Still true even further down the line. I still listen to CD's that are more than 20 years old. And I mean the CD, not the music.
Of course I had to go through the winnowing precess from LP to CD, and that makes a difference. The music I wanted I gradually bought in CD, and the rest of those LP's are in the same fake milk crate I had in Jester Center. A lot of Genesis, Gang of Four, other things haven't worn very well on me. Guess it's time to head on down to the used music store...
Oh, come on, the early history of NASA is littered with failures. Look at the history of Mars missions, lunar missions, and launches and you will see problems everywhere. Many years ago a velocity correction was applied in the opposite direction because somebody forgot to check. The metric-vs-english problem on MCO was a stupid fault, yes, but that wasn't NASA. When Lockheed-Martin sends you a file full of small numbers and doesn't give you what you agreed on, it's hard to see the problem until the very last minute (which NASA did).
James Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis works well when applied to Earth (no doubt somebody will challenge this). The self-regulating web of life has emerged over billions of years. But Earth and Mars have had very different geological/areological histories. In this context, how might Mars look if life were interrupted by a huge meteor strike? Even a significant degree of life could be obliterated after a billion years of storms and strikes IMHO (not a planetary scientist). Looking back to early Earth, what traces of life are left from before the planet was flooded with oxygen? Certainly none visible from orbit.
It's possibly true that life as we know it doesn't behave like that... but we only have this one sample. I think it's more reasonable to assume that the process of life may take different paths, some resulting in a deep global change such as we have, and some just barely hanging on. Or even dying out. But a good hypothesis deserves a test, don't you think?
It's true there are no picture yet, but that's clear from the article and even the header on/. But as the article states images will be taken beginning Friday and I'm willing to bet some of those will be released to the public. I fact I'm certain of it.
You are completely on the mark except for your conclusion. MRO resolution is better than Mars Express. In fact the HiRISE pictures have been accelerated in the mission in order to provide inputs to the Phoenix Lander. This is a stated purpose of the mission and will continue for as long as possible (probably about Phoenix launch). Another important point is that MRO is in a consistently lower orbit than Mars Express. The MRO orbit is nearly circular and is never higher than about 350 km. This means that a potential landing site can be targeted from low alttiude fairly frequently. The Mars Express orbit is elliptical, with a lowest altitude close to (but greater than) MRO of about 250 km. But because the orbit is elliptical this altitude is reached in a cyclic manner over various altitudes. The period of this cycle is about 70 days.
I'll certainly TiVo it. I knew people who raved about it when it was on, but I didn't feel like watching it back then (so sue me). I saw the movie and enjoyed it, so now I'll watch. I know this is the non-standard way for things to go, but really, the movie can act as advertising for the series and not just the other way around. I suppose I'm jumping on the FF bandwagon;)
Wow, I don't see a publication out of this one. I could have dashed this off in an afternoon *and* had someone proof-read it for me.
The 'research' isn't particularly detailed. About 15% of the paper is devoted to explaining how heat is just energy moving around. Although I'm not a believer, this paper is essentially saying "Ghosts etc. can't exist because they violate the laws of physics." Duh.
I may have missed something, but funny clouds and unexplained oxygen-free zones in the ocean are not quite of the same magnitude. Why do all the posters assume the scientists have never read a book or realized there are other bodies of water? I don't know for a fact they are smart or responsible (after all, it doesn't "say so in the article") but these threads remind me of a bunch of old men playing checkers on the courthouse steps and dispensing their accumulated skepticism about those egg-heads who keep trying to make a big deal out of nothing. The only way to find out if it is a transient natural phenomenon or a symptom of a larger process is to study it. The article is a 40,000 foot view of this ongoing study. Obviously it left some things out. Tossing out anecdotal evidence is useless.
Nice try, but two NASA missions just got new targets. Dawn is going to Ceres, once an asteroid, now an inner solar system dwarf planet. Yay! New Horizons is going to Pluto, once a planet, now the most accessible of the outer dwarf planets. Yay! This also means all the planets have been visited by space probes. Yay!
