From the bottom up to where I lost interest: Ah, so facts are not interesting to you. got it.
Maybe you should talk to NASA, management acumen like you posess could be a real boon to their organization; considering the meager ISS that they built with their 80b.
Actually, someone better qualified than I already has. But, NASA is interested in big budgets, not small ones. Indeed, after public pressure was brought to bear through Robert Zubrin demonstrating the fallacy of the NASA BG style missions, As a result they did modify their "plans" slightly for significant cost reductions Perhaps you should actually look into the situation and speak from knowledge rather than ignorance and arrogance.
The ISS wasn't built for scientific pursuits, it was built for political reasons, a sort of "flag and footprints" effort. That is, again, one of the problems with NASA: it's a government run organization.
However the nearest star is maybe 3.5ly away, also a big freakin distance, but if we spent money on propulsion systems instead of human habitation modules, maybe we would be able to handle that.
Money doesn't make starships that can travel 3.5 light years in a reasonable time, and you of all people should know that. It certainly won't happen for 80 billion. As someone with a physics degree, you know damned well what we expect to happen when we travel at significant fractions of the speed of light.
Odds are that if you can travel 3.5 LY in even 20 years, you've managed to make nearby planets a very short trip. Funny, you are talking about going to remote galaxies while calling those of us who simply want to hop to the next planet over living in a fantasy world.
You gotta be joking, who in their right mind would volunteer to move to Mars? What's the benefit for them?
Who I their right mind would move to a desert out west that is filled with dangers? Millions. Who would go to Mars? I've spoken with thousands of people, ordinary people doing ordinary jobs - not scientists. Hundreds of them are willing to move to Mars. Why? A better chance, an opportunity to go beyond the norm. Why did millions move to the American West? Why did thousands set sail over the Atlantic?
What kind of a wacko would sign up for that.
Thousands of us so-called whackos. What kind of idiot would sign up to sail over the Atlantic (a trip taking a year or more, IIRC) and then be required to work as an indentured servant for 7-10 years, and not get to come back unless you made it happen yourself? Clearly, thousands. By the way, ever seen the waiting list for a research post in Antarctica? CLearly, between the thousands of people willing to go there, and the thousands of people willing to go to Mars the world is well equipped with us whackos.
Let us assume that only one in a million people would be willing to move to Mars. That's mean around 5,000 statstically, would be willing to move there. As more people do in fact live there, more will be willing to go there.
As far as convincing the average person, I am quite successful at it. Clearly, however, "Above Average" people such as yourself with your know-it-all attitude, however, are much harder. Maybe because the average person has common sense and reads the facts.
If you had the courage to read the opposing view posted here, you would know that I am not suggesting rocketing off in all directions, Buck Rogers sty. I am specifically stating a singular target: Mars.
We *know* Mars is colonizable. We know how, and we know the risks. Mars has suitable resources. We don't need gold. Mars has something even better. Land. Opportunity. Resources.
The same thing as your space station.
Tsk, Tsk, maybe you glossed over the fact that I am not a proponent of the ISS. Or maybe you intentionally tried to mislead.
I was using the Websters definition of the word, novel, which is "New; recent; modern; fresh; strange; uncommon; rare; unusual.". By th
Whatever. Even just watching the DVD justifies the charge, IMHO.
Then so does:
* eating food while driving
* smoking while driving
* drinking anyything (even milk or water) while driving
* DUI (drugs/alcohol)
* Driving while tired
* Driving while angry ("Don't drive angry")
* Driving under any emotional duress
* Getting a BJ while driving
* Fiddling with the CD, mp3 player, iPod, radio, etc. while driving
* driving while sick
Every single one of those can be dropped in place of (allegedly) watching a DVD. Now do you think tha tteh charge is appropriate? If so, you'd better not do any of the above. I can practically guarantee you do.
Indeed, from the article: Liz Neblett, spokeswoman for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, said more than 25 percent of police-reported crashes are distraction related, which covers everything from cell phone use to changing channels on a radio, screaming at kids, eating, applying makeup or reading a newspaper.
I'd add "talking on the police radio" or "looking up someones licesne plate number on the computer", or fiddling with the radar. But we won't talk about that, will we?
See what happens when you let your emotions get in the way. You wind up with over-reaching charges. Murder is intentional killing, manslaughter is negligent killing.
