I guess the main difference is the morons who did this 100 year plan aren't controlling a government.
There used to be a web page called "Your Eyes Suck at Blue". You might find it on the Wayback machine.
You can tell the luminance of each individual channel more precisely than you can perceive differences in mixed color. This is due to the difference between rod and cone cells. Your perception of the color gamut is, sorry, imprecise. I'm sure that you really can't discriminate 256 bits of blue in the presence of other, varying, colors.
Rather than abuse every commenter who has not joined your specialty on Slashdot, please take the source and write about what you find.
Given that CPU and memory get less expensive over time, it is no surprise that algorithms work practically today that would not have when various standards groups started meeting. Ultimately, someone like you can state what the trade-offs are in clear English, and indeed whether they work at all, which is more productive than trading naah-naahs.
While I doubt the seriousness of the claims here... I can understand. I can feel any 2.4 ghz radiation and some other radiation like Wacom devices (not sure what frequency they use). I have done blind tests and can scientifically prove without doubt that I can feel 2.4 ghz radiation with 100% accuracy. It feels like vibration in my nerves. It's actually kind of freaky. I have to be within an inch or two of the typical low-power radiation source to feel it though. I have to put my phone far enough away from my body (not that far) at night so that I can sleep.
Does this cause "sickness"? Well, who knows. All I do know is that 2.4 ghz radiation does without doubt interact with human tissue (and probably all water-based material). Does it affect most people? Probably not in any way. Could it cause cancer/whatever? Maybe, otherwise I wouldn't be able to actively detect it and I'm sure there are people more sensitive than me.
And yes, I'm completely willing to submit to any test anyone wants to perform. I have done so many times so far and they're always surprised that my sensory disorder is real. Yet somehow this never makes the news (I wonder why?).
OneLogin is the authority, changes are pushed to AD which is just there to manage Windows credentials. All the web apps (which is pretty much all of our apps) authenticate off of OneLogin. You set your password through a custom portal that syncs up everything.
Our company uses OneLogin with a set of custom scripts to sync everything with AD and our internal systems. Works pretty well.
The problem with prosthetics is, long term, they'll probably be replaced by lab-grown replacements. Good investment short-term though.
DanielRavenNest writes: "It takes 2-3 years for the tug to do the return to cislunar space (near the Moon's orbit)."
That sounds like a round trip is going to be 4-6 years plus the dwell times at the ends (which may not be significant in low-hanging-fruit scenarios).
What is the rate of interest you're using for the amortization? What does the tug cost up front? What is the price charged for the hydrocarbons and oxygen produced? What price elasticity of demand are you using?
PS: Thanks for not being "not even wrong".
Lewis's interview doesn't touch on the primary economic killer of asteroidal resource retrieval:
The time value of capital.
The equipment you need to do all this is a capital investment. You start paying interest (at a high rate due to risk) on that capital the moment you start constructing it. But more importantly, the amount of time it takes to get to the asteroids and back builds up interest payments that raise the quality of ore required to break even. There is some speculation that the quality of ore in some asteroids is high enough to overcome this objection but I've never seen anyone sit down and lay out the business case in a straight forward manner that didn't come to the conclusion that it is capital service that kills asteroid mining of high value metals.
i had one - it was arm-rest mounted. there was only one space bar. i touch-type, so it would be like "rattle rattle rattle THUMP arse!.... rattle rattle THUMP".
no the weirdest thing i found was that because the keyboard was mounted on the arm rests, it was *outside* of my peripheral vision. it took three weeks to get used to, and i realised that at the time i clearly wasn't genuinely a touch-typist... because i had been using my peripheral vision to locate the keys! within three weeks i was back up to speed and accuracy.
yeahhh i loved that keyboard. the look on people's faces when they would come into my cubicle and see me with my feet up on the desk, 15in monitor 6 feet away in linux "console" mode at 80x60 resolution, happily using vi for programming at over 170wpm....
So you don't have any actual evidence, you just assume it's them? Got it.
The goal of science is to build better mousetraps. The goal of nature is to build better mice.