Slashdot Mirror

If we are talking "successful business leader", this fellow has them all beat: John D. Rockefeller.

That's right, Pack up your troubles in your old kit bag and smile smile smile! https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Pack_Up_Your_Troubles_in_Your_Old_Kit-Bag

In the UK it makes sense; seldom the populace of the United States of America can comprehend what it means to leave everything behind going to War and coming back to nothing.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/French_copyright_law

The French set a long duration, as they where as interested in allowing a author to control how his creations got used, and via that use impacted the social appearance of the author.

This then got merged with the UK/US copyright during the Bern convention on copyright, and resulted in a merging of the UK thinking with the French time frame.

Btw, it is interesting to note that USA did not sign on to the Bern convention until the 1970s. As such, a US publisher was able to pick up a copy of LOTR during a UK visit, and create cheap printings once he got home.

Hell, USA have a long history of giving the middle finger to European IP rights as long as it would benefit the local economy. Various early industrial machines got a much bigger use in USA thanks to ignoring patents they where encumbered with in UK.

As such, China employing similar tactics to bootstrap themselves into a international industrial powerhouse is not without precedence. And the largest complainer is actually being somewhat hypocritical.

Here's some data Cliff Mass must have overlooked:

Here's a helpful map with data:
http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/at201109.asp

Here are the National Hurricane Center reports:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2011/refresh/IRENE+shtml/120913.shtml?
  * Note the Wind Speed Probability reports

They also provide this:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/refresh/graphics_at4+shtml/085722.shtml?swath

The Wikpedia article is well-footnoted:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Hurricane_Irene

From what I understand, the sensors in the road work based on sensing distortions in a magnetic field.

The loop sensors are sensing magnetic cores that are close to the loop. That changes the inductance of the loop, and the device nearby (the loop detector) flips a relay.

Static magnets are useless. You need to have some good amount of material with high permeability.

... 'ultimately, this has the potential to improve patient care by decreasing amputations, strokes and heart attacks while reducing health-care costs.'

In the United States, the savings will be passed on to the insurance companies, which means bigger bonuses for the executives. We can thank the sanctity of religion for the prosperity of capitalism.

and then hopefully the rubes will invest in it, and the people pushing it can cash out right before the thing collapses.

And this is where the entire of Slashdot fails.

Bitcoin is not something to "invest" in. It's a payment system. You use it to get money from A to B, without the involvement of such trusted middle-men as Paypal.

When you say "collapses", I presume you refer to the exchange rate between BTC and USD. This is completely irrelevant to anybody using it as a payment system. All it means is that, in order to send $10 to someone, you'll have to send 100 BTC instead of 1 BTC. The actual number of BTC involved is utterly unimportant.

Yes, I realize that a lot of people are speculating on the value of Bitcoins. Ignore them; they're irrelevant to Bitcoin's use as a payment system.

The feds already raided Gibson once, back in 2009. They took a lot of ebony, but never filed charges. Gibson is still fighting the asset forfeiture case, and the burden of proof is exactly wrong: Gibson must prove their innocence of any wrong-doing. The feds want to keep the stuff; it would be auctioned off, and they would get to keep the proceeds.

So the feds seize Gibson's ebony.
The feds auction off the ebony.
And Gibson buys the ebony at the fed auction.
Problem solved, everyone wins!

All of this thanks primarily to one executive in HP and later SGI in the mid-late nineties: Rick Belluzzo. He got a plum position at Microsoft in 2002 to reward him for his efforts in destroying HP-UX, IRIX, PA-RISC, and MIPS in favor of NT and Itanium at both companies. As an aside, the parallel to today's Nokia and Stephen Elop are unmissable, I think.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Cell_on_wheels

Before "people just don't get it" you should realize the density of "big three" Nordic countries is much lower than the US... (land area not being the same kind of factor, what matters in the end is how many people pay for each proportional part of infrastructure). Sweden has 2/3 the population density of the US, Finland 1/2, Norway 2/5.

