Excellent! Creationists trying to justify their beliefs with "laws of physics" that do not fit the wealth of data accumulated by physicists over the years discredit themselves in areas where there is more room for debate like biology.
The lesson that *should* have been learned from Challenger and Columbia is that NASA knows jack shit about safely managing risks (here's a hint, hiding your head in the sand doesn't make problems go away). They ignored the O ring blowback, bad enough on its own as a sign of that some engineering spec isn't being met, then they launched when they were advised against it by bullying the naysayers into giving in. As for Columbia, you point out that they needed to inspect, but instead ignored it.
When did the NASA's motto change from "Failure is not an option" to "If we ignore the problem it'll go away". I wish I'd been alive to experience the young brash agency that didn't know exactly how they were gonna reach the moon, but they damn sure were going to.
>For example, it's known that people who work in certain jobs (such as pineapple farming) actually have their fingerprints removed by the acids and the abrasion.
Do you have any links for this? I highly doubt that this happens, since I've had no end of deep abrasions, callouses, etc on my fingertips and they've also (disappointingly) come back.
If sweat cools by eliminating heat with excreting water, why have we evolved the capability to sweat at all? Surely it would be simpler to just urinate, as well as not give any signs to predators though the odor later caused by bacteria.
You can be in a closed room, sweat, and cool, because in evaporating, you lose 580cal/gm water though latent heat of vaporization, while the specific heat of water is a paltry 1cal/gm-C by comparison. The heat remains, "trapped" in the evaporated sweat.
I think you misinterpreted language comprehension as language learning. The study shows that you understand say, a sentance, more and more as you read more of it, ie, our thinking is an online algorithm, not batch processed - so the headline is incorrect.
If you make the assumption that our brains work in a rigorous mathematical way, then your idea about an arbitrary limit, ie sleep/frustration at lack of progress, would be nature's clever way of ensure we don't end up trying to compute non-computable thing. Of course, it's late and I need to sleep so I'm probably talking out of my ass.
I didn't mean you in particular, I meant anyone replying, cause I really didn't wanna start some keyboard jihad, hence the "convert" with the connotations of reglious devotion to a keyboard.
You're making the assumption that the brain can detect the problem in any sort of general fashion. I think the evidence of the enormous number of bugs points to that being very unlikely, and it was proved by Godel that there are proofs that we cannot prove, which greatly strengthens this viewpoint.
Not all algorithms need the complete data to start computing, or even to provide a useful result. In the tree search example, if all the children of a node are close in groups, the search algorithm could give you a progressively narrow list of possible classifications. This is very useful if you have enormous trees and only need a rough estimate of the correct class.
What you're thinking of is online vs batch algorithms.
These links may help you survive until the day the faithful await arrives. (According the the voodoo lady in MI4, she's got a 5 game contract, but without Gilbert the series quality suffered, and the market isn't that big, so it's pretty iffy if MI5 will happen. Don't play MI4, it'll make you cry if you liked 1 and 2)
>When this vapourised mass evaporates into space in a vacuum, where does it go? Nowhere, so gravity drags it back, applying its heat back to the mass. Therefore there is no overall temperature change.
The phase change from solid/liquid to gas is endothermic, so the overall temperature will cool. It's why you sweat, the evaporation of water cools you.
However, both of these refer to minute aluminum particles, not large (>1cm^2) pieces of foil, and much less amounts than a tinfoil hat would consist of.
Additionally, the aluminum foil will react violently with hydrochloric acid in your stomach, producing aluminum chloride and hydrogen. Assuming your stomach doesn't rupture from the pressure, AlCl3 has toxicity of Oral rat LD50: 3311 mg/Kg. Oral mouse LD50: 770 mg/kg Tin is unreactive with HCl.
So assuming he got real tin foil, he should be fine. The Al foil would be quite dangerous, depending on how much his hat is made out of. There is also the added danger of being cut from the foil.
