A 64 million dollar cut isn't much at JWST's burn rate. It's not being thrown under the bus at all. In fact, it's eaten all the money intended for other, equally worthy space science mission.
Realistically, it isn't going to launch until 2015 at the earliest (my money's on 2016) and will cost much more than it's current massive overrun.
Fertility rates are coming down everywhere, even in the developed world, where the exigencies of daily survival still tend to apply some selection pressure on intelligence.
Since H.G. Wells, there has been some speculation that the human species will split into two distinct gene pools (I wouldn;t say "species," since interbreeding remains a possibility). However, if one gene pool should find itself supporting the other, larger pool, the burden would eventually become too great and the two pools would either re-merge or one would become extinct.
My wife decided to keep her maiden name, and I was completely supportive of this. Beside the obvious practical hassles of name changing, when you have a number of publications under one name, it makes sense not to change your name. That, and there doesn't seem to be a good rationale for the name change in the first place, other than mindlessly parroting tradition. The kids have my last name to avoid confusion and endless explanations, but Baby Sky's middle name is his Mom's surname.
It's 1981. I'm sitting in front of a terminal connected to a VAX 11/780. This is very shiny. It runs my code without complaint and fuss. The future was then. DEC ruled.
It looks like one of those ventifacts you see all over this jumbled up formation. Eons of wind erosion can result in weird shapes sticking out, which look even stranger through a wide angle lens.
Genocide isn't bad as long as it's he right kind of genocide, and they are Bad People. I'll keep that in mind next time I want to exterminate an entire population.
I'm not a geologist either, althoug I have been following the discussion at Unmanned Spaceflight. There are as many hypotheses as hypothesizers. When you have that many thin layers with significant cross-lamination, then it seems to me to point to deposition by wind or water. It can't just be slabs of lava. Of course, everyone is hoping that water will be the answer.
In some of the images from late last week, there appears to be a spherule, not unlike the ones foundon the other side of the planet by Opportunity. The ones Opportunity found are mostly made of hematite and are thought to be associated with liquid water.
I always thought the point of antitrust law was not to punish busineses for being successful, but for using "unfair" tactics to dominate a market. Apple weren't the first into online music, but they were the first to nail the formula.
Since the ultimate outcome of the Microsoft antitrust suit is that you can use unfair tactics and get just about clean away with it, maybe we should junk the whole business. I don't see whom antitrust law really benefits.
This represents such incredibly wooly thinking it's hard to pick where to begin. How about you answer my question: what is your definition of a fact? Question 2, why do prepend the word "theory" with "just a"?
You can't navigate spacecraft to Venus, Mercury or Mars unless heliocentrism holds. It meets the highest possible standard for anything becoming regarded as factual. We know it with more certainty than Abraham Lincoln's birthday or the number of casualties at Iwo Jima or the DNA sequence of a mouse.
I would hope Dr. Hansen would not put his credibility at risk in that way. BTW, thee is no real evidence for the two calims you make. No buildings or macrofossils have been found on Mars. Not to discount this possibility altogether, but the claim as presented is spurious.
The surface of Mars has been dry for about 3 billion years, give or take, during which time volcanism, impacts, wind and possibly ice have ravaged the surface. Even in the extremely unlikely circumstance there was ever a civilization there, there would be no recognizable trace of buildings on the surface.
And as for the Rotini, it's pretty clear that was a RAT artifact.
The parent post said nothing which led me to believe he/she is a fundy. And for safety reasons, not all science can be "left alone," but requires some external scrutiny. I am referring, of course to research that can be weaponized, or research into highly infectious diseases that requires oversight to avoid problems.
The SSME is tricky beast. Converting a slightly more modern (30 year-old) but very large and complex lower stage engine vs. reviving an older upper stage design. They will re-design this engine somewhat, but they know the basic design works in the intended role.
I disagree. I think theyt scored plus points by finding a problem before it became a dissaster and then taking the prudent course of action.
Every rocket every developed has had a troubled history, and some real good explosions - even with mature designs. Look at the disastrous history of Ariane - they're still launching.
I have NeoOffice at home and it's quite stable and useful. It will probably be a bit behind the mainstream release. I havent seen a schedule for when they expect to bring it up to the 2.0 code base.
Any unclassified code written with taxpayer money should be Open Source and available for the cost of duplication. Of course, all the ITAR nonsense will get in your way in some cases, but this can be overcome by following procedures. Free and open source supports the long term protection of data integrity and the inability of a proprietary vendor to hold the government hostage to upgrades and maintenance.
As for COTS, well, it is desirable that it be FOSS. However, some extremely useful COTS stuff just doesn't have an adequate FOSS counterpart - e.g. Simulink.
We don't have the ability to fly those big honking things to Mars anyway, and the data bandwidth available wouldn't accomodate it anyway. It's much easier to put rovers on the ground.
As it is, Malin's team can get sub-meter resolution on specific targets after a few passes.
Other than in military arms races, in what sense do nations have any compelling reason to "compete" in science? Science is a cooperative win-win enterprise. Althoughgranted there is sometimes some oneupmanship, I don't see how it benefits science. Why should I care if a Nobel prize winner is a Finn, a Nigerian or a some guy from New Jersey?
Well, they stuck the apology/disclosure way at the bottom of a long scroll. It's almost certain to not be as widely read as the original article. Subtly dishonest, IMHO.
Slashdot Mirror
A 64 million dollar cut isn't much at JWST's burn rate. It's not being thrown under the bus at all. In fact, it's eaten all the money intended for other, equally worthy space science mission. Realistically, it isn't going to launch until 2015 at the earliest (my money's on 2016) and will cost much more than it's current massive overrun.