You should realize how different they are from the rest of Europe (not the least because of separation by a sea...); and developing their infrastructure very much independently, the populations very much paying for it - as one of the most prosperous places in the region, they contribute much more to the European structural funds than they receive

Yes, one look at population maps (vs. NY map you provide nearby) is also revealing.
If anything, those two maps might as well suggest lower concentrations, lower emphasis on top-density urbanism (though that is also how the lowest administrative divisions of the maps seem to be different; anyway, the four countries at the table here have fairly similar rates of urbanization). Also not particularly centred and contiguous at large (but remember, with a mere ~half the overall population density), Yours likewise concentrate near water, plus they display much more of the desirable "beads on a string" layout.
Generally, people everywhere concentrate in population centres. Most importantly, those who do are a proportionally dominating group in connectivity stats - if the stats are poor, that's who they mostly reflect; not the few secluded ones.

Surely you don't think Europe lacks rural areas, with farms and cows? (not so much "affluent suburbs"* though...). Also, nearby you say you live in suburbia* of a 7k city and... could walk out your front door right now, walk for maybe 20 minutes, and punch(?!) a cow.
I live in an apartment block virtually in the centre of a 20k city, and would need to walk for maybe 15 minutes before I could do that (not like there's any good reason?)... but here's the thing, I would be already out of the city and on a dirt road after 5 minutes.

All in all, you probably focus on the wrong administrative level; what makes the real difference probably isn't visible on a county (or whatever the local "city+ or ++" terms are) level, isn't about huge / structural differences due to geography. Heck, the US does seem to have a very decent backbone... (and that's where the billions were supposed to go, right?) But something seems to break down at a local level.

Some would point out less-checked greed; well, maybe. Perhaps the major difference (*and one which I hinted at) is the suburban sprawl (and you choose such travesty), at the scales and issues of local interchanges; a layout actually sort of more contiguous and centred (radiating relatively uniformly around it). That's not particularly conductive to many kinds of public infrastructure, "corridors" often work much better, lower the costs, if you don't want to go with full-blown city blocks. Heck, they seem to be typical even in rural areas in my (larger) region - where it's hard to not stumble on houses densely packed, nearly connected, along the road (not the nearest one with cows that I mentioned, just suitable Gmaps shots from other (nearby) minor villages; overall, possibly at least as close as in your "city suburbia"? ...but mostly along one filament of course, usually at most with very few short branches along the way; not a grid needed to be covered throughout), sometimes even enough for municipal lights

Unlike Europeans who lock their children in a basement and rape them repeatedly or other Europeans who run around shooting people.

That's how racism works, you take an anecdote and apply it to the whole population.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Josef_Fritzl

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1578285/norway-gunman-revisits-scene-of-rampage

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10219655

Mexicano AeronÃutica y Spacial AdministraciÃn

...the US government will probably believe China.

Diplomatic "courtesy" requires the US to believe China. Privately, everyone knows that a deer is a deer.

This is a country that has a history of pointing at a deer and call it a horse, or more recently calling Minnie Mouse a "cat with large ears." So why is this a surprise?

The article also claimed the teacher called the student's religion "superstitious nonsense." If that's accurate, that's the part I'd call "ridiculing" the student's religion and a religious "slur."

As part of its ruling, the appeals court vacated a district judge's earlier decision that the teacher, Dr. James Corbett, violated the establishment clause in a comment he made in class that creationism was "superstitious nonsense."

The appeals court side-stepped the question of whether Dr. Corbett's comment on creationism and other derogatory remarks about religious faith were unconstitutional. Instead, the panel concluded that since Corbett was entitled to qualified immunity it was not necessary for the appeals court to determine whether his comments actually violated the Constitution.

The more disturbing aspect of this is that it's yet another demonstration of spinelessness in the court: Oh, we don't even need to answer this question; teachers are simply immune to such challenges.

Personally, I'm an atheist/agnostic* and a firm believer in evolution, but I've come to understand that science is as much of a "belief system" as any other religion or philosophy. Some people will say that because it's based on a methodical system of experimentation, observation, and reasoning, that this somehow makes it superior, but it's still based on certain unprovable axioms, "articles of faith" if you will: That one can trust one's own senses and ability to reason, and others' ability to use their senses and reason reliably. Some will say science has a better "track record" of aiding humanity, except most of these other "belief systems" seemed to do the job just fine for a lot longer than science has (e.g., 200 years for science vs. about 2000 for Christianity. Some will say children need to learn science in order to "get ahead" or "succeed" in the real world, but that's just tacit admission that science is the dominant belief system in the United States. It'd be like telling a Jew living in 1400s Germany that he has to convert to Christianity in order to "get ahead" or "succeed" in the overwhelmingly Christian society surrounding him. It may be a true statement of fact, but it doesn't make it right to force a person to do it.

