I really don't think you can fry your system with AfterBurner alone anymore.
That having been said, Mathematica was already pretty much fully written as of 1991---I know because I used it. It was among the first to have exectuables for both Windows and Linux. And it worked fabulously. I wrote scientific articles using it as early as 1996 (and many people even earlier than myself).
Now, what you say about check cashing is valid---because, truth be told, Mathematica hasn't changed that much since 1991---it just has fancier graphics and more wrapper functions built around the core functionality, but the language and the structure of it is essentially the same. So yes, Wolfram has been resting on his laurels pretty much since 1995 or so and thinking himself some sort of prophet with his automaton science ravings.
It's not unknown for some great scientists to do inspired things in their youth and then proceed to fuck things up for the rest of their life. Newton was into alchemy and wanted to find Atlantis. Fred Hoyle figured out how stars cook the elements and then proceeded to support the now-defunct static model of the universe, where matter is created out of nowhere and quasar are shot out of nearby galaxies.
Hey everyone, frnic is right---don't downmod on account of his French. The photoshopped pictures aren't actually anywhere on Apple's website; they are from rumor mills and third party sites.
As usual, the most insightful and informative comment is at the bottom where it won't be seen; the most sensationalist and factually inaccurate comments are at the top modded to +5.
Sounds reasonable to me. The article says that a lot of the Lithium settled into the core of the star via diffusion. The reason the deuterium abundance measurements are not affected by this is that they are not done in stars, but in distant absorbing systems.
Peer review is fine. The problem is that there isn't enough reviewer guidance, nor are there enough pots for money for "high risk, high reward" situations. Government agencies are too afraid of "wasting" their money. These things can easily be remedied by having changes at the administrative level such that money is set aside for risky projects. Peer review can then go on the same way with revised criteria.
Also remember, for every story like the miracle cancer medicine that couldn't get funded for years but then became a runaway success, there are say 10-100 rejected projects that wouldn't have gone anywhere. What if there isn't any objective way to tell apart that 1-10% from the failures? Should we fund all of them? I don't think so as there is still much to be gained from "incremental" science.
oops I meant earth masses not solar.
5.4 solar masses is m sin i, where i is the inclination of the orbit to the plane of the sky. Therefore, the mass could well be greater than 5.4 solar masses, and so it could be a neptune or in rare cases of close to face-on inclination have even higher mass.
This is a limitation of the radial velocity method, which was used in this detection; with transits (where you watch the star dim as the planet passes in front of it) you already know the inclination---it's 90 degrees to a high accuracy. So you know the mass once you have a transit and a radial velocity.
What happened to all the penguins---are they no longer on Slashdot anymore? How about these reasons to like Dropbox over MS, Google, and the others:
- Linux client
- Follows symlinks
- Automatic infinite version history (for a fee)
- LAN syncing for faster speed
- Bandwidth controls
- Automatic full resolution photo uploading from mobile
- Sync that just works
It's not all about the price ya know. Some of us like quality too. I currently have 24GB of free storage through Dropbox which I got through a special promotion. It has always worked flawlessly and never let me down.