Fertility rates are coming down everywhere, even in the developed world, where the exigencies of daily survival still tend to apply some selection pressure on intelligence.
Since H.G. Wells, there has been some speculation that the human species will split into two distinct gene pools (I wouldn;t say "species," since interbreeding remains a possibility). However, if one gene pool should find itself supporting the other, larger pool, the burden would eventually become too great and the two pools would either re-merge or one would become extinct.
The gorgeous Anousheh Ansari, the first female space tourist, Skepchick Rebecca Watson, and Mae Jemison. I'm sure I could think of many others.
My wife decided to keep her maiden name, and I was completely supportive of this. Beside the obvious practical hassles of name changing, when you have a number of publications under one name, it makes sense not to change your name. That, and there doesn't seem to be a good rationale for the name change in the first place, other than mindlessly parroting tradition. The kids have my last name to avoid confusion and endless explanations, but Baby Sky's middle name is his Mom's surname.
It's 1981. I'm sitting in front of a terminal connected to a VAX 11/780. This is very shiny. It runs my code without complaint and fuss. The future was then. DEC ruled.
Oops...
It looks like one of those ventifacts you see all over this jumbled up formation. Eons of wind erosion can result in weird shapes sticking out, which look even stranger through a wide angle lens.
Genocide isn't bad as long as it's he right kind of genocide, and they are Bad People. I'll keep that in mind next time I want to exterminate an entire population.
I'm not a geologist either, althoug I have been following the discussion at Unmanned Spaceflight. There are as many hypotheses as hypothesizers. When you have that many thin layers with significant cross-lamination, then it seems to me to point to deposition by wind or water. It can't just be slabs of lava. Of course, everyone is hoping that water will be the answer.
In some of the images from late last week, there appears to be a spherule, not unlike the ones foundon the other side of the planet by Opportunity. The ones Opportunity found are mostly made of hematite and are thought to be associated with liquid water.
I always thought the point of antitrust law was not to punish busineses for being successful, but for using "unfair" tactics to dominate a market. Apple weren't the first into online music, but they were the first to nail the formula.
Since the ultimate outcome of the Microsoft antitrust suit is that you can use unfair tactics and get just about clean away with it, maybe we should junk the whole business. I don't see whom antitrust law really benefits.
This represents such incredibly wooly thinking it's hard to pick where to begin. How about you answer my question: what is your definition of a fact? Question 2, why do prepend the word "theory" with "just a"?
Squishy yourself. What is your definition of a fact, wiseguy?
You can't navigate spacecraft to Venus, Mercury or Mars unless heliocentrism holds. It meets the highest possible standard for anything becoming regarded as factual. We know it with more certainty than Abraham Lincoln's birthday or the number of casualties at Iwo Jima or the DNA sequence of a mouse.
Man, what a disappointment. I always thought it was panther piss.
I would hope Dr. Hansen would not put his credibility at risk in that way. BTW, thee is no real evidence for the two calims you make. No buildings or macrofossils have been found on Mars. Not to discount this possibility altogether, but the claim as presented is spurious.
The surface of Mars has been dry for about 3 billion years, give or take, during which time volcanism, impacts, wind and possibly ice have ravaged the surface. Even in the extremely unlikely circumstance there was ever a civilization there, there would be no recognizable trace of buildings on the surface.
And as for the Rotini, it's pretty clear that was a RAT artifact.
I am not a cosmologist, but that book is 15 years old and there are good reasons it is not taken seriously. See here: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/lerner_errors.ht ml
The parent post said nothing which led me to believe he/she is a fundy. And for safety reasons, not all science can be "left alone," but requires some external scrutiny. I am referring, of course to research that can be weaponized, or research into highly infectious diseases that requires oversight to avoid problems.
The SSME is tricky beast. Converting a slightly more modern (30 year-old) but very large and complex lower stage engine vs. reviving an older upper stage design. They will re-design this engine somewhat, but they know the basic design works in the intended role.
I disagree. I think theyt scored plus points by finding a problem before it became a dissaster and then taking the prudent course of action.
Every rocket every developed has had a troubled history, and some real good explosions - even with mature designs. Look at the disastrous history of Ariane - they're still launching.
I have NeoOffice at home and it's quite stable and useful. It will probably be a bit behind the mainstream release. I havent seen a schedule for when they expect to bring it up to the 2.0 code base.
Any unclassified code written with taxpayer money should be Open Source and available for the cost of duplication. Of course, all the ITAR nonsense will get in your way in some cases, but this can be overcome by following procedures. Free and open source supports the long term protection of data integrity and the inability of a proprietary vendor to hold the government hostage to upgrades and maintenance.
As for COTS, well, it is desirable that it be FOSS. However, some extremely useful COTS stuff just doesn't have an adequate FOSS counterpart - e.g. Simulink.
As it is, Malin's team can get sub-meter resolution on specific targets after a few passes.
Other than in military arms races, in what sense do nations have any compelling reason to "compete" in science? Science is a cooperative win-win enterprise. Althoughgranted there is sometimes some oneupmanship, I don't see how it benefits science. Why should I care if a Nobel prize winner is a Finn, a Nigerian or a some guy from New Jersey?
And I'll go on record as listing CompUSA as one of the worst retailers in the galaxy.
Ballooned? Compared to the cost of generating a document, how the hell hard is it ti save it off in a different format? What am I missing?
Well, they stuck the apology/disclosure way at the bottom of a long scroll. It's almost certain to not be as widely read as the original article. Subtly dishonest, IMHO.