So with all this in mind, despite my own belief in science as opposed to theistic philosophies, I support the rights of parents to teach their children whatever belief systems they choose --- and, if they wish, to shelter their children from belief systems that oppose those beliefs. It all comes down to respecting people's choices and not forcing them into other belief systems against their will.

The true problem here is the compulsory and universal nature of public school. Because it's the "one true" school system, everyone with a devout and universal belief system --- theist and atheist alike, Christian and scientist alike --- is going to fight over what it teaches. Create a "one sized fits all" solution and everyone fights to make it their preferred size. The solution is to eliminate the "one size fits all" institution.

* I consider myself an atheist, but in the sense that until and unless the existence of a god is demonstrated, I default to believing that there is none. Technically this is agnosticism, but perceptually agnosticism is more about admitting "we don't really know" than taking a stance one way or the other.

P.S.: On the topic of marriage, this is another perfect example of people fighting to make a "one size fits all"-like system represent their belief systems. The whole problem would be solved if the State got out of the marriage-licensing business altogether and left it up to people's preferred private institutions to conduct marriages: The homophobic Christians can conduct their marriages at churches that bar gays, and the more liberal-minded ones can conduct their marr

Not to mention the wierdos attacking it with high powered lasers.

Why are mount points better than drive letters

from within your filesystem perspective there can be only one top level "/" and everything is referenced from there. /usr/local/src/slashcode will always resolve to a specific place. Is that better than DOS's "collection of roots" ? It is more predictable and all the tools integrate with the idea that any directory beneath the current directory can be a different filesystem (eg. find, grep, etc).

The broad support for mounts on *nix also simplifies partitioning of data. For example, /home is often a different disk or partition from most of the system and can be encrypted, mirrored, backed up more easily since it contains virtually 100% dynamic (ie. important) data.

Microsoft's 'Drive Extender' appears to have allowed for similar concepts but has been removed from WHS2011 - http://www.ghacks.net/2011/02/28/drive-bender-merge-hard-drives-into-one/

I'm not too interested in the Why so I'm going to skip looking up their rationale.

Uniform Naming Convention - https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Path_(computing)#Uniform_Naming_Convention - is another bit of Windows ecosystem that approximates the concepts of *nix top level containing mounts. That's more of a user-space thing though since it's only context is application, not something defined by the system. Mounted resources are available outside of a logged-in user.

*nix also has the /mnt node wherein most (/media notwithstanding) temporary mounts are defined. It's nice to be able to iterate or list the transient attachments your system might have.

No loss unless you cling to your company name. For each new product, creating a new shell company is trivial.

All is branding.

Sony and all its line of failures would like to disagree with you.

DAT, MiniDisc and Betamax come to mind. While they never really caught in the mainstream market, some gained some sort of popularity in "niche" markets. DAT is the interesting example: it was developed to replace the Cassette but was never popular in home environments, but it found a loyal user base in the semi-pro (and pro) community, since it let you have a (rather) portable unit with CD-quality digital audio.

MD is weird too. I only knew 1 person who used MD, and this was in the pre-MP3 times (I was the only freak in town with a Diamond Rio), about 2000-2001 when Sony started bundling the MD deck with the GRX line of audio systems. This guy liked it so he got the MD walkman. In Japan, the MD seemed to be very popular. Japan is weird... CD-R wasn't as big there as MO is. Sony still made TAPE Walkmans (!) until last year, long, long after the rest of the world gave up on tapes.

Japanese companies seem to support their products in japan for much longer. Maybe the japanese law requires it? As soon as the xbox 360 came out, Microsoft slashed the xbox AND new game licenses. They moved everything to the 360. Sony still makes the PS2 and licenses new games, years after the PS3 came into the market. Maybe Sega or some subsidiary is still supporting the Dreamcast over there?. They released the SNES in '90 in japan and discontinued it on '03 (91 to 99 for USA). They also have very obscure, rare, japan-only stuff (Nintendo-licensed FLASH cartridges you can download games to, https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Nintendo_Power_(cartridge) )

Mitsubishi is the example of one of those japanese "conglomerates" that use the same brand for everything from pencils to cars. They don't create shell companies.

