And God woot that in alle these langages and in many moo han these conclusions ben suffisantly lerned and taught, and yit by diverse reules; right as diverse pathes leden diverse folk the righte way to Rome.
Ah yes, the good life.. Drinking Pepsi and stealing from those poor record companies. Back in my day we only have Coke and we had to bootleg eight tracks..
Oh yeah? Well we only had Tab, and if we wanted to bootleg something we had to punch holes in a roll of cardstock for the player piano!
Thomas Edison educated himself by reading, Abraham Lincoln educated himself by reading, many other famous americans educated themselves. Just because you never went to school doesnt preclude you from being smart.
no, you dont, but you need to move all the equipment to mine the stuff, all the people to run the equpment and all the buildings to house the people to the moon. And you also have to haul up whatever youre going to use to bring the He3 back from the moon.
Coal: $.078/lb So unless you can go to the moon, process the helium 3 and bring it back from the moon for less than $78.50/lb its not worth it. Currently it costs $10,000 to send a lb of material to Low earth orbit. Its at least 5 times as much to put a lb on the moon. Not to mention, How do you get it back to earth? you need to get it back through the atmosphere that means you have to send up some sort of capsule to bring it back with, again at great expense. Until you have enough manufacturing capability on the moon to manufacture all the stuff you need to send he3 back, its just not worth it.
Just suppose that 20 years from now, laser drills are cutting exploration and production costs of natural gas by huge margins, enabling North American companies to burn the stuff to crack the oil out of the Alberta Tar Sands (which contain more oil than Saudi Arabia)
What is the energy return on investment? Theoretically, we could create oil out of ordinary biologically created hydrocarbons. the only problem is that it takes more energy to do so than what you get out of it. Say you can use the natural gas to crack tar sands. Well no matter what energy you get out of the tar sands, it will cost whatever the natural gas cost, plus the cost of mining and refining the tar sands. Therefore the tar sands will never be cheaper than the natural gas. Why not just use the natural gas? As for energy independance, the US is the "saudi arabia" of coal. In fact it would be more aprorpriate to say that saudi arabia was the US of oil. At the current rate of consumption, we will run out of oil by 2050. Well run out of coal sometime in the 2400's. They didnt tell you that they made the antimatter with coal for the Enterprise. Without exploration of other methods of power production, well be using coal for everything in the forseeable future.
Actually, Algebra is arabic in origin. It comes from a corruption of Al-jabr, Part of the name of a book written by Muhammad ibn Musa Al-Khowarizmi whose last name was corrupted to form the word Algorithm. More info here
Re:NASA is dying... Bushcraft Confirms
on
The Future of NASA
·
· Score: 1
Since he couldn't accomplish that during nam, and had to get spirited into the safety of the national guard instead, he sends hundreds to die in Iraq.p. Hes also plugging the same hole that he used. Many national guard units are now being called up for servce in iraq, and its arguable that this will keep the war shorter because a larger segment of americans from more congressional districts will be dying.
Certainly, some of it has benefited people who live in affluent nations -- most notably, the aerospace industry, otherwise known as the "defense" industry. The vast majority of mankind, however, lives under conditions of grinding poverty and the advances gained from the space program do not benefit them in the least. In fact, many of the "technological advances" of the aerospace industry have resulted in widespread death and destruction -- for instance, the development and use of stealth bombers and cruise missiles. For untold numbers of Iraqis and Afghans, the American space program translates into GPS guided bombs killing their children.
Many technologies have dual uses. For example, the same cargo ships that carry humanitarian aid to third world countries can be used to carry tanks and soldiers to invade Iraq. I dare you to find any important technology that cannot or has not been repurposed for military uses. For untold number of other Iraqis, the american space program means that they can watch satellite news and call relatives around the world on their satellite phones. Not to mention the fact that you are using the internet to post this, which was originally a military project.
Bush's "first goal" is to realize plans spelled out by the Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management and Organization, chaired by Donald Rumsfeld in 2001. A report issued by the Commission demands the US "have the option to deploy weapons in space to deter threats to and, if necessary, defend against attacks on U.S. interests." In other words, the US will build a new generation of space-based weapons to further realize Pax Americana. Of course, this will motivate other countries (most notably China) to waste money and precious resouces on developing space weapons of their own, initiating an arms race.
