It sounds like the popular press is blowing things out of proportion again, shockingly. In the original _Science_ article, I counted 78 sentences in Kargel's piece. Out of those 78 sentences, there are only 2 that make any sort of mention whatsoever about the possibility of biological hazards (really, only one of them...the other one talks about the dangers of cross-contamination, which is a different problem entirely). Here they are:
"All possible care must be taken to avoid cross-contamination between Earth and Mars. Before proceeding with sample returns or human missions to Mars, we must review measures for planetary biological protection." (Kargel, Science, Vol 306, Issue 5702, 1689-1691 , 3 December 2004)
Notice how, unlike the popular press, Kargel isn't saying "OMG TEH SKY IS FALLING LOLLZ." He's saying (very, very briefly) that we should maybe have some plans in place in the event that we do find life to bring back for further study.
"DOn't go after PVRs through legal channels, find a technicall solution."
Actually, don't do either. Stomping on the rights of customers is wrong no matter what form it takes. And you might argue that TV viewers don't have the "right" to watch TV, but the airwaves belong to the people. If the corporations don't like that, tough shit.
Incidentally, I hate TV. It's fucking drivel. That doesn't change the fact that people shouldn't be shit on by network execs.
I was under the impression that humanity has been at an evolutionary standstill for some time. There is extremely little selective pressure on us anymore.
I imagine the "biggest price" would be if the cops had gunned him down. Getting 3 meals a day and free cable for x years can't be too bad, assuming he can make someone else his bitch instead of the other way around.
Actually, I was thinking it would be great to get several hundred people together to say they got the pirated software from CompUSA. The only hard part is the receipts.
The secret service either didn't exist then or didn't have "protect the President" on their job description, I don't remember which. IIRC there were no actual bodyguards present at Ford's Theater.
"They have invested a lot of time and effort into serious simulation--effect of gravity on bullet trajectory, bullet deflection by bone, loss of energy of bullets passing through various materials, etc."
They goddamn well better have the head jerking toward the direction the shot came from, then. From what I gather, Oliver Stone's movie makes a big deal out of this in an effort to prove Oswald wasn't the only shooter (disclaimer: I haven't seen the movie), but it's just good physics.
Tons of people are complaining that this is a useless gesture, as the ultimate point is to transfer material out of earth's gravity well. But they're missing the point of building on the moon first. Think of it as a proof-of-concept. Once we have a working elevator in place, we can then test its performance and learn a great deal about how to eventually build one on earth.
And here's why: even if the I2 people tell the MPAA to go fuck themselves, the MPAA will likely start bribing college kids at member universities to install their monitoring software.
They neither measured nor estimated nor calculated c. They measured the speed of propagation, and did not "calculate" or "estimate" it. They compared it to the accepted value of c. There is no way of using it to estimate the value of c, unless you already know the relationship between the speed of propagation and c.
Which is why I said "indirectly." My point, which you're arguing for, is that the authors of the paper did not derive the speed of light in a vacuum from this experiment, even though they claim to in the abstract.
No, a calculation is something you do on paper. If you'll read the article, you'll see that they use the propagation of a ping through copper to (indirectly) estimate c. See, it's right there on the page you (or another AC) directed me to: "[...] indicating that the speed of propagation in a cat-5 cable is some 2/3 the speed of light in the vacuum." They arrived at this figure through speed averages. Dividing your average speed through copper by 2/3 will give you a reasonable approximation of c, but it is not the same as doing direct experimentation to calculate c.
What's the difference between "estimate" and "calculate", in your mind? Is it only a "calculation" if it's done from first principles?
A calculation generally gives you exact values (minus rounding approximations), Anonymous Coward. What these guys did, while still a neat party trick, was to estimate c based on estimates of wave propagation in copper.