Note: Initial Alaska State Trooper reports said Petterson was at fault when he took his eyes off the road to reach for a soda.
Then they saw a DVD player and they changed their tune. Not unlike the satellite guy who agreed that something was wrong with my dish setup UNTIL he spotted the computer then blamed it all on the computer.
If you beleive that killing someone in an accident in which someone was negligent (distracted by something they were doing), then you must lobby for the ELIMINATION of manslaughter, because then all of them become murder. But you won't. You're acting on emotion, not logic and reason.
"But he intentionally did something knowing it'd distract him". Who doesn't know that talking to the person next to you is distracting (arguably more so than talking to them on the cell phone!)?
Who doesn't know that fiddling with the radio, sneezing, driving mad, can have distrcting and negative impacts on your driving ability and that those actions could lead to accidents which can lead to death?
A manned mission to Mars at this point would be 1. costly,
Actually, less than have the cost for ISS.
concentrate on something that could really be built You mean *proven* space travel technology; none of what you listed qualifies.
For items like oxygen, water, propellant, food -- fire them into orbit with a cannon. WRONG, Make the *on ite* (aka In-Situ).
Why go through the expense of supply from earth of these things when you can manufacture them on Mars?
This is really-really cost effective. No, no it is not. You'b never calculated the energy to accomplish this in the quanitites needed, have you? Maybe you don't realize oxygen boils off quickly in space, and hydrogen boils off *very* fast in space.
Cost effective is flying via conventional rockets, a ton or two of hydrgen feedstock and producing tons upon tons of water, oxygen, more hydrogen, propellant, etc. using in site manufacturing using basic and proven technology from decades ago.
We've had the technology to colonize Mars since 1970. We've been using it for other things since then, too. Thus, it is a proven technology.
Kindly show me a functioning "rotovator". Oh, that's right they don't exist. Chemical rockets, even nuclear assisted rockets, have been done. For exploration you want to use as much basic, tested, and proven technology as possible.
To be really radical,
Sorry, practical works better than radical.
Just like you can dream about a hydrogen fueled car 50-100 years from now, or drive an ethanol powered one today. You can dream about magnetic launch assist, or rotating tethers, or whatever dream you want, or we can send and women to Mars now, using a proven and pretty well understood technology we've been using for decades.
First a nitpick: robots produce ZERO "science' All they produce is *data*. Nothing more.
Why build a vehicle before you have a place to go?
We have places to go. Mars, for starters.
If we had spent the 80 billion on better remote sensing gear then we might, by now, have found earth like planets around other stars.
Not ot be rude but are you completely ignorant about the laws of physics and the sheer size of the universe? Spend as much money as you can imagine and it will not change facts about how fast light travels, the odds of being in the path of a comumunication you can interecept AND understand.
Gimme 80 billion and in 20 years I'll have a *thiving* self sufficient Mars colony with money to spare. This colony will be producing much better "scientific data", and will be an additional economy and civilization. This new civilization will be producing scientifically interestinng data in sociology, materials, economics, geology, politics, astronomy, astrophysics, medicine and biology, agriculture, ecology, space travel, communications, chemistry, etc.
What will your 80B "remote sensing" instruments be doing in 20 years? Gathering dust as they are obsolete and nearly or totally useless.
How about 50 years? You see, the more time passes, the more leverage a remote planetary colony generates over the initial investment, and the less valuable your data gathering "remote sensing" instruments become.
Instruments depreciate. A martian colony doesn't.
Real exploration involves going somewhere new, not going to somewhere you have been, using a different route.
So then Columbus was not an explorer in your eyes. He thought he was taking a different route (around the ocean) to a place we'd already been (India).
While I am not a proponent of the ISS, over it's lifecycle, it too would generate more scientificaly interesting data than your mythical remote sensing data that is somehow able to ascertain that a given start billions of miles away is earth-like. Talk about the result of a bad-scifi diet.
Properly utilized, an orbital SS would generate biologic, mecial, astronomic, materials, chemistry, etc. scientifically interesting data.
As opposed to "congratulations you've found a what might be a planet around a star system we couldn't reach for 2.4 million years" or "Congratulations, you've found what you think to be a radio transmission from another culture some billions of miles way that is probably millions of years old, and even if it is true we can't actually verify it is artificial."
Even if the human will provide 1000x the science of the robot, the robot will still deliver more information, because it will be in an area that is a million times more novel than the human.