In fact, China has already started its own space weapons program, according to a report released by the Department of Defense. "The report focuses on the current and probable future course of that country's growing military-technological prowess, including the use of space to assure military advantage," Leonard David writes for Space.com. "This year's report cites a comment from Captain Shen Zhongchang from the Chinese Navy Research Institute. He envisions, according to the DoD, a weaker military defeating a superior one by attacking its space-based communications and surveillance systems." For more on the strategic thinking of the Chinese, see Chinese Views of Future Warfare.
So if the chinese have started weaponization of space already, arent we just responding to them? If the chinese are going to weaponize space regardless of what we do, then we need to respond to that. We have lots of space assets that need to be protected. If the chinese decide to blind one of our nuclear launch watchdog satellites it could lead to a premature launch of nuclear weapons on our part.
Wishful thinking aside, BMDS is essentially a boondoggle for "defense" corporations such as Raytheon.
This is true, BMDS is ineffective as it is currently envisioned.
The tiny fraction of mankind represented by Bush, the Pentagon, the neocons, transnational corporations, and the ruling elite on terra firma are not interested per se in exploring space, landing on Mars, or setting up a base on the Moon -- that is unless the base has an over-budget, Raytheon manufactured laser aimed at "rogue nations" on the earth. Space is simply the next step in their warmongering.
If it takes the military to create a permanent outpost on another planet, so be it. America wasnt colonized bby shipping over several million europeans at once. They came over in small batches, and the first colonies were tiny. A giant frickin Laser will require a large outpost and support system, and even if that is expensive, it will provide for a pretty good sized colony. Many cities are a result of a military base being built on the spot where the city now is. If the only way that humanity will move out into the solar system is a military base on the moon, lets dp it.
Ever heard of George W Bush? " There is no evidence that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with the events of september 11" So either bush is covering it up, or there is no evidence. Dont you think if there were evidence he of all people would be trumpeting it?
Im currently doing my masters project on the feasibility of the hypersoar concept. In a nutshell, its possible, but with some caveats. One of the main reasons you want to do a periodic trajectory is to reduce drag and heating of the aircraft. If you stay at a constant altitude, all that heat builds up and eventually melts your plane. If you skip out of the atmosphere the heat should radiate to space, reducing your total heat load. The problem comes when you come back in. You go deeper into the atmosphere at a higher temperature than you would at a constant altitute. Ultimately your total heat load is lower, but your maximum temperature is higher by about 20% (in degrees K) which is enough to require some more exotic materials. The other thing is that you require alot of lift for pulling out of the dive at the bottom of your trajectory. So you need a high L/D ratio, which for a hypersonic vehicle is about 4. So you need wings and structure to hold the wings etc. Thirdly, you need an engine with enough thrust to overcome the drag at the bottom of the dive. If your engine isnt pushing harder than the air is pushing back, you just slow down and fall to earth. If its not pushing hard enough to bring you back to your initial velocity, you cant go very far. For my preliminary vehicle design I found that a vechile of ~500 tons with a L/D of 4 needs a thrust of about 2g's or about a million newtons If your vehicle is too light, it cant push far enough into the atmosphere to generate thrust (im using an airbreathing engine) and you crash. If its too heavy you go in to far and burn up. There is a specific range of weights and engine on-off conditions that are required for a successful trajectory. I think Ive got it worked out, but I need to do some more analysis over winter break
And its free for those dastardly child pornographers! Shut it down in the name of protecting the children! (but you can sign up for this $49.99 a month service over here....)
You know, currently theres a problem with waiters and waitresses and other service industry folk (a few) that take your credit card while you are paying your check and read the card with a pocket reader, storing the info for later for credit card fraud. I can see pick pockets now: You are bumped into while walking, you check to make sure your wallet is there, which it is, but your info has been stolen by a contactless RFID system.