I've been trying out Camus's absurd life of Don Juan Chapter 2 and so far it's working out pretty well!

Yes, that's why I use Hiawatha.

I second that.

Yes, that's why I use Hiawatha.

- Russia lost two shuttles in 60s and 70th with total 4 crew members lost
- US lost one in 80s and 2000's, with 14 crew members lost.

Based on the more recent nature of US accidents (and massive loss of lives), any insurance carrier will confirm that US missions are riskier (would command higher insurance premiums). Good thing they got discontinued, I guess.

Source: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-related_accidents_and_incidents

piece of pork ive ever witnessed. this thing didnt start by tapping known leaders in robotics like motoman, kooka, and fanuc. It started with a car company...and not even the one that has spent 3 decades researching bipedal humanoid robots (honda.) we coughed up grant money left and right and all we got was a robot that in 2006 still had no legs (though often proposed!)
GM strapped it to a car of course
and segway strapped it to, well, a fucking segway
Real corporations given real money for a real project and all these crackerjack bastards can do is gin up darpas idea with what amounts to no more than an expensive publicity stunt at the expense of my fucking tax dollars.

compared to what russia did in 1970 this shitty half robot half car project only serves to galvanize the fact that americans are incapable of doing anything without some sort of cash incentive upfront.

We've just seen that some propositions are futile to deny. It's not that they couldn't be true. It's just that if they were true, they'd inevitably and automatically render everything else pointless.

So it's possible to have pragmatic grounds for selecting certain 'axioms', specific 'properly basic beleifs'. I can't prove fundamental notions like 'my reason has the potential to be effective' and 'my senses relay information correlated with an external reality' and 'the simplest explanation that covers the facts should be preferred'. And yet... it's not whimsy or prejudice that drives me to accept these ideas. It's the fact that not assuming them automatically means 'game over'.

And, interestingly, if you accept such 'non-defeatist' axioms, you get a coherent and demonstrably productive worldview. You get logic and science and medicine... and, yes, even love and all that. (Based on this, I'd probably best be categorized as a "Foundherentist" who leans to Foundationalism.)

...[So] there are a few limited things that I take 'on faith' not because of evidence but because assuming anything else is automatically futile. However, I try to keep those to the smallest possible set - because one of those assumptions is Ockham's Razor.

But I don't (or, at least, I'm not aware that I) take anything 'on faith' in the sense of 'despite' evidence. So if you want to convince me to take God 'on faith', you're going to need evidence.

For fuck's sake, it's HOBBYIST. HOBBY, HOBBYIST.

"Oh well, modded down for disagreeing with a factual statement. "

This is the heart of Slashdot. /. is were a bunch of misinformed, naive, clueless immature children (RMH!) come to yank each off over delusions, fantasies and ridiculous sci-fi notions. If you come in here with your reality and your facts... Watch out! (Especially in space threads... Hoo boy, the mental instability of most the fervent believers is quite something to watch!)

But I strongly suspect most of the raging fanboys here don't realize that the objects shown as samples probably came out of months of trial and error. But they think they can just turn it on and plop out big, complex products overnight.

They also think that other people will share their fascination for expensive hobbies when you can just buy whatever you want already. It's a hobby, and that's all it'll ever be. I mean we live in a disposable culture where keeping anything longer than a year is suspect, but somehow people will want to print out spare knobs? No, that's not it.

People will have fun, then realize how utterly pointless and trivial this toy is. The industrial processes already exist, and are industrial for a reason... They're complex! This is a toy. Congrats to them for scoring a cool 10 milskies, but you'll never hear from this again.

Would you lend 10$ to this guy?

At 40 light-years, they are definitely not among the 7 closest stars to earth :

I think there might be a difference between a star and a star system, but IANAA.