Silly, it's England. Not Britain, mind you, which has far too many difficult-to-pronounce places. Just dear old England with its Thomas Kinkaid-like charm.
If you don't believe me, just ask Tony Blair.
You can still get a DirecTiVo from DirecTV
on
DirecTV's New HD-DVR
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Don't sweat it... I have a brand new DirecTiVo now because my old one died last week. When I went through customer service they noticed I'm a TiVo customer and offered me another one. It only works if you already have TiVo though.
Isn't the fantastic interface a TiVo thing and not DirecTV?
Yes, by all mean, let's enact laws to protect society from these "individuals." The US Constitution has it all backwards. Society has a right to extract what it wants from its members without interference from such antiquated 18-century notions as "personal rights." If everyone wants something then obviously they need it and have a right to it no matter what.
Once we're done with the music companies, I'm going after Starbucks. I mean, coffee has been around for centuries. It must be in the public domain by now. What gives them the right to demand money from me for it?
Sorry, this is a fact-free zone. Are you trying to stifle our creative expression? I know in my gut that what you said cannot be true. When I want something then I have a right to it. Wold you hang a man for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his paraplegic child? Thought so.
What "definition" are you using that says you can't steal an intangible? Which legal code?
The theft we're talking about is money. Just like he said, it's a small amount of money to be sure, and the person may or may not be able to afford it. But the artists have signed contracts with the companies to receive this pittance and they entered into it freely to be able to distribute their music. They have the right to money for their work, right, or is that too capitalistic for you?
The amount of mental gymnastics we see every time this comes up is astounding. The real argument here is, "I see it, I want it, I can get it without paying. This is great! Why won't they let me? Those bastards!" That's why so much of the vitriol is directed against the companies (read: parents) who set limits that people don't like. Anyone who downloads music without admitting what they do is being intellecually dishonest.
Sure, the labels are rsponsible for people wanting to succeed and make lots of money. Nobody else acts like that. So obviously, if these so-called artists would just give up this dream of selling their work for as much money as possible, then it's totally OK for me to copy it and give it out to my friends. Besides, I'm too strapped right now going to law school to shell out for new CDs.
You could look at it that way, but the definition would not. Instead of using the gravitational attraction they're using the barycenter... which you probably knew already. Personally I think the barycenter definition is simple and elegant.
You say that like it would be a good thing. We have finally just about finished physical lynching in the US. This is even more arbitrary though obviously less harsh. This woman was outed to the entire country and publicly shamed because her dog crapped on the subway and she left it there. Selfish and obnoxious? Yes. But was this "punishment" suitable to the crime? No way. It's like living your life in a small town that you can never leave. And what happens when pictures are faked? It's an easy weapon to turn on anyone you want to humiliate.
A very well thought-out article with one big problem - perspective. Apple will certainly make inroads with the PC world the way they are going, but the end result is ridiculous. Even assuming Apple did lure people with BootCamp, etc., most people still won't want the bother of choosing an OS at the start. I'm guessing the problems between systems would be incomprehensible. A good friend of mine, a smart person, couldn't really understand why you couldn't run a Mac program on a PC and vice versa.
The other nail in the coffin is the third world runs on pirated Windows. Since IBM bailed out to Lenovo there will be billions of users who never even see a Mac.
On the third point, possibly Steve saved some good stuff in Leopard for later. But what we saw was not over-impresssive. He certainly knew about the SEC news yesterday and making a bigger pronouncement would have taken some of the sting out of that in the stock price. My guess is that this financial stuff is why he looks pale and drawn right now.
Slashdot Mirror
Still true even further down the line. I still listen to CD's that are more than 20 years old. And I mean the CD, not the music.
...
