A DVD from Blockbuster is a read-only device. How is it going to know its in a computer? Your computer fucked up, if anything. Chances are your computer was misconfigured or something was wrong with the DVD (some form of copy protection gone haywire?)
And despite of your little tirade at Blockbuster the majority of us watch movies on the television...
Its good that they are helping out those who can't help themselves. But the truth of the matter is there are those of us who run windows, who DON'T run antivirus/antispyware, and do just fine. I am vehimently anti-anything on my gaming machine at home. If you are smart about your online habits you don't need antivirus/antispyware. If you aren't then you do. Platform doesn't matter.
The problem is coming up with a length of time that is suitably long for a poor inventor to try and bring his product into fruition and yet short enough to prevent squatting. Yes, there are legitimate reasons for time given to "sit" on a patent. I can come up with the Next Big Thing a year before Company X but not have the cold hard cash to do so, does that mean I should have to give up my rights to it? According to you yes... you're throwing out the baby with the bath water. There is good in the system. Using the system I can get my patent and start seeking venture capital or license it to Company X. I think there is definitely room for reform but your alternative will lead to screwing over worse than we have now.
But that's the point of this article and you missed it. If you are buying a car from a dealership, PAYING the dealership, you betcha the wording states that the creditor (the dealership) holds the title.
The variation in day timing comes from the rotation of the earth as we rotate about the sun. Our orbit is elliptic and as we spin about our axis and rotate this causes days that have a slight variation in time.
If the sun rotated about us, we would have a consistent length of day. The variability comes from the fact that we rotate about the sun and spin as we do so. Think about it.
Sun crosses the sky and emerges on the other horizon half a day later... the most likely explanation is that it circles the Earth. (Being facetious, but you know what I mean...)
Until you increase the sample size and realise that the length of days changes on a daily basis. Which means we orbit the sun, not the other way around.
Either Spectrometry or RADAR must be the only useful evidence.
I never said that. What I said is that spectrometry is the better tool, as it can identify elements where as radar identifies masses (which really doesn't tell you much), and as the ESA is finding out - the ionosphere, weak as it is messes around with it when you are trying to use it from orbit. Right tool for the job - spectrometer is a better tool. Both in conjunction would be ideal. But they are sensing different regions of mars, so you can't make a composite of the ESA's data and NASA's data.
I'm an engineer - I take the data I'm given and draw the most logical conclusion. There's something there emitting a hot hydrogen signature... the most likely candidate is water.
yes, and my star wars profile likens me unto a sith lord. I also happen to be an engineer... when I'm given data, it's my job to draw the most logical conclusion from said data and use it constructively, not mentally masterbate.
A good protocol is useless if the people you are trying to keep in touch with aren't using it. I use AIM solely because that's what all of my friends use. Chat_Client_X might be better but if the people I need to keep in contact with aren't using it, what's the point?
The problem with radar alone is they will never know for sure. And looking that deep, the water is virtually useless for anything but an advanced permenant settlement. Have you seen the rigs it takes to drill for oil that deep? Not to mention we don't even know if its water or a solidified magma flow.
But you'd need to heat up the surface first. Which requires a *lot* of greenhouse gasses first, to trap the heat. You can't just boil a big pot of water, it will just condense on the surface.
Your right. We haven't drank the water yet. But gamma ray spectrometry is the best tool we have (and beats the crap out of radar) What else would give a positive hydrogen signature like that? Methane? No. Not cold enough. Peroxide? We could only wish but no, not stable enough. Seriously, what else has that strong a hydrogen signature?
Dear mr. AC person: "i shoot the bb gun" is pronounced with a long 'o' sound. Look it up at www.m-w.com; long 'o' pronunciation symbol (double-dots over the o). Not sure what crack your smoking. Also, 'radii' is not pronounced the same as 'hawaii'. In case you weren't paying attention in English, there are exceptions to the rule.
Its too thin. That's the problem, trying to make the atmosphere thicker. You basically have to import gasses one way or another. Gasses are bulky though, there are better ways to do it, like plants, biomass, etc. that can break down matter from a solid state into gas. Martian rock is actually rather rusty and carbonaceous (sp?) if you had a good cheap source of heat you could heat it up and get some carbon dioxide and oxygen off of it... its not an easy problem to tackle. Other methods that have been suggested have been bombarding the surface with asteroids from the asteroid belt (many of them have a lot of solid gasses on them) or detonating nuclear bombs (bad idea IMO).
To terraform you need to make an atmosphere. You need greenhouse gasses to do this. Water generally doesn't factor into the equation. A good reference is "The case for Mars" by Robert Zubrin (although I don't totally agree with him)
Slashdot Mirror
A DVD from Blockbuster is a read-only device. How is it going to know its in a computer? Your computer fucked up, if anything. Chances are your computer was misconfigured or something was wrong with the DVD (some form of copy protection gone haywire?)
...
And despite of your little tirade at Blockbuster the majority of us watch movies on the television
-everphilski-
http://xinehq.de/index.php/about is the only one I know of off the top of my head.