Does anyone else think that they just used the reasons that are given to get a knee jerk reaction from parents to allow them to install this system? I dont see any way that a face recognition system will prevent the things that are already happening. In my HS, we had door guards and you had to either have a child in the building or have an appointment with a teacher or administrator. This system worked much better at keeping "unauthorized" people from the building.
and if that child had the foresight to have their face scanned before they were abducted, and the intelligence for their features not to change over time, and their aductor doesnt change their hair color or give them glasses then it will work!
Sweeden? Finland? Since when do their laws apply in the US? So they cant use "lindows" in sweeden. Big deal, Wal-Mart is selling them in the US. Call it BGSD (Bill Gates Sucks Distro) and MS will be happy (sorta)
Many groups and individuals are proposing that our government spend tax money on research and development of systems to utilize solar energy. They urge construction of vast solar energy collectors to convert sunlight to electricity to supply our energy needs. They would even put solar collectors on roofs of homes, factories, schools, and other buildings. Proponents of this technology claim that energy obtained from the sun will be safer and cleaner than coal, oil, or nuclear energy sources.
We view these proposals with alarm. Unscrupulous scientists and greedy promoters are hoodwinking a gullible public. We consider it rash and dangerous to commit our country to the use of solar energy. This solar technology has never been utilized on such a large scale, and we have no assurance of its long-range safety. Not one single study has been done to assess the safety of electricity from solar energy as compared to electricity from other sources.
The promoters of solar energy cleverly lead you to believe that it is perfectly safe. Yet they conveniently neglect to mention that solar energy is generated by nuclear fusion within the sun. This process operates on the very same basic laws of nuclear physics used in nuclear power plants and atomic bombs!
And what is the source of this energy? It is hydrogen, a highly explosive gas (remember the Hindenberg?) Hydrogen is also the active material in H-bombs, that are not only tremendously destructive, but produce dangerous fallout. The glib advocates of solar energy don't even mention these disturbing facts about the true sources of solar energy. What else are they trying to hide from us?
In addition to the known dangers cited above, what about the unknown dangers, that very well might be worse? When pressed, scientists will admit that they do not fully understand the workings of the sun, or even of the atom. They will even grudgingly admit that our knowledge of the basic laws of physics is not yet perfect or complete. Yet these same reckless scientists would have us use this solar technology even before we fully understand how it works.
Admittedly we are already subject to a natural `background' radiation from the sun. We can do little about that, except to stay out of direct sunlight as much as possible. The evidence is already clear that too much exposure to sunlight can cause skin cancer. But solar collectors would concentrate that sunlight (that otherwise would have fallen harmlessly on waste land), convert it to electricity and pipe it into our homes to irradiate us from every light bulb! We would then not even be safe from this cancer-producing energy even in our own homes!
We all know that looking at the sun for even a few seconds can cause blindness. What long term health hazards might result from reading by light derived from solar energy? We now spend large amounts of time looking at the light from television monitors or computer screens, and one can only imagine the possible long-term consequences of this exposure when the screens are powered with electricity from solar collectors. Will we develop cataracts, or slowly go blind? Not one medical study has yet addressed itself to this question, and none are planned.
In their blind zeal to plug us in to solar energy, scientists seem to totally ignore possible fire hazards of solar energy. Sunlight reaching us directly from the sun at naturally safe levels poses little fire threat. But all one has to do is concentrate sunlight, with a simple burning- glass, and it readily ignites combustible materials. Who would feel safe with solar energy concentrators on their roof? Could we afford the fire insurance rates?
These scientists, and the big corporations that employ them, stand to profit greatly from construction of solar-power stations. No wonder they try to hide the dangers of the technology and suppress any open discussion of them.
Proponents of solar energy present facts, figures and graphs to support their claim that energy from the sun will be less expensiv
Ok, but if youre a spy, and you want to transmit a code or something, put it in a distro CD and hand it to your contact, or put it up on the net and let anyone take it, including your intended recipient the files in the ISO that you make are not changed, moved renamed written over or deleted
The SCO Group, Inc.(Nasdaq: SCOX) helps millions of customers in more than 82 countries to grow their businesses everyday. Headquartered in Lindon, Utah, SCO has a worldwide network of more than 11,000 resellers and 4,000 developers. SCO Global Services provides reliable localized support and services to partners and customers
Yes, but what is it that you DO? I wonder how many of those 4000 developers are on the SCO payroll, and how many of them are just Open Source Developers?