Well, it seems we are at an impass. My NASA paper says they possess full autoland capability, and your link says a few tasks necessitate astronaut button pushing. Since capability could mean it would require trivial rewiring of those buttons, which would put our sources in agreement, I'll go with that defn.
I suppose I wasn't clear, the link I had about Buran *did* say it's only flight was unmanned, the wiki is more informative by saying orbital launch (since the shuttle did many atmospheric test flights before launch there is a difference).
From my NASA paper link: "Although *full autoland* capability is available, the normal procedure is for the crew to assume manual control before the flare maneuver leading to the shallow glideslope." I take that to mean that if the astronauts are somehow incapicated, mission control/the shuttle can land the shuttle for them.
Regardless of what everyone on slashdot seems to think, rocket engineers know more about rocket engineering than you.
>It only flew once, unmanned. A feat Shuttle can't do, by the way, as it can't land unmanned. You're confusing unmanned with automated flight. The shuttle certainly contains autoland capabilty, what sense would there in automating everyting *but* the landing, and does the Buran have similar automation (links please)?
Slashdot Mirror
Excellent! Creationists trying to justify their beliefs with "laws of physics" that do not fit the wealth of data accumulated by physicists over the years discredit themselves in areas where there is more room for debate like biology.
Why settle for a puny Mach 3, when you could have a Mach 13
I too have a Mach 3, and I too am loving it.
Well, I mean, it's not like either company has trademarked "Frosty Piss", so it really wou... Oh, I see what you meant.
Whoa..., you mean people in the future will *actually* read the Constitution?
The lesson that *should* have been learned from Challenger and Columbia is that NASA knows jack shit about safely managing risks (here's a hint, hiding your head in the sand doesn't make problems go away). They ignored the O ring blowback, bad enough on its own as a sign of that some engineering spec isn't being met, then they launched when they were advised against it by bullying the naysayers into giving in. As for Columbia, you point out that they needed to inspect, but instead ignored it.
When did the NASA's motto change from "Failure is not an option" to "If we ignore the problem it'll go away". I wish I'd been alive to experience the young brash agency that didn't know exactly how they were gonna reach the moon, but they damn sure were going to.
I dunno, I think that the old flamewars like Atari vs Amiga would be refreshing, and much more interesting than the G5 vs x86 or Qwerty vs Dvorak.
That said, only retarded homosexual gimps would even think of using a 68000 processor!
Thanks for the links and info! I searched for bromelain fingerprints references and found some info.
... and some papers are referenced.
Toxicity - Workers who cut up pineapples have their fingerprints almost completely obliterated by pressure and the keratolytic effect of bromelain
Ananas comosus Merrill (Pineapple) lists the study (Polunin 1951). verifying your info as well.
>For example, it's known that people who work in certain jobs (such as pineapple farming) actually have their fingerprints removed by the acids and the abrasion.
Do you have any links for this? I highly doubt that this happens, since I've had no end of deep abrasions, callouses, etc on my fingertips and they've also (disappointingly) come back.
I use a 4 part authentication system, much like yours:
Something that's unsaid (keycard), something of the head (password), something of the body (biometrics), and chocolate.
I feel that my system possess all the strengths of yours, while having the added security of being immune to the so-called "Theobroma cacao attack".
If sweat cools by eliminating heat with excreting water, why have we evolved the capability to sweat at all? Surely it would be simpler to just urinate, as well as not give any signs to predators though the odor later caused by bacteria.
You can be in a closed room, sweat, and cool, because in evaporating, you lose 580cal/gm water though latent heat of vaporization, while the specific heat of water is a paltry 1cal/gm-C by comparison. The heat remains, "trapped" in the evaporated sweat.
So, if I understand you, you wanna rice out this UAV, but in a geek way? Oh the humanity.
Care to share your recipe? Or at least say what types of peppers you use?
I think you misinterpreted language comprehension as language learning. The study shows that you understand say, a sentance, more and more as you read more of it, ie, our thinking is an online algorithm, not batch processed - so the headline is incorrect.
