Why? Batteries have been researched for hundreds of years and is limited to mixing chemicals with known electric potentials.
The difference is in the amount of research that is going on. Between the laptop industry, the mobile phone industry, and the electric car industry, the amount of money and man-hours being invested into commercial battery technology over the last 5 years dwarfs the previous efforts. Advances in battery technology are being discovered every week.
or maybe space aliens will write the code for us -- no way humans are gonna do it
Baxter says hi.
It also states that sponsored links shown in search results are dependent on the amount of advertising funds Google receives from its clients. Ecommerce portal Flipkart noted that it found search results to have a direct correlation with the amount of money it spent on advertising with Google.
So sponsoring a link with more money gets it shown more frequently? Are they complaining about this?
It sounds like what they should expect---maybe even get in writing---when they give Google money.
We have more than enough beautiful drawings and pie in the sky dreams, these do not advance the end goal of having and regularly using cheap manned access to space.
These guys are not just making beautiful drawings, and I fail to see how they are not advancing the end goal of having regular and cheap crewed access to space.
I don't know what their end goal actually is, assuming they can actually put capsules into space. I think that issue is something which legitimately needs to be brought up. There is a history of some "open source projects" (Gracenote comes to mind) where once a pile of money starts flowing and the project gets on a firm footing financially that the volunteers get left behind in the dust. The Wikimedia Foundation is another such project that isn't quite so bad, but Jimmy Wales definitely could have completely sold out the community in the past and definitely did in some ways too so far as there are some people making a huge pile of money off of Wikipedia content, even if indirectly.
I don't mind the fact that Kristian Von Bengston is dreaming big. We need that in this universe, where people who dream big can actually accomplish things. If he tries and fails, he is but one more person who has definitely been in that situation before. Jim Benson was another such dreamer in commercial spaceflight that tried and failed.... but provided the groundwork for others to follow that really did help. I could name a great many others that can definitely fit in that list, including I might add Werner Von Braun..... who even got his start from Hermann Oberth if you want to follow an interesting engineering pedigree. We won't get into space without folks like this. I'll even say that Kristian Von Bengston is leading a resurgance of private spaceflight for the European Union, which I find awesome in so many ways for just that point too.
And the really amazing thing is that Copenhagen Suborbitals is doing all of this with very minimal amounts of tax dollars involved. There is a sort of libertarian side of me that is just screaming "He gets it!" on that point too. This could be a huge government boondoggle with pork flowing all over the EU as yet another ESA project for going to the Moon or something like that. Instead, it is private money that is paying for the bulk of what is going on, even if it is donations. That by itself is proof of some significant support for spaceflight
The problem then becomes, how to prevent the clever bad guy (with physical access to an AV for as much time as he needs) from fooling the AV into thinking it is carrying a person.
He is just as duped about Mars One as all of the "spaceflight participants" that have signed up. His involvement there is mainly to make Mars One look good, not the other way around.
It would have be an even bigger achievement, if any of the launches had been a success. None of them have reached their goal.
But they have had launches. That is more than I can say about a few other people, including many posting here on slashdot.
The service is probably configured to restart on failure. This is why you don't terminate services from Task Manager. Killing the process there means it will not exit cleanly, which causes the service controller to interpret it as failed---and respond accordingly.
Either use the UI management console (services.msc) or the command line (net stop SERVICENAME).
If you insist on killing services using the wrong tool, you should set those services to "Take No Action" on first/second/subsequent failures in the service management console. There may still be events logged for abnormal termination, but the service controller will no longer restart the service.
So they reduced their violation of citizen privacy because they are too incompetent to do it properly?
They are stupid enough to store potentially sensitive information on a desktop---nevermind that it's also unsupported and obsolete. What the hell?
With that in mind, I'm confident they have reasonable access controls and auditing in place to ensure the integrity and confidentiality of this data. Surely, the low-rent operation was due to an abundance of effort and expense on security.
A new study trying to replicate results reported in allegedly high quality journals failed to do so in over 50% of cases.
I denounce this propaganda attack piece paid for by Koch brothers seeking to destroy the planet and drown the poor for profit!!!!
Oh, this is not about Climate science? Never mind...
And what do you actually know about psychological research?
I fail to see, what meglon's knowledge of psychological research has to do with his argument. Which is that psychologists — by the very nature of their chosen domain — aren't particularly good at conducting experiments. He may be wrong, or he may be right, but his own proficiency in psychology has little to no connection to the argument. One does not need to have ever touched the oddly-shaped ball to see, that the quarterback sucks.
I am also a fan of the "hard" sciences
Yeah, and I am a fan of synchronized swimming... But I don't pretend to be any good at it.
I can tell you that experiments in the social sciences (when done correctly) are far more controlled (relatively speaking)
It would seem, that the very point of TFA is that the "when done correctly" part is true a lot less often, than the taxpayers financing most of these had the right to believe...
With humans, animals, and other living things, the noise factor is intense.
Yes, of course. Your work is harder in that respect. But this does not mean, your profession is any better at it... You may have collectively lowered the bar for each other — either because of these difficulties or because of some inherent imprecision of your domain and/or sloppiness of its practitioners — and TFA reflects the sorry outcome...
We have had to develop highly sophisticated techniques to be able to perform science and uncover truth.
Once again, TFA suggests, that over half of what you are portraying to be the "uncovered truth" is not... And meglon thinks, that's because you are untrained for (and perhaps even uninterested in) proper experimentation.
Describing your profession's challenges does not refute his accusation, nor does a claim of being "a fan" of physics.
Chinese factories, who just were not accustomed to having this quality of finish, all of these little details that make a beautiful design
Have they tried some other country's factories? Like, to pick at random, the US? Just a thought...
How much more expensive would it make each unit, if they were made in a better place?
partisan bullshit in the links
Khmm, that wall on the left seemed so solid, and yet you managed to walk straight through it and are now posting from the closet behind it — if the Washington Post really is "right wing dogma" in your opinion...
The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the `social sciences' is: some do, some don't. -- Ernest Rutherford