Of course I had to go through the winnowing precess from LP to CD, and that makes a difference. The music I wanted I gradually bought in CD, and the rest of those LP's are in the same fake milk crate I had in Jester Center. A lot of Genesis, Gang of Four, other things haven't worn very well on me. Guess it's time to head on down to the used music store
There is no manned mission to Mars. It's just something for politicians to talk about.
Oh, come on, the early history of NASA is littered with failures. Look at the history of Mars missions, lunar missions, and launches and you will see problems everywhere. Many years ago a velocity correction was applied in the opposite direction because somebody forgot to check.
The metric-vs-english problem on MCO was a stupid fault, yes, but that wasn't NASA. When Lockheed-Martin sends you a file full of small numbers and doesn't give you what you agreed on, it's hard to see the problem until the very last minute (which NASA did).
So we can all whine about DRM again. Has anything new or interesting been said about it in the last, say, year?
James Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis works well when applied to Earth (no doubt somebody will challenge this). The self-regulating web of life has emerged over billions of years. But Earth and Mars have had very different geological/areological histories. In this context, how might Mars look if life were interrupted by a huge meteor strike? Even a significant degree of life could be obliterated after a billion years of storms and strikes IMHO (not a planetary scientist). Looking back to early Earth, what traces of life are left from before the planet was flooded with oxygen? Certainly none visible from orbit. It's possibly true that life as we know it doesn't behave like that ... but we only have this one sample. I think it's more reasonable to assume that the process of life may take different paths, some resulting in a deep global change such as we have, and some just barely hanging on. Or even dying out. But a good hypothesis deserves a test, don't you think?
I'd rather terraform Venus, and live there while it's being done. The air's better.
So what's special about SoCal? Live there, lived in south Texas too. I guess in your imaginary 'good old days' there were no Hispanics in America.
It's true there are no picture yet, but that's clear from the article and even the header on /. But as the article states images will be taken beginning Friday and I'm willing to bet some of those will be released to the public. I fact I'm certain of it.
You are completely on the mark except for your conclusion. MRO resolution is better than Mars Express. In fact the HiRISE pictures have been accelerated in the mission in order to provide inputs to the Phoenix Lander. This is a stated purpose of the mission and will continue for as long as possible (probably about Phoenix launch).
Another important point is that MRO is in a consistently lower orbit than Mars Express. The MRO orbit is nearly circular and is never higher than about 350 km. This means that a potential landing site can be targeted from low alttiude fairly frequently. The Mars Express orbit is elliptical, with a lowest altitude close to (but greater than) MRO of about 250 km. But because the orbit is elliptical this altitude is reached in a cyclic manner over various altitudes. The period of this cycle is about 70 days.
I'll certainly TiVo it. I knew people who raved about it when it was on, but I didn't feel like watching it back then (so sue me). I saw the movie and enjoyed it, so now I'll watch. I know this is the non-standard way for things to go, but really, the movie can act as advertising for the series and not just the other way around. I suppose I'm jumping on the FF bandwagon ;)
Wow, I don't see a publication out of this one. I could have dashed this off in an afternoon *and* had someone proof-read it for me.
The 'research' isn't particularly detailed. About 15% of the paper is devoted to explaining how heat is just energy moving around. Although I'm not a believer, this paper is essentially saying "Ghosts etc. can't exist because they violate the laws of physics." Duh.
I may have missed something, but funny clouds and unexplained oxygen-free zones in the ocean are not quite of the same magnitude. Why do all the posters assume the scientists have never read a book or realized there are other bodies of water? I don't know for a fact they are smart or responsible (after all, it doesn't "say so in the article") but these threads remind me of a bunch of old men playing checkers on the courthouse steps and dispensing their accumulated skepticism about those egg-heads who keep trying to make a big deal out of nothing.
The only way to find out if it is a transient natural phenomenon or a symptom of a larger process is to study it. The article is a 40,000 foot view of this ongoing study. Obviously it left some things out. Tossing out anecdotal evidence is useless.
Nice try, but two NASA missions just got new targets.
Dawn is going to Ceres, once an asteroid, now an inner solar system dwarf planet. Yay!