1. 1) alpha-Centauri A: 4.2421 light-years
2. 2) alpha-Centauri B: 4.3650 light-years
3. 3) Barnard's Star: 5.9630 light-years
4. 4) Wolf 359: 7.7825 light-years
5. 5) Lalande 21185: 8.2905 light-years
6. 6) Sirius: 8.5828 light-years
7. 7) Luyten 726-8: 8.7280 light-years

Ironic considering Amtrak is owned by the federal government.

This explains a bit about what "unemployment" statistics mean.

And I didn't think I could get any more depressed today after putting silicone in the propellant flow paths of PRCS and VRCS thrusters.
Thanks.

And I didn't think I could get any more depressed today after putting silicone in the propellant flow paths of PRCS and VRCS thrusters.
Thanks.

Interesting that this answer to your question was posted yesterday: http://creation.com/oil-not-always-fossil

Er... not exactly new. And hasn't set the world on fire. Oil companies don't use this model because it hasn't worked.

I suspect it takes a lot more money than you think to start an oil company.

I didn't suggest starting an oil company.

I suggested starting an oil surveying company.

Container ships are dirt cheap compared to rail, about 3x more efficient.

Seems like Wikipedia doesn't agree with you. In the USA railroad burns 341 BTU/(ton*mile) whereas a ship burns 510 BTU/(ton*mile).

But there are other advantages of railroads. First, railroads are largely weather-independent, but ships aren't. Northern seas also tend to freeze, but the cold air doesn't affect the railroad much.

Second, a railroad can be powered by electric energy - from a hydro plant or from a nuclear plant or from any number of renewable sources. This means it's future-proof. Most ships burn dinosaurs, and the supply of those is limited (not even counting the CO(2) release into the atmosphere.)

Third, a railroad is a low-tech project. Very few things can break, and when they sometimes do it's easy to repair. On the other hand, if a container ship loses power in the ocean, it's bad news.

Fourth, a railroad is a cheap thing to use. Sure, you need to spend some coin on laying the tracks. But once it's done your trains are cheap and the crew of each train is just a couple of guys, compared to tens of sailors that are required to maintain the ship. And don't even compare a train - which is a simple welding job, mostly - to the capital expense of a container ship.

Fifth, a train can move much faster than a ship. Water is viscous, as any swimmer will tell. Wheels have very little rolling resistance, so a relatively small engine can pull a very long and heavy train.

Sixth, trains are packet-switched networks. You can load a railcar at your factory and it will be routed to the destination. Your content on the car will not be disturbed. Ships require packing in sea containers, which is not convenient or even possible for many types of loads, thus requiring special ships to carry liquids, gases, ores, fruits etc. In a train all you need is a special car; the train doesn't care what your car is doing, as long as it can be hitched. A ship requires loading and unloading which ain't free.

I'm sure there are many other advantages and disadvantages, but your "3x cheaper" argument doesn't fly, unless you can cite something at least as reliable as Wikipedia.

It's not the Atari you're looking for. Unless you're referring to the word "atari" in the game Go or related Japanese meanings.

The original Atari was split into Atari Games (arcades) and Atari Corporation (computers/consoles) in the early 80s. Atari Corp. folded after the failure of the Jaguar in the mid 1990s and UBIsoft (Infogrames?) bought the rights to the name and changed the logo to the one with the larger bottom ends. Atari Games was making arcade games until at least 10 years ago.

Argh. So many details left unsaid or said incorrectly... I canna remember! Just look HERE for all the nitty-gritty.

Um, yes. Possibly you are too young to remember six or so years ago (!?), but Windows Mobile was at the time a VERY successful platform.

The iPhone cratered it, because Microsoft sat on the platform for too long without real improvement and as a software base it totally sucked and could not evolve. But Microsoft has history of prior success in the mobile space and a TON of corporate relationships that, while dusty, could come back to be of use.

Er, no. Sadly, I'm not too young to remember six years ago -- on the contrary, I used PDAs and smartphones all through that period and I remember it very well. Being as kind to you as I can, I think you're probably referring to Wince PDAs, when between the end of 2004 and the start of 2007 they took over the dying PDA (non-phone) market. Unfortunately for MS, by 2004 Q4 the non-phone PDA market had essentially peaked, and was being taken over by smartphones.

