Considering there ARE mirrors on the moon, and the light takes approximately 2.5 seconds round-trip, you ARE seeing the same photons you'd sent 2.5 seconds ago. So to answer your question: yes. In reality, you would never receive an "image" back, as with every particle between here and there (ie: our atmosphere) will reflect, refract, and otherwise distort the "image" (read: combination and organization of sent photons), making it return as a set of seemingly random photons.
...of course we COULD get into the math behind deciphering Gravitational Lenses, but yeah, maybe another time:-).
Was this just for this morning? I know it won't change an awful lot each day, but comparatively, relative to the other celestial objects it moves right along. What coordinates does this apply to too? It will (obviously) be visible at quite different times of the day dependent upon your longitude, and will appear at different elevations given different latitudes...
The best that could be accomplished is highly implausible. Knowing whether or not the rest of the items he sold were stolen would be impossible without someone else reporting "missing goods." There's no solid way of proving anything outside the fact that what was recovered was stolen. Anything else would be speculation and very far from grounds for contacting his buyers, let alone a warrant, even STILL letting alone the fact that a local police force has no jurisdiction outside it's own area.
In conclusion: if you are a good Samaritan and you know you purchased goods from someone convicted of selling stolen items, you should take the effort to verify the legitimacy of your purchase. In reality, this doesn't apply to anyone outside the directly affected (or more appropriately: directly caught.)
It's "new" like Paul Davies - About Time was new: old ideas explained simply and with minimal mathematics. The concepts are not necessarily new, the delivery, interpretation and target audience, however, are.
Wiki is NOT pure knowledge. Wiki is known as "collective knowledge" which, in itself can be utterly wrong. Advertising, a 175 billion USD a year enterprise is evil ONLY as an opinion. A wrong one at that (if it didn't benefit both parties in some way, would it really even exist anymore?) Corporations are only very rarely faceless and in all facets of the word, art = some form of advertisement (for the artist, for a cause, for what it represents...) I'd sure as hell rather play a Burger King Xbox game than see a statue of the Virgin Mary with shit spread on her face...
Oh yeah, and are YOU going to front the bandwidth and storage bill? Maybe it's just me, but I personally don't have >$400,000 floating around.....
Because that's not how it works. Targeting one protein means to target one characteristic of the virus. Undergoing a genetic mutation generally means that an outside environmental force (ie: radiation, chemical, all in all evolutionary like improper fold in protein) will directly change genetic sequences resulting in a genetically different next generation. This might happen in only one out of a million splits (or mates) but it happens nonetheless.
If there are a billion* viruses, effectively we can say 1000 viruses have the genetic mutation. When we introduce an agent to localize said protein, we may wipe out all the viruses without the mutation but leave the 1000 "new" viruses unaffected, starting the process over. With this said, there's no one saying that the affected protein was what made the virus lethal in the first place. Or that a change to that protein could even be possible without affecting the very nature of the virus. The point is that a medicine doesn't make the change, rather weeds out those specimen's that have already made the change.
THIS IS NOT FUNNY! And no, no one has to say it. This site is perpetually headed waaaaaay downhill, and has never been one for humor (at least humor of the current decade...)
Your metaphor is rendered invalid when the receiving end of your conversation is a corporate entity residing on a public domain. Google has every right to surrender any information it may have. Whether it's ethical to do so remains another, entirely different question. Don't be evil!!!
The issue here is with quality of patents, not quantity. It's difficult to standardize "change" so far as to say "this item has changed enough to issue a new patent." As this regulation is entirely subjective, it could never be truly enforced without the existence of clever loopholes (to accommodate those patents that should be allowed), which in turn would be exploited by those with the most patent lawyers! There needs to be some rules established that objectively lists those features and qualities an object must not share in common with another, already patented object. These lists can be different per product, but each individual list would span that entire niche. For instance, for medicinal or chemical concoctions, before an item is patentable it requires:
1. A clear chemical formula unlike any current market product.
2. A defined objective listing the chemicals uses, properties, effects, methods of transport, etc...
3. Proof that this chemical does as intended (ie: clinical trials).
As this (example) list is strictly for medicinal patents, it could be applicable for say 3 years, whereas a consumer product could be patentable for 10 years. These are all arbitrary, random numbers I'm pulling but you get the point...
Slashdot Mirror
Considering there ARE mirrors on the moon, and the light takes approximately 2.5 seconds round-trip, you ARE seeing the same photons you'd sent 2.5 seconds ago. So to answer your question: yes. In reality, you would never receive an "image" back, as with every particle between here and there (ie: our atmosphere) will reflect, refract, and otherwise distort the "image" (read: combination and organization of sent photons), making it return as a set of seemingly random photons.
...of course we COULD get into the math behind deciphering Gravitational Lenses, but yeah, maybe another time :-).
Was this just for this morning? I know it won't change an awful lot each day, but comparatively, relative to the other celestial objects it moves right along. What coordinates does this apply to too? It will (obviously) be visible at quite different times of the day dependent upon your longitude, and will appear at different elevations given different latitudes...