-everphilski-
Yeah, but he can't be pulling teeth (and making money) while he's writing those tools, now can he :)
-everphilski-
Its good that they are helping out those who can't help themselves. But the truth of the matter is there are those of us who run windows, who DON'T run antivirus/antispyware, and do just fine. I am vehimently anti-anything on my gaming machine at home. If you are smart about your online habits you don't need antivirus/antispyware. If you aren't then you do. Platform doesn't matter.
-everphilski-
The problem is coming up with a length of time that is suitably long for a poor inventor to try and bring his product into fruition and yet short enough to prevent squatting. Yes, there are legitimate reasons for time given to "sit" on a patent. I can come up with the Next Big Thing a year before Company X but not have the cold hard cash to do so, does that mean I should have to give up my rights to it? According to you yes... you're throwing out the baby with the bath water. There is good in the system. Using the system I can get my patent and start seeking venture capital or license it to Company X. I think there is definitely room for reform but your alternative will lead to screwing over worse than we have now.
-everphilski-
*whispers* (welcome to slashdot)
-everphilski-
Right, sorry, revolves around the sun. I am plagued by migraines, and sometimes the words don't come out right.
-everphilski-
If you read the article carefully you'll notice that Google talked to Reuters, not ZDnet...
-everphilski-
But that's the point of this article and you missed it. If you are buying a car from a dealership, PAYING the dealership, you betcha the wording states that the creditor (the dealership) holds the title.
-everphilski-
The variation in day timing comes from the rotation of the earth as we rotate about the sun. Our orbit is elliptic and as we spin about our axis and rotate this causes days that have a slight variation in time.
If the sun rotated about us, we would have a consistent length of day. The variability comes from the fact that we rotate about the sun and spin as we do so. Think about it.
-everphilski-
Sun crosses the sky and emerges on the other horizon half a day later... the most likely explanation is that it circles the Earth. (Being facetious, but you know what I mean...)
Until you increase the sample size and realise that the length of days changes on a daily basis. Which means we orbit the sun, not the other way around.
-everphilski-
I dont have mod points :) i got the joke and I acknowleged that I am indeed a sith :)
-everphilski-
Either Spectrometry or RADAR must be the only useful evidence.
I never said that. What I said is that spectrometry is the better tool, as it can identify elements where as radar identifies masses (which really doesn't tell you much), and as the ESA is finding out - the ionosphere, weak as it is messes around with it when you are trying to use it from orbit. Right tool for the job - spectrometer is a better tool. Both in conjunction would be ideal. But they are sensing different regions of mars, so you can't make a composite of the ESA's data and NASA's data.
I'm an engineer - I take the data I'm given and draw the most logical conclusion. There's something there emitting a hot hydrogen signature... the most likely candidate is water.
-everphilski-
yes, and my star wars profile likens me unto a sith lord. I also happen to be an engineer... when I'm given data, it's my job to draw the most logical conclusion from said data and use it constructively, not mentally masterbate.
-everphilski-
A good protocol is useless if the people you are trying to keep in touch with aren't using it. I use AIM solely because that's what all of my friends use. Chat_Client_X might be better but if the people I need to keep in contact with aren't using it, what's the point?
-everphilski-
Arschloch
The problem with radar alone is they will never know for sure. And looking that deep, the water is virtually useless for anything but an advanced permenant settlement. Have you seen the rigs it takes to drill for oil that deep? Not to mention we don't even know if its water or a solidified magma flow.
-everphilski-
But you'd need to heat up the surface first. Which requires a *lot* of greenhouse gasses first, to trap the heat. You can't just boil a big pot of water, it will just condense on the surface.
-everphilski-
Your right. We haven't drank the water yet. But gamma ray spectrometry is the best tool we have (and beats the crap out of radar) What else would give a positive hydrogen signature like that? Methane? No. Not cold enough. Peroxide? We could only wish but no, not stable enough. Seriously, what else has that strong a hydrogen signature?
-everphilski-
Dear mr. AC person: "i shoot the bb gun" is pronounced with a long 'o' sound. Look it up at www.m-w.com; long 'o' pronunciation symbol (double-dots over the o). Not sure what crack your smoking. Also, 'radii' is not pronounced the same as 'hawaii'. In case you weren't paying attention in English, there are exceptions to the rule.
-everphilski-
~Futurama~
-everphilski-
For disinformation!
-everphilski-
Its too thin. That's the problem, trying to make the atmosphere thicker. You basically have to import gasses one way or another. Gasses are bulky though, there are better ways to do it, like plants, biomass, etc. that can break down matter from a solid state into gas. Martian rock is actually rather rusty and carbonaceous (sp?) if you had a good cheap source of heat you could heat it up and get some carbon dioxide and oxygen off of it... its not an easy problem to tackle. Other methods that have been suggested have been bombarding the surface with asteroids from the asteroid belt (many of them have a lot of solid gasses on them) or detonating nuclear bombs (bad idea IMO).
-everphilski-
They shoulda used a spectrometer and not radar :)
(resists urge to take a pot shot at ESA)
-everphilski-
To terraform you need to make an atmosphere. You need greenhouse gasses to do this. Water generally doesn't factor into the equation. A good reference is "The case for Mars" by Robert Zubrin (although I don't totally agree with him)
-everphilski-
Nasa found water years ago http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2009318.stm
-everphilski-