And in the phone market (which is what we're talking about here), Windows Mobile was always miles behind Symbian, and then RIM, Apple and now Android OSes -- with a maximum market share of 23% in 2004 Q1, falling now to 2% with WP7 in 2011 Q2. (See this ref for Wince's peak market share, and then wikipedia lists Gartner's market share stats from 2007 onwards; unfortunately, I can't find any Gartner stats for smartphones before '07 ...)

History tells us that Windows on phones has been one long history of decline from a not-very-high peak. As I've said, if MS belatedly succeeds in this market, it'll be in spite of what's happened in the past. Actually, it'd be a first, despite trying to crack into it for more than seven years ...

Feel free to cite contrary refs to support your claim of "VERY successful" if you can ...

Rodney Stark got a Pulitzer for this 15 years ago: The Rise of Christianity

Not the best start to your comments, but I take your meaning. The long answer is to familiarize yourself with textual criticism from Origen to Derrida, who were generally wrong-headed but meant well and had some exceptionally useful ideas.

The *short* answer is that there is One And Only One Meaning to Genesis like there is One And Only One Meaning to, say, possession of manuals that appear to be describing criminal activities. I have heard, for example, rabid post-Catholic atheists explain at length about Genesis as the foundation of a cult meant to instill fear. I have also heard explanations- just as sincerely meant- that Genesis is the beautiful mythopoetic basis for a religion that radically reformed ideas about slavery and debt in a pre-industrial world. The difference isn't in the text, but the reader. Which isn't to say that you're full of fear- it's that your experiences suggest to you that the text is used in that way. I've had friends whose experiences were of bigoted, vicious dogs in human form who used the Bible as an excuse to treat their fellow man like an animal. I've had other friends who grew up with the Bible used to instruct them in peace and love.

No story is "nothing but" anything.

Required reading to be minimally informed:

• GPL v3 faq
• tivoization
• GPL
• the tivo series 2 upgrade

Required reading to be minimally informed:

• GPL v3 faq
• tivoization
• GPL
• the tivo series 2 upgrade

There's no contradiction between their beliefs and behavior, because there's always a loophole in their beliefs - "God made it that way" - that lets them shrug and go back to reaping the practical benefits of scientific discovery.

My point is targeted at actual, committed young-Earth creationists who claim the scientific data really supports their position - not the Omphalos types. (Those I address elsewhere in this very thread, e.g. here.)

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Neoclassical_economics

"And there is the clinching point - the bible never claims what evolutionary biologists call a bottleneck of two individuals"

No, it actually claims a bottleneck of 6 individuals.

As all humans were killed in the flood except for Noah and his family. This is very clear and Concise. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Noah's_Ark for more information about this bedtime story that many claim to be absolute fact.

Granted it's a story that was inserted into the old testament because it has nice entertainment value and the fact that it's a good "Behave or god will KILL YOU!" story to tell to children and illiterate people. But a large group of people actually believe that mankind would not corrupt a holy book for power and control. Very, Very Naive people they are.

Never underestimate humanity's ability to corrupt something.

Maybe without current spam-blocking techniques.

because none was needed. until a pair of low life bottom-feeding douche bag lawyers spammed usenet with their green card lottery spew (repeatedly,) and "inspired" millions of other bottom-feeders to copy their exploits (effectively destroyed usenet and e-mail as an useful communication medium,) spam was unheard of. (no, don't get me started on AoL'ers)

One major confusion is that species don't form from individuals. There's no 'single mutation that produces a new species'. There's always a population that diverges.

For a much clearer picture of how species really do come about, look up 'ring species'. For example, the Larus gulls are several subspecies where variants live in a ring around the Arctic. The Herring Gull in the U.K. can interbreed with the American Herring Gull, and the American can interbreed with the Vega Gull in Russia. And so on, until you come to the Lesser Black-Backed Gull in the Netherlands. It basically can't breed with the Herring Gull. Hybrids are extremely rare and don't seem to be fertile, like mules.

So, is it a separate species? You could breed it with its relative to the East, and so on. But what if, say, the Vega Gull went extinct? Would you have separate species then?

Now, imagine such variations happening across time instead of (or as well as) space, and you've got an idea how species actually do form, instead of the 'saltationist' strawman that many try to imply. (Not saying you are, just that it's a very common misunderstanding that's often deliberately promoted.)

