Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:What if there isn't any truth out there? (Score 5, Insightful) 93

by beheaderaswp (#47115071) Attached to: Hunt Intensifies For Aliens On Kepler's Planets

That's kind of an ignorant view. Considering the amount of resources in the uninhabited parts of the universe (which is beyond a staggering amount) why would any one enter conflict over a small planet (us).

Any species capable of interstellar travel is going to be able to pull resources out of pure energy. They don't mine, or need our water. They don't care what we do, except maybe they observe us and snicker.

Comment: History.... (Score 4, Informative) 135

by beheaderaswp (#46911885) Attached to: Is There a Limit To a Laser's Energy?

Billions and billions of years ago, even before lord Xenu, there was a scientist who pulled this off.

Blext Telfrawd, an A type Hixoid, did get an infinite number of protons into a finite space. Then the containment field faltered, obliterating the iteration of his universe..

Most historians agree this was tragic for it ended his universe, and created one with Justin Bieber. Sentients who were able to achieve trans-dimensional universital access, send a message to you from the past: It's just too risky to repeat the so called "Bieber Event",

You've been warned.

Comment: Re:Velocity (Score 1) 133

by beheaderaswp (#46905031) Attached to: Star Cluster Ejected From Galaxy At 2,000,000 MPH

Two million miles per hour is less than 0.003c, but still quite a clip, even in astronomical terms.

Since they're discussing velocity (vector speed), and not just speed, the headline is correct in saying " -1000 km/s" when the measured value is -1025 km/s, but one can debate whether the abstract is correct in saying "an extraordinary blueshift of -1025 km/s", rather than "an extraordinary blueshift of 1025 km/s", since "blueshift" gives one the sign of the velocity already.

There's definitely more that 1.21 gigawatts of energy involved....

Comment: Re:WTF? honor the SCIENCE OFFICER! (Score 1) 111

SPOCK! duh!

I haven't heard of Shatner doing anything besides acting alpha male in TV and some Movies. The creator/writer of Trek deserves far far more credit.

Nimoy, has at least done voice overs for many TV shows that were real science shows over the decades. He also helped keep the movies going (not that the movies were inspirational... but they kept things alive before TNG got started up which may not have happened otherwise.)

Scotty also deserves more than Shatner, for getting people to be engineers. He even has a term named after him which any wise engineer uses ("The Scotty Principle.") But perhaps that keeps NASA away from him (plus he is dead.)

Although Nimoy's blessing on the disgraceful reboot... that shouldn't be overlooked; perhaps that cost him the honor? maybe it should?

Yes... this.

As much as I love Shatner, I despise him in comparison to Nimoy and his contributions.

Sadly, the reboot is bad. You can't destroy Vulcan. It's just something you cannot do. There were better ways of rebooting than the destruction of an entire area of canon. But that's just me. Other may disagree.

Comment: Re:Radiation... (Score 1) 216

by beheaderaswp (#46831035) Attached to: NASA Chief Tells the Critics of Exploration Plan: "Get Over It"

A high energy electromagnetic field will do just fine. Works on earth... it will work in space.

You just need a fusion reactor. At the moment- we don't have one. Or some other high capacity, small size, energy source not yet envisioned.

NASA, while not saying it, is probably waiting on an energy technology.

Where is element 115 when you need it? Someone call Bob Lazar!!!

+ - iPad Fever is Officially Cooling

Submitted by Hugh Pickens DOT Com
Hugh Pickens DOT Com (2995471) writes "Christina Bonnington reports that the public is not gobbling up iPads like they used to. Analysts had projected iPad sales would reach 19.7 million but Apple sold 16.35 million iPads, a drop of roughly 16.4 percent since last year. "For many, the iPad they have is good enough–unlike a phone, with significant new features like Touch ID, or a better camera, the iPad’s improvements over the past few years have been more subtle," writes Bonnington. "The latest iterations feature a better Retina display, a slimmer design, and faster processing. Improvements, yes, but enough to justify a near thousand dollar purchase? Others seem to be finding that their smartphone can do the job that their tablet used to do just as well, especially on those larger screened phablets."

While the continued success of the iPad may be up in the air, another formerly popular member of Apple’s product line is definitely on its way to the grave. The iPod, once Apple’s crown jewel, posted a sales drop of 51 percent since last year. Only 2.76 million units were sold, a far cry from its heyday of almost 23 million back in 2008. "Apple's past growth has been driven mostly by entering entirely new product categories, like it did when it introduced the iPod in 2001, the iPhone in 2007, and the iPad in 2010," says Andrew Cunningham. "The most persistent rumors involve TV (whether a new Apple TV set-top box or an entire television set) and wearable computing devices (the perennially imminent "iWatch"), but calls for larger and cheaper iPhones also continue.""

+ - FCC hangs a U-turn on Net Neutrality->

Submitted by kyjellyfish
kyjellyfish (1703658) writes "The Federal Communications Commission will propose new rules that allow Internet service providers to offer a faster lane through which to send video and other content to consumers, as long as a content company is willing to pay for it, according to people briefed on the proposals.
The proposed rules are a complete turnaround for the F.C.C. on the subject of so-called net neutrality, the principle that Internet users should have equal ability to see any content they choose, and that no content providers should be discriminated against in providing their offerings to consumers.
The F.C.C.’s previous rules governing net neutrality were thrown out by a federal appeals court this year. The court said those rules had essentially treated Internet service providers as public utilities, which violated a previous F.C.C. ruling that Internet links were not to be governed by the same strict regulation as telephone or electric service.
The new rules, according to the people briefed on them, will allow a company like Comcast or Verizon to negotiate separately with each content company – like Netflix, Amazon, Disney or Google – and charge different companies different amounts for priority service."

Link to Original Source

There is nothing so easy but that it becomes difficult when you do it reluctantly. -- Publius Terentius Afer (Terence)

Working...