Well if you were in a position to use this technology, you could kill them much more easily, or you could just remove enough blood to kill them then inject it all back in to remove suspicioun, the only evidence is one needle mark, but no poison or other substance.
Why not hide stuff -IN- FreeBSD. It wouldnt be that hard to write a utility that inserted "typos" into comments that when decoded could be used to pass messages or even hide images.
Slashdot Mirror
Chaucer: Here is thine first technical manual
God: W00t!!
Oh yeah? Well we only had Tab, and if we wanted to bootleg something we had to punch holes in a roll of cardstock for the player piano!
Thomas Edison educated himself by reading, Abraham Lincoln educated himself by reading, many other famous americans educated themselves. Just because you never went to school doesnt preclude you from being smart.
You had a toothbrush? I had to brush my teeth with my finger.
no, you dont, but you need to move all the equipment to mine the stuff, all the people to run the equpment and all the buildings to house the people to the moon. And you also have to haul up whatever youre going to use to bring the He3 back from the moon.
Coal: $.078/lb
So unless you can go to the moon, process the helium 3 and bring it back from the moon for less than $78.50/lb its not worth it. Currently it costs $10,000 to send a lb of material to Low earth orbit. Its at least 5 times as much to put a lb on the moon. Not to mention, How do you get it back to earth? you need to get it back through the atmosphere that means you have to send up some sort of capsule to bring it back with, again at great expense. Until you have enough manufacturing capability on the moon to manufacture all the stuff you need to send he3 back, its just not worth it.
What is the energy return on investment? Theoretically, we could create oil out of ordinary biologically created hydrocarbons. the only problem is that it takes more energy to do so than what you get out of it. Say you can use the natural gas to crack tar sands. Well no matter what energy you get out of the tar sands, it will cost whatever the natural gas cost, plus the cost of mining and refining the tar sands. Therefore the tar sands will never be cheaper than the natural gas. Why not just use the natural gas? As for energy independance, the US is the "saudi arabia" of coal. In fact it would be more aprorpriate to say that saudi arabia was the US of oil. At the current rate of consumption, we will run out of oil by 2050. Well run out of coal sometime in the 2400's. They didnt tell you that they made the antimatter with coal for the Enterprise. Without exploration of other methods of power production, well be using coal for everything in the forseeable future.
But with helium 3 we can make smaller hydrogen bombs, since we dont need as large a nuclear bomb to detonate the helium and hydrogen.
Actually, Algebra is arabic in origin. It comes from a corruption of Al-jabr, Part of the name of a book written by Muhammad ibn Musa Al-Khowarizmi whose last name was corrupted to form the word Algorithm. More info here
Since he couldn't accomplish that during nam, and had to get spirited into the safety of the national guard instead, he sends hundreds to die in Iraq.p. Hes also plugging the same hole that he used. Many national guard units are now being called up for servce in iraq, and its arguable that this will keep the war shorter because a larger segment of americans from more congressional districts will be dying.
So THATS the reason that my right arm is stronger than my left ;-)
Many technologies have dual uses. For example, the same cargo ships that carry humanitarian aid to third world countries can be used to carry tanks and soldiers to invade Iraq. I dare you to find any important technology that cannot or has not been repurposed for military uses. For untold number of other Iraqis, the american space program means that they can watch satellite news and call relatives around the world on their satellite phones. Not to mention the fact that you are using the internet to post this, which was originally a military project.
Bush's "first goal" is to realize plans spelled out by the Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management and Organization, chaired by Donald Rumsfeld in 2001. A report issued by the Commission demands the US "have the option to deploy weapons in space to deter threats to and, if necessary, defend against attacks on U.S. interests." In other words, the US will build a new generation of space-based weapons to further realize Pax Americana. Of course, this will motivate other countries (most notably China) to waste money and precious resouces on developing space weapons of their own, initiating an arms race.