No idea if this will help you (probably not in where to view the comet) but this was a solid few minutes of boredom-reliever!
1
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/db_shm?des=2006+P
...by a roundhouse kick to Google's face!
Your statement...
:-)
is contradictable...
to Americans...
everywhere...
and your hat is sitting next to your Big Mac and TV remote...
The best that could be accomplished is highly implausible. Knowing whether or not the rest of the items he sold were stolen would be impossible without someone else reporting "missing goods." There's no solid way of proving anything outside the fact that what was recovered was stolen. Anything else would be speculation and very far from grounds for contacting his buyers, let alone a warrant, even STILL letting alone the fact that a local police force has no jurisdiction outside it's own area.
In conclusion: if you are a good Samaritan and you know you purchased goods from someone convicted of selling stolen items, you should take the effort to verify the legitimacy of your purchase. In reality, this doesn't apply to anyone outside the directly affected (or more appropriately: directly caught.)
It's "new" like Paul Davies - About Time was new: old ideas explained simply and with minimal mathematics. The concepts are not necessarily new, the delivery, interpretation and target audience, however, are.
omg manbearpig is super-cereal! seriously, you guys!
Wiki is NOT pure knowledge. Wiki is known as "collective knowledge" which, in itself can be utterly wrong .
Advertising, a 175 billion USD a year enterprise is evil ONLY as an opinion. A wrong one at that (if it didn't benefit both parties in some way, would it really even exist anymore?)
Corporations are only very rarely faceless and in all facets of the word, art = some form of advertisement (for the artist, for a cause, for what it represents...) I'd sure as hell rather play a Burger King Xbox game than see a statue of the Virgin Mary with shit spread on her face...
Oh yeah, and are YOU going to front the bandwidth and storage bill? Maybe it's just me, but I personally don't have >$400,000 floating around.....
So how does Mark Foley have anything to do with this?
Because that's not how it works. Targeting one protein means to target one characteristic of the virus. Undergoing a genetic mutation generally means that an outside environmental force (ie: radiation, chemical, all in all evolutionary like improper fold in protein) will directly change genetic sequences resulting in a genetically different next generation. This might happen in only one out of a million splits (or mates) but it happens nonetheless.
If there are a billion* viruses, effectively we can say 1000 viruses have the genetic mutation. When we introduce an agent to localize said protein, we may wipe out all the viruses without the mutation but leave the 1000 "new" viruses unaffected, starting the process over.
With this said, there's no one saying that the affected protein was what made the virus lethal in the first place. Or that a change to that protein could even be possible without affecting the very nature of the virus. The point is that a medicine doesn't make the change, rather weeds out those specimen's that have already made the change.
*completely arbitrary example
Hey you're good enough to plug a book! So let me get this straight...he really goes by Al SHATZ?!?
There's also "Friday Flu," which is generally preceded by "Thirsty Thursdays."
and no, I DON'T need to go AC to say this.
THIS IS NOT FUNNY! And no, no one has to say it. This site is perpetually headed waaaaaay downhill, and has never been one for humor (at least humor of the current decade...)
hah! I was going to say "What about Halo 2 Vista?"
...
then I read the rest of your post, oh well!
Don't you wish /. would let you delete replies to your post? NSWF indeed, cum-tagger...grow up.
n0. h3 means GRATE |C1ALI5| pr0n BUY NOW low low now prices now.
Neither, I was trying to draw out the /. "douche-bag-of-the-day" and guess what...YOU WON!
So how would you have sex with something like that???
Roll her in flour and look for the wet spot!
Your metaphor is rendered invalid when the receiving end of your conversation is a corporate entity residing on a public domain. Google has every right to surrender any information it may have. Whether it's ethical to do so remains another, entirely different question. Don't be evil!!!
Sleeping while still logged in does not constitute "playing while sleeping." ...though, you have a point. By about the 60th straight hour....
holy sh*t. stop. please.
Wow...
: www.gutenberg.org/files/16349/16349.txt+%22six+axe s+and+a+gun%22
The only six axes I know about are the kind you buy with a gun!
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:Olqst_zslZgJ
The issue here is with quality of patents, not quantity. It's difficult to standardize "change" so far as to say "this item has changed enough to issue a new patent." As this regulation is entirely subjective, it could never be truly enforced without the existence of clever loopholes (to accommodate those patents that should be allowed), which in turn would be exploited by those with the most patent lawyers! There needs to be some rules established that objectively lists those features and qualities an object must not share in common with another, already patented object. These lists can be different per product, but each individual list would span that entire niche. For instance, for medicinal or chemical concoctions, before an item is patentable it requires: 1. A clear chemical formula unlike any current market product. 2. A defined objective listing the chemicals uses, properties, effects, methods of transport, etc... 3. Proof that this chemical does as intended (ie: clinical trials). As this (example) list is strictly for medicinal patents, it could be applicable for say 3 years, whereas a consumer product could be patentable for 10 years. These are all arbitrary, random numbers I'm pulling but you get the point...
Quality, not quantity.