I've watched a great lecture about methane "observations" on Mars a while a go. It's really worthwhile if you want to get some background into the claims made. Needless to say, what you hear in the press is not to be trusted. Listen to the scientists themselves, they give a lot more subtle story than the headlines in a newspaper.
To make a long story short: Microsoft is sooo '98...
Thanks for your clarification! The puzzle pieces seem to fit
Hmm, strange. Is this by any chance U.S. specific? I'm in Europe (Belgium) and I could have sworn it isn't allowed over here. I'm currently studying for my HAREC exam (I think that's the "technician" level in U.S. terms), anyway, it's the "super-duper full licence for everything"-exam. So I recently read the current law texts, and don't remember anything like that... I'll have to double check that.
The patent covers the operation of the vocoder, but does not contain the full specification for the codec. This spec is not available. So you'd need to completely reverse engineer the codec before you can even start your own implementation. I think there are some "software" D-Star implementations, but these need a dongle containing the vocoder chip. So, technically: yes it is possible to do in software. Practically: no.
You should take a while to actually listen to HAM radio. People are DOS'ing each other, sometimes by accident, sometimes intentional. There are some jerks among HAM operators, as there are everywhere. But you can't do this on the entire frequency range (well, you can, but that takes a lot of power + this is illegal + you'll be fined + you'll have your equipment confiscated because you can not do broadband transmissions).
That said, in practice there are no problems most of the time. There is no need to allocate time slots or whatever. Don't propose a fix if you aren't familiar with the subject
HAM radio is about experimentation. The communication part is almost a side effect. Radio-amateur frequencies were never intended to substitute commercial telecom networks. So if you transmit something on the HAM frequencies, it's expected that everybody can decode the message. It's part of the experimental nature of HAM radio. You can not even use it for relaying messages for a third party, that's what phones are for.
That's the intent. Then again, there has been some erosion already, e.g. with the D-Star protocol. It's a digital communication protocol that uses the AMBE vocoder to transmit voice. The problem is: AMBE is patented, and you need a special chip to decode it. That's 100% against the intent of HAM-radio: normally you should be able to experiment and create your own decoder, but in this case it's impossible unless you buy the chip. This is a quite controversial topic, and has spurred the creation of a free alternative, called CODEC-2.
Oh, thanks for the link, I'll check that out.
Oh, I didn't mean it would be simple, I meant: (simple roman coding), as in the easiest encryption there is.
I was wondering about it, because:
- printing genes is already possible. With advancements in this field, it's not unthinkable that (many years from now) an entire genome could be printed
- the translation to proteins is, as far as I understand, established by "translation molecules" that bind to three particular letters
- if you change the DNA, and change the corresponding "translation molecules", the system would behave identically.
- this new organism would still make the old, non-coded translation molecules, so you'd need to fix that too.
I don't expect this to be easy, maybe it's even impossible, how would I know? I'm no expert. It's just a thought experiment. But if you could do such a thing, would it be good or bad? Viruses that have co-evolved with us would never be able to adapt to that, I think.
Also, could such an embryo be implanted into a mother and survive? I think it would, the cells would be the same, the immune system does not deal directly with DNA.
Anyway, that's just me pondering on some far-out ideas, I hope you don't mind
I've always wondered if a simple roman coding of the genetic code (just a mapping of the genetic letters) could make us immune to viruses. After all, they use genetic code to override our instructions, if they are scrambled it won't work any more, i.e. they wont't be able to reproduce..
Q: Should I be able to go to the supermarket and buy assault rifles and a shitload of ammo?
A: Second amendment! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!
Q: Should I be allowed to make a shitty plastic gun myself?
A: Al keida terrorist!
Democracy does not work well if the people who vote are complete idiots.
If I remember right, there already is a successor in the pipeline. Anyway, I would be surprised that the end of Kepler would be the end of the exoplanet revolution. It's a very hot field in astronomy. There's a scientific gold vein out there, people will keep digging. Kepler is a significant milestone, and one of my favorite missions, but not a unique instrument. It's the beginning, not the end.
The shuttle was nowhere near capable of flying to Kepler. It's at 40 million miles, while the space shuttle could only fly up a couple hundred miles. Besides, considering the cost of the mission, it would not warrant a complicated repair mission. For that money you could probably send up 10 new telescopes.
- Make better reaction wheels
- Make better valves
Those two things always come back when missions end, or when a rocket launch has to be delayed.
Only persons who WANT to believe in God will attribute the origin of life to him.
And only persons who WANT to believe in aliens will attribute the unexplained lights in the sky to flying saucers.
What I believe or don't believe has nothing to do with what I want. It would be rather stupid to believe something is true because you want it to be true.