Comment Re:Mischief in Relation to Data (Score 4, Funny) 104
It won't go anywhere. They'll let him plea bargain to Second-Degree Shenanigans and that'll be the end of it.
It won't go anywhere. They'll let him plea bargain to Second-Degree Shenanigans and that'll be the end of it.
Forfty percent of people know that.
Typical. The one story in ten that isn't a copy and paste of two randomly chosen paragraphs from the article, and it's wrong.
What confusion? Who's confused?
System Administrator Vs Change Advisory Board
50 quatloos on the newcomer!
Megablocks are not LEGOs... proper LEGOs... LEGOs... LEGOs... LEGOs...
Disclaimer: I am Danish
And you don't use LEGO as a mass noun? For shame!
Or maybe we lack empathy for an apparently homeless man who clearly has a hundreds-of-dollars camera strapped to his chest.
The story doesn't jive.
Jibe. Jiiii-buh.
That still doesn't answer his question.
And he still didn't ask a question. Pedantry aside, I've answered his "question" perfectly well, which was "[Can you] see anything at all at 2k magnification[?]" It's actually a pretty vague and pointless question, when you think about it. The answer is either yes, you can see something, or no, you can't see anything.
For some reason everyone's decided that he was actually asking a far more involved question with all kinds of additional parameters which are being sprung from nowhere.
Can you see what it is?
That depends what it is. Being able to see an object doesn't imply that you can identify it.
Can you distinguish it from other similarly sized things in close proximity?
That is more-or-less the practical definition of "resolving power."
If only.
It seems to be catching on around teh interwebs.
But I'll leave that to the astrophysicists to work out.
Why do you presume they didn't take it into account already?
See a doctor.
...far too many people can't even spell LEGO.
Yes, Iapetus was photographed by Voyager 2 in 1981 (link to NASA image with metadata listed), and I would suspect that there were earth based images taken well before that (but none that would show any detail).
Who would have expected a summary on Slashdot to be carelessly wrong about something factual and easily verified?
If scaling problems are what brought hoverboards down to earth, material-science issues crashed the space elevator. [...] no one has manufactured a perfectly formed carbon nanotube strand longer than a meter.
So quit [publically bitching about all the amazing things you'd like do if only technology was up to scratch with your overly ambitious plans]* and get to work on perfecting longer carbon nanotube strands. Lazy fuckers.
*aka marketing
I've noticed several design suggestions in your code.