In fact, China has already started its own space weapons program, according to a report released by the Department of Defense. "The report focuses on the current and probable future course of that country's growing military-technological prowess, including the use of space to assure military advantage," Leonard David writes for Space.com. "This year's report cites a comment from Captain Shen Zhongchang from the Chinese Navy Research Institute. He envisions, according to the DoD, a weaker military defeating a superior one by attacking its space-based communications and surveillance systems." For more on the strategic thinking of the Chinese, see Chinese Views of Future Warfare.
So if the chinese have started weaponization of space already, arent we just responding to them? If the chinese are going to weaponize space regardless of what we do, then we need to respond to that. We have lots of space assets that need to be protected. If the chinese decide to blind one of our nuclear launch watchdog satellites it could lead to a premature launch of nuclear weapons on our part.
Wishful thinking aside, BMDS is essentially a boondoggle for "defense" corporations such as Raytheon.
This is true, BMDS is ineffective as it is currently envisioned.
The tiny fraction of mankind represented by Bush, the Pentagon, the neocons, transnational corporations, and the ruling elite on terra firma are not interested per se in exploring space, landing on Mars, or setting up a base on the Moon -- that is unless the base has an over-budget, Raytheon manufactured laser aimed at "rogue nations" on the earth. Space is simply the next step in their warmongering.
If it takes the military to create a permanent outpost on another planet, so be it. America wasnt colonized bby shipping over several million europeans at once. They came over in small batches, and the first colonies were tiny. A giant frickin Laser will require a large outpost and support system, and even if that is expensive, it will provide for a pretty good sized colony. Many cities are a result of a military base being built on the spot where the city now is. If the only way that humanity will move out into the solar system is a military base on the moon, lets dp it.
Ever heard of George W Bush? " There is no evidence that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with the events of september 11" So either bush is covering it up, or there is no evidence. Dont you think if there were evidence he of all people would be trumpeting it?
Im currently doing my masters project on the feasibility of the hypersoar concept. In a nutshell, its possible, but with some caveats. One of the main reasons you want to do a periodic trajectory is to reduce drag and heating of the aircraft. If you stay at a constant altitude, all that heat builds up and eventually melts your plane. If you skip out of the atmosphere the heat should radiate to space, reducing your total heat load. The problem comes when you come back in. You go deeper into the atmosphere at a higher temperature than you would at a constant altitute. Ultimately your total heat load is lower, but your maximum temperature is higher by about 20% (in degrees K) which is enough to require some more exotic materials. The other thing is that you require alot of lift for pulling out of the dive at the bottom of your trajectory. So you need a high L/D ratio, which for a hypersonic vehicle is about 4. So you need wings and structure to hold the wings etc. Thirdly, you need an engine with enough thrust to overcome the drag at the bottom of the dive. If your engine isnt pushing harder than the air is pushing back, you just slow down and fall to earth. If its not pushing hard enough to bring you back to your initial velocity, you cant go very far. For my preliminary vehicle design I found that a vechile of ~500 tons with a L/D of 4 needs a thrust of about 2g's or about a million newtons If your vehicle is too light, it cant push far enough into the atmosphere to generate thrust (im using an airbreathing engine) and you crash. If its too heavy you go in to far and burn up. There is a specific range of weights and engine on-off conditions that are required for a successful trajectory. I think Ive got it worked out, but I need to do some more analysis over winter break
And its free for those dastardly child pornographers! Shut it down in the name of protecting the children! (but you can sign up for this $49.99 a month service over here....)
You know, currently theres a problem with waiters and waitresses and other service industry folk (a few) that take your credit card while you are paying your check and read the card with a pocket reader, storing the info for later for credit card fraud. I can see pick pockets now: You are bumped into while walking, you check to make sure your wallet is there, which it is, but your info has been stolen by a contactless RFID system.
Does anyone else think that they just used the reasons that are given to get a knee jerk reaction from parents to allow them to install this system? I dont see any way that a face recognition system will prevent the things that are already happening. In my HS, we had door guards and you had to either have a child in the building or have an appointment with a teacher or administrator. This system worked much better at keeping "unauthorized" people from the building.
and if that child had the foresight to have their face scanned before they were abducted, and the intelligence for their features not to change over time, and their aductor doesnt change their hair color or give them glasses then it will work!