If you make the assumption that our brains work in a rigorous mathematical way, then your idea about an arbitrary limit, ie sleep/frustration at lack of progress, would be nature's clever way of ensure we don't end up trying to compute non-computable thing. Of course, it's late and I need to sleep so I'm probably talking out of my ass.
I didn't mean you in particular, I meant anyone replying, cause I really didn't wanna start some keyboard jihad, hence the "convert" with the connotations of reglious devotion to a keyboard.
I disagree on your last point. Roland would benefit greatly from being hooked up to AC electric current.
You're making the assumption that the brain can detect the problem in any sort of general fashion. I think the evidence of the enormous number of bugs points to that being very unlikely, and it was proved by Godel that there are proofs that we cannot prove, which greatly strengthens this viewpoint.
Not all algorithms need the complete data to start computing, or even to provide a useful result. In the tree search example, if all the children of a node are close in groups, the search algorithm could give you a progressively narrow list of possible classifications. This is very useful if you have enormous trees and only need a rough estimate of the correct class.
What you're thinking of is online vs batch algorithms.
If you're seeing sex as a big theme in quake, well, I shudder to think what your children will be like.
These links may help you survive until the day the faithful await arrives. (According the the voodoo lady in MI4, she's got a 5 game contract, but without Gilbert the series quality suffered, and the market isn't that big, so it's pretty iffy if MI5 will happen. Don't play MI4, it'll make you cry if you liked 1 and 2)
Day of the Tentacle
Monkey Island 2: Le Chuck's Revenge Mac Version
The Secret in The Secret of Monkey Island
The Secret of Monkey Island Spanish Version
The Secret of Monkey Island
Lechuck's Revenge
>When this vapourised mass evaporates into space in a vacuum, where does it go? Nowhere, so gravity drags it back, applying its heat back to the mass. Therefore there is no overall temperature change.
The phase change from solid/liquid to gas is endothermic, so the overall temperature will cool. It's why you sweat, the evaporation of water cools you.
Depends.
... is not a necessary substance for our bodies and [though] too much may be harmful.
Metallic tin is not very toxic due to its poor gastrointestinal absorption.
Aluminum
However, both of these refer to minute aluminum particles, not large (>1cm^2) pieces of foil, and much less amounts than a tinfoil hat would consist of.
Additionally, the aluminum foil will react violently with hydrochloric acid in your stomach, producing aluminum chloride and hydrogen. Assuming your stomach doesn't rupture from the pressure, AlCl3 has toxicity of Oral rat LD50: 3311 mg/Kg. Oral mouse LD50: 770 mg/kg
Tin is unreactive with HCl.
So assuming he got real tin foil, he should be fine. The Al foil would be quite dangerous, depending on how much his hat is made out of. There is also the added danger of being cut from the foil.
Well, it seems we are at an impass. My NASA paper says they possess full autoland capability, and your link says a few tasks necessitate astronaut button pushing. Since capability could mean it would require trivial rewiring of those buttons, which would put our sources in agreement, I'll go with that defn.
I suppose I wasn't clear, the link I had about Buran *did* say it's only flight was unmanned, the wiki is more informative by saying orbital launch (since the shuttle did many atmospheric test flights before launch there is a difference).
From my NASA paper link: "Although *full autoland* capability is available, the normal procedure is for the crew to assume manual control before the flare maneuver leading to the shallow glideslope." I take that to mean that if the astronauts are somehow incapicated, mission control/the shuttle can land the shuttle for them.
Regardless of what everyone on slashdot seems to think, rocket engineers know more about rocket engineering than you.
>It only flew once, unmanned. A feat Shuttle can't do, by the way, as it can't land unmanned.
You're confusing unmanned with automated flight. The shuttle certainly contains autoland capabilty, what sense would there in automating everyting *but* the landing, and does the Buran have similar automation (links please)?
As for the USSR's "smart financial call", During the early 1990's, a man rated Buran spacecraft was being prepared for flight, but in 1993 the program was officially terminated. Since your post is wildly inaccurate on all other accounts, I remind you the USSR fell in December 26, 1991.