... some of the requests for help on comp.lang.fortran get pretty close to this concept. :-)
335 posts • joined 9 Aug 2007
... some of the requests for help on comp.lang.fortran get pretty close to this concept. :-)
Think of it as a sort of checksum. If the logo is altered for reasons of appearance, you can be sure that they are interested in only superficial criteria, rather than them actually being interested in meeting the required standards and specifications :-)
Ah! a FOADIOT :-)
My son got an unremarkable telescope for xmas a year or so back (M&S kids special). Haven't yet managed to see Saturn as anything but a blurry dot, although the grey (light polluted) London skies are likely helping out there. Jupiter is a bigger dot, albeit one that you can't quite see any discernable stripes on, although the four big moons can be reliably seen.
Best thing was a few months ago when I managed to get it lined up to see Venus as a crescent. Although aligning it manually is a bit of a barsteward, especially since things walk out of the field of view fairly quickly with the more powerful eyepiece in.
Last year, with clear skies, I saw about one Persied every 10 minutes....
As has been oft said, "All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing".
(I /think/ I remembered that correctly, didn't I..? :)
But in order to break the rotational symmetry (and get this `spin drift'), we also need something else, presumably gravity. So the bullet deviates right because gravity pulls it to (errrrm) sit slightly below the barrel's central axis, hence kicks off (in some sense) the bottom of the barrel (or the gas layer between bullet & barrel) harder than off the top ... thus a clockwise bullet deviates right.
So if the marksperson were to fire whilst hanging upside down, the bullet would (to them) deviate left; while to a non-upside down bystander, it still deviates right.
Any comments or corrections?
""anything will lase if you pump it hard enough"
Not sure who to attribute it to, though.
You can't use the icons when anonymous (IME).
I don't know either, but of the three options come to mind (optical, acoustic, wire) only by wire seems very stealthy and/or immune to interference. And I'd guess that optical would have the worst range limitations,and acoustic would be very good at giving away your (and its) location.
Wait, I forgot one: trained carrier piscines? :-)
Ah, never mind. Someone will write an emulator for all that quaint old chemistry, the camera design, and all that. You'll probably be able to run it on your smartphone just fine. And for the true believer, there'll also be a cardboard model you can make yourself, in which you mount your phone sideways. :-)
Suspicion doesn't imply causation :-)
And while on the subject of trying to disentangle the two...
Umm. Babies, as next generation humans, should be /more/ evolved, shouldn't they? :-)
Hmm, interesting. If I calculate correctly, a 55ton yield gives about 55*4GJ energy (since 1Mton is 4PJ), so that if all the explosive energy turned into the kinetic energy of a 100kg lid, it would end up travelling at 0.0002 of c as well.
Perhaps that was the original calculation :-)
(bah - half ton lid ... so erm, 0.0001 of c)
Maybe we should recalculate:
60e8 / 3e8 = 0.0002,
ie 0.02% of the maximum velocity of a sheep in a vacuum.
... if you think so, look here:
load 'em up and rotate to your heart's content. There's one of New Horizons...
Well, what's the point of having a whole /universe/ of different connectors to chose from, if you have to keep using the same boring old one over and over and over again? Defeats the point, doesn't it?
Statistical test for irregularities are also possible: see e.g.
Your requirements might be different, of course, but my use for fourier transforms is much greater than that for spreadsheets (although, to be fair, I did use a spreadsheet about three years ago).
It can be quite useful to dig up old ideas and see how much further you can push them with modern technology. Perhaps we should wait and see how far they can get before turning on the full-strength pessimism.
Sure. But being scientists who work in the field of "flying space rocks", they're really quite keen on knowing all about flying space rocks, and you can be quite sure that if you give them money to spend on learning about flying space rocks, that's what they'll spend it on (although they might spend some of it on flying space icebergs, or some other field closely related to flying space rocks instead).
There's little choice - Rosetta isn't in an orbit, the comet doesn't have enough gravity - Rosetta is being flown around the comet in arcs (IIRC). A gentle touchdown would at least keep Rosetta on the comet, but than a high-speed crash would be more totally awesome!
I'm not sure from this reporting what sort of `landing' will be attempted. I suspect, from the Philae attempt, it'd be a bit of a lottery anyway.
But on the plus side, the chances of anyone /else/ being able to decipher the password written on the post-it are very greatly reduced.
They don't ... but if there was, a bloody great rock landed on its head, and then entombed it in glass - it sure as hell wasn't going to move very far after all that!
Do you want a non-expiring code that can be kept by (or leaked from) the car hire company or its employees, and be (mis)used to check up on your driver record at some undetermined later date?
I take your point - but being able to pre-generate codes with fixed & limited future validity dates would be better. You could create a stack for sequential hires, if needed, but they wouldn't persist longer than necessary.
Hmm, not really: energy & momentum have very distinct conservation laws:
Notably, a perfectly elastic collision can change momenta but not energy. The fact that typical collisions involve both energy and momentum transfer is not quite the point.