Sweeden? Finland? Since when do their laws apply in the US? So they cant use "lindows" in sweeden. Big deal, Wal-Mart is selling them in the US. Call it BGSD (Bill Gates Sucks Distro) and MS will be happy (sorta)
Many groups and individuals are proposing that our government spend tax money on research and development of systems to utilize solar energy. They urge construction of vast solar energy collectors to convert sunlight to electricity to supply our energy needs. They would even put solar collectors on roofs of homes, factories, schools, and other buildings. Proponents of this technology claim that energy obtained from the sun will be safer and cleaner than coal, oil, or nuclear energy sources.
We view these proposals with alarm. Unscrupulous scientists and greedy promoters are hoodwinking a gullible public. We consider it rash and dangerous to commit our country to the use of solar energy. This solar technology has never been utilized on such a large scale, and we have no assurance of its long-range safety. Not one single study has been done to assess the safety of electricity from solar energy as compared to electricity from other sources.
The promoters of solar energy cleverly lead you to believe that it is perfectly safe. Yet they conveniently neglect to mention that solar energy is generated by nuclear fusion within the sun. This process operates on the very same basic laws of nuclear physics used in nuclear power plants and atomic bombs!
And what is the source of this energy? It is hydrogen, a highly explosive gas (remember the Hindenberg?) Hydrogen is also the active material in H-bombs, that are not only tremendously destructive, but produce dangerous fallout. The glib advocates of solar energy don't even mention these disturbing facts about the true sources of solar energy. What else are they trying to hide from us?
In addition to the known dangers cited above, what about the unknown dangers, that very well might be worse? When pressed, scientists will admit that they do not fully understand the workings of the sun, or even of the atom. They will even grudgingly admit that our knowledge of the basic laws of physics is not yet perfect or complete. Yet these same reckless scientists would have us use this solar technology even before we fully understand how it works.
Admittedly we are already subject to a natural `background' radiation from the sun. We can do little about that, except to stay out of direct sunlight as much as possible. The evidence is already clear that too much exposure to sunlight can cause skin cancer. But solar collectors would concentrate that sunlight (that otherwise would have fallen harmlessly on waste land), convert it to electricity and pipe it into our homes to irradiate us from every light bulb! We would then not even be safe from this cancer-producing energy even in our own homes!
We all know that looking at the sun for even a few seconds can cause blindness. What long term health hazards might result from reading by light derived from solar energy? We now spend large amounts of time looking at the light from television monitors or computer screens, and one can only imagine the possible long-term consequences of this exposure when the screens are powered with electricity from solar collectors. Will we develop cataracts, or slowly go blind? Not one medical study has yet addressed itself to this question, and none are planned.
In their blind zeal to plug us in to solar energy, scientists seem to totally ignore possible fire hazards of solar energy. Sunlight reaching us directly from the sun at naturally safe levels poses little fire threat. But all one has to do is concentrate sunlight, with a simple burning- glass, and it readily ignites combustible materials. Who would feel safe with solar energy concentrators on their roof? Could we afford the fire insurance rates?
These scientists, and the big corporations that employ them, stand to profit greatly from construction of solar-power stations. No wonder they try to hide the dangers of the technology and suppress any open discussion of them.
Proponents of solar energy present facts, figures and graphs to support their claim that energy from the sun will be less expensiv
Ok, but if youre a spy, and you want to transmit a code or something, put it in a distro CD and hand it to your contact, or put it up on the net and let anyone take it, including your intended recipient the files in the ISO that you make are not changed, moved renamed written over or deleted
Yes, but what is it that you DO? I wonder how many of those 4000 developers are on the SCO payroll, and how many of them are just Open Source Developers?
Well if you were in a position to use this technology, you could kill them much more easily, or you could just remove enough blood to kill them then inject it all back in to remove suspicioun, the only evidence is one needle mark, but no poison or other substance.
Or use it to make more beer! genius!
Why not hide stuff -IN- FreeBSD. It wouldnt be that hard to write a utility that inserted "typos" into comments that when decoded could be used to pass messages or even hide images.