Note also that human 'races' are all entirely cross-fertile, and thus are decidedly not 'separate species'.

What has Richard Branson got to do with this?

Freedom of Speech = Freedom of Expression.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#The_right_to_freedom_of_speech_and_expression

Civilized society

If you ever hosted a public forum you know just how bad a problem assholes are. Slashdot knows, remember the GNAA? There is a LOT of work going on behind the scenes to make sure that the posts you read are at least somewhat genuine, not just 100% pure trolls or advertising.

MANY of those GNAA posts were very creative and funny, and many would not be published if it were not for pseudo-anonymity.

I see lots of people publish off-topic comments that get moderated Funny. In fact there is even an official Funny moderation for posts that are meant to be funny.

Unfortunately there are many intolerant people who will only up-moderate politically correct speech. It is because of this intolerance and prejudice that we need anonymity on the Internet.

In fact, history has shown that comedians are often the first people to be demonized in an authoritarian, anti-intellectual, politically correct society.

No, I don't use Google+ but then I don't use Facebook. Slashdot is good enough for me for all the in depth human interaction I need...

So in the end, you prefer to use the pseudo-anonymous services that you condemn; SmallFuryCreature.

Of course hat big, lovable(?) difference means they are at least an order of magnitude away, in energy expenditure required, from being able to reach orbit.

Locations are not that much of a problem, a lot of Earth's area is an ocean. Also, industrial complexes tend to be near coastline (even if their specific area is unsuitable for launches, it makes for an easy means to transport large cargo). Besides, the spaceport in question is also in rather desolated area. And generally, it's largely also about planned "crashes" of staging.

Those scramjet vehicles, that pop out now and then, might be possibly better described as "missile demonstrator" or "weapons carrier" ...probably closer to the most feasible and/or intended function (which follow the form, and vice versa; nice overall, less geopolitical complications than with ICBMs, and without the need to have a launcher placed in the theatre (or bomber carrier getting nearby), how convenient; the good old search for tech which can destabilize the balance and trigger a new arms race / sales).

When you really seriously do the math (like they did with HOTOL, for example), ~winged orbital vehicles using the atmosphere during launch turn out not really better than a "dumb rocket" using comparable materials ...which for a spaceplane are required to make it even barely feasible. Similarly, 3 km of elevation won't make much of a difference - the rockets cover that very quickly. Their main goal is not height, but speed (launching near equator is more worthwhile)

And X-34 (plus few others being worked on, Dream Chaser for example) is just a payload of ordinary rocket.

More generally, historically, everybody at first expected "aerodynamic" or "spaceplane-ish" shapes from reentry vehicles, and worked towards it hard. They proved relatively unworkable. Blunt shape entry capsule was quite late innovation, an improvement; and a bit of a surprise. There's nothing wrong with capsules. Physics, rocket equation, are a bitch - and they override dreams (here, about expected modes of space travel); dreams unduly extrapolating rates and directions of observed progress. Look at those airplanes from "our" times (imagined during rapid advances of marine tech; and we can even build them - take a Harrier, remove wings and canopy... still a horrible idea vs. "boring" reality).

Consider how the "spaceplanes" came to dominate scifi... around the 40s, during rapid advances of airplane tech (I can see a pattern...); how the designers and decision-makers of the Shuttle were undoubtedly raised on those works of fiction. How they gave us an analogue of Catalina, at best (Spruce Goose, at worst); but something which looked very soothing and "inspiring" to the already constrained public imagination, already quite accustomed to airliners / Concorde. Something which probably robbed us at least of a decade of progress; was conceptually obsolete (with automatic rendezvous, docking and routine return of large valuable cargo done since the 60s) before it seriously got onto drawing boards. Wasting most of upmass on airframe; a lot of good that does in space ...where it doesn't matter how "sleek" something looks. We build vehicles meant for various environments in very different, specific ways. Making a spacecraft out of an aircraft appears to have limited utility (and by the time it maybe-who-knows might, we could be on our way to in-situ manufacturing and making the "from reactive atmosphere to low orbit" problem uninteresting)

Grandiose, fabulous, "awesome" styles typical of scifi (again, works of fiction) mostly just constrain public imagination, make them expect something palatable, nothing too uncomfortable and too