astronauts placed mirrors on the moon which reflect back to Earth. How do we know that Apollo astronauts placed these on the moon? Because we saw them do it on our TVs.
If we accept the argument that the reason that NASA didn't really send men to the moon because the men would die, this does not mean that NASA couldn't send things to the moon. I haven't heard anyone say that the Surveyor missions were faked. So if we go with that, NASA landed mirrors on the moon to coincide with the Apollo missions. These could have been remotely adjusted from Earth.
Again, I'm not saying we didn't land on the moon. I'm just saying that the mirrors don't necessarily prove that we did.
I think NASA's hope with the "initial" two-week missions to the moon is to excite the populace again. As much as I love this stuff, let's be honest: Watching astronauts orbit the Earth has gotten boring. I think the hope is that once the ol' Stars and Stripes is being planted on the Moon, the taxpayers will be more willing to cough up the dough to keep things going.
"I expect that Nixon felt that the leaks which exposed Watergate were threats to national security, and would have stopped them if they could."
In fact, Nixon tried that. He asked the CIA to interfere with the FBI's investigation of the Watergate break-in because of unnamed "National Security" implications. Nixon also edited the transcripts of the tapes, again claiming National Security.
"Don't be so quick to discount the possibility that the reporter might be an Al Kaida affiliate."
I have it under good authority that the reporters in question know somebody named Al. They also have been seen using A1 Steal Sauce and saw the movie "AI". So it's close enough that we should investigate...
(That was one of the standard jokes we had in Riyadh: "Why is everybody named Al?" It was sort-of a blonde-type joke...)
"And those of you who cite 'Secret Prison Camps' - go back and re-research that. They apparently never existed and were a story planted in order to catch leakers (which is what this may be all about)."
Isn't that convenient. Nope--we have no secret prison camps. Forget the various people tracking CIA flights, testimony from people who have been involved, etc. It was all just an elaborate hoax.
First, we go to USPS and file a change of address form. We need to do this quickly and it probably should span the next three or four months. That should give us bank account information--bank statements and the like. We can then contact the bank and arrange a wire-transfer to a bank account in the Caymans. Hope you weren't saving money for college.
This would easily enter the antitrust end of things.
If that happened, Yahoo! and Google just need to talk to the OEMs. Remember that most consumers buy computers, not operating systems. Yahoo! signs a deal with HP and there goes Microsoft's default homepage advantage.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not a chemist, scientist, etc. So I may be wrong here. But I'll give it a shot...
As I understand, there's nothing particularly "life-giving" about nitrogen. It's an inert gas that basically keeps the oxygen from blowing up. If you can get the oxygen, you can mix it with other inert gases besides nitrogen, if nitrogen isn't handy.
For example, I remember reading about scuba divers using a mixture of oxygen and helium to dive deeper and avoid the bends. Of course, it shrinks vocal chords so everyone would sound like Mickey Mouse. But I'm sure they can find some other inert gas up there to use.
"Who can guarantee me that in 10 years I can still play the music I buy now ?"
Burn it to a CD--a smart move, generally, as hard drives have been known to crash from time to time.
"Do you really need a watch that displays the time down to the nanosecond?"
:^)
You must be new here.
Of course, I need a watch that displays time to the nanosecond and wirelessly updates itself via the NIST Atomic Clock. It should also be able to play music and operate as a cell-phone/video phone.
Turn in your geek license at the door on the way out...
But what if you sent it up in some kind of space elevator?
:^)
Oh, wait...
(Maybe if we built a giant badger...
DMCA wins.
"If you had nothing to do with it, you should be able to say that publically."
Well, when it comes to national security, that's not entirely true.
It's sort of like the old nuclear weapons on ships thing. "We will neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons on board this vessel." If they didn't have any, why not just say so? Because, we want to keep our enemies guessing.
I'm not saying it's a good reason...
Well, the Bush Administration submitted it because they are indirectly involved. While EFF is going after AT&T it has to do with the government and therefore they have an opinion.
It may not have to do with anything specifically in this case, but it may be more of a general "the government can do what it wants because we're at war so you shouldn't be looking at anything that involves a government agency on the front-lines of the war against terror" type of thing.
Actually, that is an entertaining concern...
First, I doubt you'll make it through the metal/bomb detector with them. So you'll have to stick them on the conveyor belt. Imagine the reaction from the TSA person when they see the X-Ray of your shoes. I'd allow at least another 45 minutes to get to your gate.
Also, what happens when your transmitter interferes with the airplane's navigation radios?
'nuff said.