If you think that's bad, wait til it points its Entorpy Ray at you :-)
Nah. If he'd been bored, he'd have tried it using an abacus :-)
Read the article: they take into account estimated compliance rates.
See fig.2, with 95% confidence limits indicated.
... and just think of those offices/workspaces with some radio station playing in the background...
.... a fictional film that used Avondale spiders from New Zealand, I could add. Although Australian spiders may be more deadly, apparently they lack the "star appeal" of large, sociable spiders from the other side of the Tasman.
How about this: "Anyone who can be found using the method of Lagrange multipliers". Women who have had children are a case in point: they might be an Extremum.
Well, as I said, it's commonly observed in most western democracies. But I agree it isn't the only possible distinction - it might be the dominant split in Scottish politics turns out to be more along a pro- and anti- UK line, or whatever other distinction makes sense to the Scottish electorate.
Perhaps there'll be a Scottish Tea Party vs Scottish Not-Had-Your-Tea Party distinction :-)
Alternatively, the reaction may be instead a split in the SNP into left and right leaning parties; both "nationalist" to some nontrivial degree, but otherwise mimicing the left/right split of most western countries. Or maybe the Scottish Conservative party will part company from the UK Conservative party, call themselves the "New Scottiish Progressives" or somesuch, start wearing kilts and Saltires, and so present a Scottish version of the centre-right, whatever that might turn out to be.
It may be generally agreed that the Scots are more left leaning than the rest of the UK, but I'd be surprised if the current level of SNP electoral success is sustained over the long term over the whole of Scotland.
Isn't that /all/ we get to do in any case? There's no box for Party-X, only for named candidates (who can even switch parties at will if they choose to do so). So while many might think that they are "voting for a party", actually they are really voting for the candidate endorsed by that party during the election.
Not as early as '28,but also the Oramics Machine is worth a mention...
here's the arXiv version :-)
Since these typically generate a bit of debate here on the Reg, the interested reader might also look at this recent paper:
Orbital angular momentum modes do not increase the channel capacity in communication links
Mauritz Andersson, Eilert Berglind and Gunnar Björk
The orbital momentum of optical or radio waves can be used as a degree of freedom to transmit information. However, mainly for technical reasons, this degree of freedom has not been widely used in communication channels. The question is if this degree of freedom opens up a new, hitherto unused 'communication window'supporting 'an infinite number of channels in a given, fixed bandwidth' in free space communication as has been claimed? We answer this question in the negative by showing that on the fundamental level, the mode density, and thus room for mode multiplexing, is the same for this degree of freedom as for sets of modes lacking angular momentum. In addition we show that modes with angular momentum are unsuitable for broadcasting applications due to excessive crosstalk or a poor signal-to-noise ratio.
If it'll run Debian you can probably get other linux distros to run on it just fine.
And Haskell can (might) help you learn physics :-)
This would also be handy for hiding from Shelks; I'm pretty sure we could hang on down there until Tumithak turns up to free us from the domination of Venus.
I think you mostly get Tetrahedra from Mercury. Underground cities are not required to deal with them, you just have to wait until it rains :-)
Good point. Perhaps they mean that they'll continue to try to re-establish contact, but instead of trying to save it in the event of successful communication (as they had been), they'll instead try to manage the crash trajectory (hydrobraking, not lithobraking?)
Well, perhaps they wanted to distinguish it from other types of spin, such as that of an electron :-)
These are different things.
If you look at mathematics papers, for example, they will do things like state a theorem, then give a proof - no story or analogy required. Physics papers - theoretical ones - might well start with a premise, the basic model (e.g. Maxwell's equations) and then proceed through a derivation with rearrangements and approximations along the way as motivated by the authors and their aims. You can consider this the "story" of why the result (e.g. on ultrafast optical pulse propagation) is valid and/or useful. In contrast, an "analogy" of something as specific as a scientific paper is simplified (almost) beyond recognition and might involve talking about tennis balls instead of protons, or the like.
It may be the "storytelling" in the article referred to analogies - indeed I rather suspect it did. But here is also the possibility of having a true technical narrative which /doesn't/ compromise in the way that analogy does.
Well, the trick really is to combine them. As you point out, storytelling which isn't backed up by solid analysis is likely to be waffle (hence probably misleading), but then a solid analysis which everyone (else) finds impossible to understand is not going to help progress either.
I refer the honourable gentlebeing to the sentence in the article which reads:
"They say the need to secure embedded systems without modifying code is critical for sectors such as healthcare which cannot due to risk or regulation easily patch zombie machinery."
Presumably, fixing it in software /and then re-using the device/ isn't easy if each change requires the thing to be re-certified (in a regulatory system which probably isn't set up for it).
Quote from the article: "Differences in stegosauruses' armour plating may have had distinctly sexual origins, the University of Bristol's Evan Thomas Saitta suggests"
Note the two words "MAY", "SUGGESTS". Neither of those two words supports your contention that Saitta thinks the idea "MUST be the truth"
I think you've just invented the fossil fuel industry :-)