2131 posts • joined Tuesday 24th April 2007 14:31 GMT
So we could have sharks
with frikkin' particle beams instead?
Re: You need 3 screens
Play DOOM on 3 screens?
Don't be so modest, we have a set-up with a 3D immersive virtual reality system (like a CAVE)
Really on form
or a donut-shaped balloon
for a really weird-looking solution. The rocket could fire straight through the centre hole. You might even be able to get sponsored by any well-known maker of donuts..
I know such a balloon will not be available off-the-shelf, but it would look cool.
If I were needlessly nasty
I could suggest that Opera is so difficult to install and use, and thus requires more intelligence to use. As I have on occasion used it I know this is not true. It could be a small-number effect. If the number of Opera users in the survey is comparatively small, random fluctuation are more likely. It would have been nice to have error bars in the graphs, so we could judge whether or not the differences are significant.
You should go to the parties with the finite improbability machines.
I'll get me raincoat, I suppose
The opteron machines here have been great. The old Xeons (pre-Quickpath) were not very good on shared memory parallel computing, because the front-side bus throttled the memory bandwidth. The opterons have given 75-80 % efficiency on 24 cores. Really neat.
Luddite that I am
I just read the books. Nothing about Gandalf's staff broken by the Witch-king in there (though only a purist would complain). I only got to see the Fellowship, and liked the more active role given to Arwen, so I will not say all changes are for the worse. I did feel the fighting was a bit much, compared to the more sedate pace of the book. However, if you kept to that pace, the film would have to become a (very long) series.
Regarding the increased length, Tolkien said in the preface to the book that the main criticism he agreed with is that it was too short.
Roasting over a slow fire is better at his age, to achieve properly tender results.
Flame set to low/medium
I am not too surprised you got a response
because doing it allows them to show off their system again. And Big Blue does have a lot of smart people, AND allows them to talk to the outside world.
Actually, some "facts" are routinely manipulated
Like the output of weather stations in the USA to "correct for changes in the station's environment." This is not a good idea, it is better to let the raw data out, and explain any trends later. Anyway, the debate is not so much about climate change per se, but about the underlying causes. As we cannot see the causes, only correlations, it makes perfect sense to argue about that. It might well be argued that the Earth is unusually cold (starting in the Pleistocene), or that we are in an interglacial era.
Whatever the outcome of the debate, we still should not be wasting energy and other resources.
Some very good questions indeed
I have read one report that the ice caps of Mars are receding, but the mechanism is not fully understood. We also don't have temperature readings over anything like the period we have for Earth. Venus is even more difficult, because it really is a runaway greenhouse, and surface probes do not tend to survive for any length of time (the Russians hold the record, I think). I remember reading a letter in Science in about 1989, that some Danish astronomers (IIRC) had found a 98% correlation between sunspot activity and temperature on Earth, over a period of some 150 years. That is quite a coincidence supposing there is no causal link.
Again, it is definitely wise to move towards more sustainable energy sources, but I am certainly not sure the solar cycle is not involved in some way.
Say not: I will believe
say: I will understand
I live in the Netherlands
but still watch Beeb more than most other channels
As if science should be based on consensus?
Science makes progress whenever there is a lack of consensus. When everybody agrees, and we therefore think we are right (for a given value of right), and there is little incentive to refine our knowledge.
By contrast, whenever we disagree we work hard to prove the other guy/girl wrong. In the best cases, we do that indirectly, by trying to prove ourselves wrong. If we fail to prove our theory wrong, it may be right.
As an example, astronomy progressed a great deal simply from being annoyed by Fred Hoyle, who proposed preposterous (they thought) theories which were consistent both internally, and with observations (at the time), and very hard to prove wrong. They often were proved wrong, but the proof taught us a great deal.
If all scientists vote on an issue, say global warming, the outcome has no effect on the truth of the matter. Suggesting global warning has been proven beyond all doubt is not very scientific.