New Horizons is going to Pluto, once a planet, now the most accessible of the outer dwarf planets. Yay!
This also means all the planets have been visited by space probes. Yay!
Silly, it's England. Not Britain, mind you, which has far too many difficult-to-pronounce places. Just dear old England with its Thomas Kinkaid-like charm.
If you don't believe me, just ask Tony Blair.
Don't sweat it ... I have a brand new DirecTiVo now because my old one died last week. When I went through customer service they noticed I'm a TiVo customer and offered me another one. It only works if you already have TiVo though.
Isn't the fantastic interface a TiVo thing and not DirecTV?
Yes, by all mean, let's enact laws to protect society from these "individuals." The US Constitution has it all backwards. Society has a right to extract what it wants from its members without interference from such antiquated 18-century notions as "personal rights." If everyone wants something then obviously they need it and have a right to it no matter what.
Once we're done with the music companies, I'm going after Starbucks. I mean, coffee has been around for centuries. It must be in the public domain by now. What gives them the right to demand money from me for it?
Sorry, this is a fact-free zone. Are you trying to stifle our creative expression? I know in my gut that what you said cannot be true. When I want something then I have a right to it. Wold you hang a man for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his paraplegic child? Thought so.
What "definition" are you using that says you can't steal an intangible? Which legal code?
The theft we're talking about is money. Just like he said, it's a small amount of money to be sure, and the person may or may not be able to afford it. But the artists have signed contracts with the companies to receive this pittance and they entered into it freely to be able to distribute their music. They have the right to money for their work, right, or is that too capitalistic for you?
The amount of mental gymnastics we see every time this comes up is astounding. The real argument here is, "I see it, I want it, I can get it without paying. This is great! Why won't they let me? Those bastards!" That's why so much of the vitriol is directed against the companies (read: parents) who set limits that people don't like. Anyone who downloads music without admitting what they do is being intellecually dishonest.
"Insightful?" Why don't we have an "Unsubstantiated Opinion" category?
Sure, the labels are rsponsible for people wanting to succeed and make lots of money. Nobody else acts like that. So obviously, if these so-called artists would just give up this dream of selling their work for as much money as possible, then it's totally OK for me to copy it and give it out to my friends. Besides, I'm too strapped right now going to law school to shell out for new CDs.
You could look at it that way, but the definition would not. Instead of using the gravitational attraction they're using the barycenter ... which you probably knew already. Personally I think the barycenter definition is simple and elegant.
You say that like it would be a good thing. We have finally just about finished physical lynching in the US. This is even more arbitrary though obviously less harsh. This woman was outed to the entire country and publicly shamed because her dog crapped on the subway and she left it there. Selfish and obnoxious? Yes. But was this "punishment" suitable to the crime? No way. It's like living your life in a small town that you can never leave. And what happens when pictures are faked? It's an easy weapon to turn on anyone you want to humiliate.
Witch hunts, anyone?
A very well thought-out article with one big problem - perspective. Apple will certainly make inroads with the PC world the way they are going, but the end result is ridiculous. Even assuming Apple did lure people with BootCamp, etc., most people still won't want the bother of choosing an OS at the start. I'm guessing the problems between systems would be incomprehensible. A good friend of mine, a smart person, couldn't really understand why you couldn't run a Mac program on a PC and vice versa.
The other nail in the coffin is the third world runs on pirated Windows. Since IBM bailed out to Lenovo there will be billions of users who never even see a Mac.
On the third point, possibly Steve saved some good stuff in Leopard for later. But what we saw was not over-impresssive. He certainly knew about the SEC news yesterday and making a bigger pronouncement would have taken some of the sting out of that in the stock price. My guess is that this financial stuff is why he looks pale and drawn right now.
Can I run System 7.5 on it? I always thought that was pretty stable, and I still have a bunch of old games lying around.
Hey, cut this out! There's a limit on the number of reasonable conversations here and you're clogging the pipes.