Slashdot Mirror
It sounds like the popular press is blowing things out of proportion again, shockingly. In the original _Science_ article, I counted 78 sentences in Kargel's piece. Out of those 78 sentences, there are only 2 that make any sort of mention whatsoever about the possibility of biological hazards (really, only one of them...the other one talks about the dangers of cross-contamination, which is a different problem entirely). Here they are:
"All possible care must be taken to avoid cross-contamination between Earth and Mars. Before proceeding with sample returns or human missions to Mars, we must review measures for planetary biological protection." (Kargel, Science, Vol 306, Issue 5702, 1689-1691 , 3 December 2004)
Notice how, unlike the popular press, Kargel isn't saying "OMG TEH SKY IS FALLING LOLLZ." He's saying (very, very briefly) that we should maybe have some plans in place in the event that we do find life to bring back for further study.
You got a whole 10 minutes' worth of news out of a 30-minute news broadcast? My God! I'm moving to the UK for the superior coverage.
And we LIKED it!
"Slashdot just ain't what it used to be (as you can tell by looking at my low slashdot ID number)."
In my day, we had to walk uphill in the snow for 5 miles to drop our posts in the Slashdot suggestion box.
Both ways.
(in case 14 other people didn't beat me to it)
In communist America, TV show shoots you!
"DOn't go after PVRs through legal channels, find a technicall solution." Actually, don't do either. Stomping on the rights of customers is wrong no matter what form it takes. And you might argue that TV viewers don't have the "right" to watch TV, but the airwaves belong to the people. If the corporations don't like that, tough shit. Incidentally, I hate TV. It's fucking drivel. That doesn't change the fact that people shouldn't be shit on by network execs.
I was under the impression that humanity has been at an evolutionary standstill for some time. There is extremely little selective pressure on us anymore.
I imagine the "biggest price" would be if the cops had gunned him down. Getting 3 meals a day and free cable for x years can't be too bad, assuming he can make someone else his bitch instead of the other way around.
Actually, I was thinking it would be great to get several hundred people together to say they got the pirated software from CompUSA. The only hard part is the receipts.
The secret service either didn't exist then or didn't have "protect the President" on their job description, I don't remember which. IIRC there were no actual bodyguards present at Ford's Theater.
"They have invested a lot of time and effort into serious simulation--effect of gravity on bullet trajectory, bullet deflection by bone, loss of energy of bullets passing through various materials, etc."
They goddamn well better have the head jerking toward the direction the shot came from, then. From what I gather, Oliver Stone's movie makes a big deal out of this in an effort to prove Oswald wasn't the only shooter (disclaimer: I haven't seen the movie), but it's just good physics.
Thanks. If I had mod points and if Slashdot would allow reasonable point limits, like 65535, I'd mod you up higher.
Tons of people are complaining that this is a useless gesture, as the ultimate point is to transfer material out of earth's gravity well. But they're missing the point of building on the moon first. Think of it as a proof-of-concept. Once we have a working elevator in place, we can then test its performance and learn a great deal about how to eventually build one on earth.
And here's why: even if the I2 people tell the MPAA to go fuck themselves, the MPAA will likely start bribing college kids at member universities to install their monitoring software.
Yeah, because there's a huge lack of sick people these days. Moron.
You're one of those severely retarded people who can't tell the difference between reality and a videogame, aren't you?
http://slashdot.org/~Pxtl
:P
For someone who spends 3-4 hours a day posting to Slashdot, 7 hours of BBS documentary footage doesn't sound too problematic.
And don't forget the 15-20 minutes of commercials they slap at the beginning of every feature as a friendly convenience.
Noteworthy how? Many primates use tools.
"Hard". "Lubricant". "Faster". How the hell are the trolls supposed to twist this into a quick laugh? You guys are making it too difficult.
He didn't say faster than c, he said faster than the speed of light in a given medium--big difference. -steve
-Legion
Which is why I said "indirectly." My point, which you're arguing for, is that the authors of the paper did not derive the speed of light in a vacuum from this experiment, even though they claim to in the abstract.
-Legion
Class dismissed.
-Legion
A calculation generally gives you exact values (minus rounding approximations), Anonymous Coward. What these guys did, while still a neat party trick, was to estimate c based on estimates of wave propagation in copper.
-Legion