End of an era indeed
I remember I was just painting the my first ever student room when the first shuttle was launched. I will raise a glass to the guys at NASA, who despite many flaws and problems, still gave us a lot to cheer about
They may have meant
the biggest space telescope, not the biggest satellite
Many satellites other than the Mentors can be seen by stargazers (even with the naked eye). With my 15x70 binoculars, I start to resolve structure in the ISS and similar sized satellites, but many others are readily visible.
In the words of Niklaus Wirth:
"Software is getting slower faster than hardware is getting faster"
Not necessarily better, but differnt
In astronomy, things get really exciting when you can line up different instruments on the same target, to see what it is doing at different wavelengths. Another important difference is that by itself, Spektr-R's images will be much poorer than any radio telescope on the surface of the globe. However, by combining its signals with ground-based scopes we synthetically make large dish, much in the way the Westerbork Synthesis Radio Telescope, or the Very Large Array, or more recently LOFAR build up an image using multiple antennae to simulate a very large one.
Doesn't being in tune to disease mean
dying horribly of causes we can now not only cure but often prevent?
Science and engineering are the main reason human beings have FAR more heartbeats during their lives than other mammals.
Astronomy actually came into being because we needed to predict when to sow and harvest.
A lot of good science is happening right now, despite cuts
Perhaps you should follow real scientific literature now and then and not rely on newspaper articles (which I know can be seriously disjoint from what the scientist actually said). The very science you deride has brought you all the improvements in computing power, and many real cures as well. The work I do as a scientist (computer vision) has ranged from determining whether a drug attacks a specific cancer before administering it, through detection of malformations in blood vessels, and automatically scanning through terapixels of astronomical images for peculiar objects, to supporting post-disaster rescue efforts by automatically analyzing remote-sensing images for collapsed buildings. In the latest case we brought down the compute time from 104 days (=useless) to 8 hours (=useful). I also know cancer deaths have been reduced for certain types, in particular in the case of certain early cancers (no work of mine).
There is a lot of excellent science being done, though I agree more could and should be done. Funding cuts are not just undermining scientific progress, but also the status it has in society (or more particularly bureaucrats). I also agree school science can and should be improved.
I would invite every capable worker in science/technology to get involved in doing just that, by spending time at schools getting children involved in science. I taught some basic science/engineering lessons at my boy's school (they are 7 and 9) and it is great fun. We also organize outreach programs to secondary schools close to our uni, and that too is really nice. Too bad that that funding cuts are threatening even that.
I will do it
if they give me enough to drink.
I'll dirnk to having a scientific symposium on this topic
After all, "symposium" means get together for the purpose of drinking (literally).
"One aspect absent from the call for submissions is the close relationship between the academic community and policy makers."
I am all for closer links between scientists and pubs
Well, at least he is old enough
to make the Ronald Reagan defense ( (I do not recall)^N ) plausible.
However, if he really does not recall, through whatever dementia, he should retire. If he does not retire, he cannot rely on dementia as an excuse.
What a beautiful example
We collected quite a few on our trip to Japan, but this must be the best.
Thumbs up, because, well, where else would it point
Sounds like a machine from a Bond movie
but great instrument once it gets operational. Very Long Base Line Interferometry (VLBI) is about to become ULBI (Ultra Long Base Line Interferometry), fitting, given ULTRA was a British (counter)-espionage unit involved in radio snooping and code breaking: Ultra meets Spektr-R.
or all three at once?
or am I being obstructively cynical?
Why is it obvious
we tapped their phones, obvious, init?
My scope only shows a speck, moving slowly between the stars
- Xmas Round-up Ten top tech toys to interface with a techie’s Christmas stocking
- Xmas Round-up Ghosts of Christmas Past: Ten tech treats from yesteryear
- Review Hey Linux newbie: If you've never had a taste, try perfect Petra ... mmm, smells like Mint 16
- Analysis Microsoft's licence riddles give Linux and pals a free ride to virtual domination
- NSFW Oz couple get jiggy in pharmacy in 'banned' condom ad