For some reason, this made me think of Gerald Ford's "Whip Inflation Now". And it suddenly occurred to me why it wasn't "Stop Inflation Now".
Maybe we need STN buttons?
(Stream of consciousness is a wonderful thing...)
Now comes the more interesting question: What do you think the prize was? I'm thinking it was $1.
"So then they make one that scans local and mapped drives and infects ALL word documents it finds."
Just a minor point--it probably wouldn't get the mapped drives only because they'd probably be set up as read only.
Still, you just infect all the documents and wait for one to go live.
"Yes, I can really imagine how that meeting with Hu would go down:
Hu: Buddy, dearest, we need to install these nifty little chips on your computers. Won't you help us?
Amelio: Fuck off."
Hu: Here's a big wad of cash.
Amelio: Awesome. Install whatever you want.
I mean, hey, let's be honest. Nobody has ever sold out their country for money. It couldn't happen.
SAM became NAV--Norton Antivirus for Macintosh.
Assuming we can spot Neptune sized planets, if we were looking at our Solar System, we would see four planets well outside the "habitable" zone. Here we see three big rocky planets where only one is "just inside" the habitable zone--and I rashly assume it's just within the too-hot side (the outermost planet has a year of 197 days, compared to Venus's 224).
How is this "similar"? Seems pretty different to me...
Actually, they're not Neptunian. They are Neptunian-sized overlords. Mistakes such as that will cause you to be one of the first against the wall when our Neptunian-sized overlords take over.
:^)
I will welcome that, for using such an old joke.
I suppose it's my turn to play troll. Personally, I believe we landed on the moon, but it's always a fun debate.
"Didn't they stick a mirror up there for astronomers to be able to reflect off of to get a very accurate distance between the earth/moon?"
We certainly did. The question is, did men place it there?
I hear this one alot. We obviously went to the moon because Apollo astronauts placed mirrors on the moon which reflect back to Earth. How do we know that Apollo astronauts placed these on the moon? Because we saw them do it on our TVs.
If we accept the argument that the reason that NASA didn't really send men to the moon because the men would die, this does not mean that NASA couldn't send things to the moon. I haven't heard anyone say that the Surveyor missions were faked. So if we go with that, NASA landed mirrors on the moon to coincide with the Apollo missions. These could have been remotely adjusted from Earth.
Again, I'm not saying we didn't land on the moon. I'm just saying that the mirrors don't necessarily prove that we did.
Great links!
I think NASA's hope with the "initial" two-week missions to the moon is to excite the populace again. As much as I love this stuff, let's be honest: Watching astronauts orbit the Earth has gotten boring. I think the hope is that once the ol' Stars and Stripes is being planted on the Moon, the taxpayers will be more willing to cough up the dough to keep things going.
Whether that's true or not, we'll see...
"I expect that Nixon felt that the leaks which exposed Watergate were threats to national security, and would have stopped them if they could."
In fact, Nixon tried that. He asked the CIA to interfere with the FBI's investigation of the Watergate break-in because of unnamed "National Security" implications. Nixon also edited the transcripts of the tapes, again claiming National Security.
"Don't be so quick to discount the possibility that the reporter might be an Al Kaida affiliate."
I have it under good authority that the reporters in question know somebody named Al. They also have been seen using A1 Steal Sauce and saw the movie "AI". So it's close enough that we should investigate...
(That was one of the standard jokes we had in Riyadh: "Why is everybody named Al?" It was sort-of a blonde-type joke...)
"And those of you who cite 'Secret Prison Camps' - go back and re-research that. They apparently never existed and were a story planted in order to catch leakers (which is what this may be all about)."
Isn't that convenient. Nope--we have no secret prison camps. Forget the various people tracking CIA flights, testimony from people who have been involved, etc. It was all just an elaborate hoax.
Yeah, right.
Okay, let's start with the obvious...
First, we go to USPS and file a change of address form. We need to do this quickly and it probably should span the next three or four months. That should give us bank account information--bank statements and the like. We can then contact the bank and arrange a wire-transfer to a bank account in the Caymans. Hope you weren't saving money for college.
This would easily enter the antitrust end of things.
If that happened, Yahoo! and Google just need to talk to the OEMs. Remember that most consumers buy computers, not operating systems. Yahoo! signs a deal with HP and there goes Microsoft's default homepage advantage.
Yup. search.yahoo.com has been around since December 12, 1998.
Google, on the other hand, made it's first appearance on December 2, 1998.
Hm.
"[...] her family was living in a hole in the ground [...]"
She was lucky. My grandfather from Yorkshire told me about how they were evicted from their hole and had to go live in a lake.
(I'm sorry. I just couldn't resist...)