Oh that is priceless! Here, let me set up a little "robot" to crawl the web and email you various snippets it finds. Now that'll be REAL exploration, as you've never gone there, and it is returning scads more data than you going to slashdot and analyzing what you find.
You see, DATA is a means to an end, not the end. I also disagree with your assertion that robot will provide more data. A robot will ONLY provide the data we designed it to provide. If something is different, or would be interesting if we tweak what we do/look for, it is unable to change it's capabilities. If you want that, be prepared to spend well in excess of 800 billion, and fail.
You see, you design a robot for the place it is going to. Thus, that destination is it's "natural habitat". A human in space, or in orbit, or on Mars is NOT in it's "Natrual habitat" (though a bear in a Studebaker is clearly in its natural habitat). and therefore by definition is obtaining more data, and more *interesting* data.
A human travelling in space is a mobile laboratory. Indeed, as we are a very adaptive specis, sending us to other habitats will induce an evolutionary change. Over the years, humans born in orbit that don't go planet
As already pointed out by another poster, the ocean through which the listed explorers travelled could provide sustenance. But much more importantly, wherever these explorers aimed for, they always had a hope that when they came to the end of their journey, the land that they arrived at could sustain them. A journey to the moon or to Mars would be the equivalent of Christopher Columbus setting off on a voyage to the gates of hell in the hope that future generations could somehow make hell hospitable and profit from it (perhaps the flames would provide a free energy source?). So, Van Allen is perfectly correct in calling these obfuscations.
Bunk WRT Mars. The Moon I'll grant you.
Mars in fact does have what it needs to sustain or provide the resources to sustain adventurers and explorers.
Water? Yup. Methane? Yup.
The methane atmosphere allows us to use gas-lamp era technology to "create" water, oxygen, fuel, and components for plastics and metals as well as glass and others. It's proven technology from deacdes/hundred years ago that you could assemble in a frigging garage.
Combine the water with martian soil and you have a form of concrete that is strigner than terrestrial concrete -- in an environment where it can be less strong and just as effective. By using permafrost you get an amazingly strong material for anchoring and sealing buildings.
Combine the buildings with the water and permafrost and some basic plastics and seeds/young plants you can grow food. Take some industrial hemp and you have resources for plastics, foods, textiles, another energy source, (ok, you anti-/druggie freaks can now make fun of it, I just won't listen).
The Columbus analgy is fault yon many regards. Columbus thought he was goign to India via a different route. We *know* where we are going. He didn't set out to funs "new land" just a "new route". Nobody is suggesting we go to Europe via Mars.
Columbus was fully dependant on favorable weather conditions for movement. We'll take out own fuel and means of locomotion. IN fact, we'd send spares ahead of time. We'd arrive with a craft to take us home if he had to abandon ours, and the fuel/water/air to survive a trip home, or waiting for the next ships.
Overall, going to Mars (using the Mars Direct or nearly identical plan) is less risky than the Columbus search for a NEW ROUTE.
But too many people refuse to beleive anything but the idea that the BattleStar Galactica style plans from NASA are the only way to do it. You liek to believe there are such insurmountable problems because it minimizes the impact of you not doing it. We humans tend to feel better about not doing something if we can console ourselves into thinking it is too hard.
But that doesn't change the fact that Mars does not have to be hard, and that we can do it with decades and centuries old technology. We could have done it 30+ years ago in fact.
Van Allen is apparently ignorant of the reality of Mars' resources, thus HE is obfuscating due to ignorance.
The problem is space exploration is the government involvement and prohibitions against private exploration; not that it is hard or not economically feasible. It is relatively simple, and actually fesible economically, with profitability in less than 20 years, and self sufficiency for growth in 12 or less.
There is no benefit to a government to create a colony on a planet far away that could become independent, or represent a fresh start for society.
Sure, Americans can't get past the drive-fast-turn-left NASCAR mentality! gets listed as insightful, but pointing out how Americans won 75% of Lemans this year, EuroPean no-left-turn-only and very grueling 24 hour race, and that an America team has dominated the GTS class for 3 of the last four years (taking 1st AND 2nd this year) is flamebait. Woohoo! Well that's a prime example of those who can't trying to bash those who do.
What can I get for this post? Surely Troll or something, right? How about an "I dared to point out the obvious flaws and bias in the parent post and all I got was the lousy flamebait moderation'? Anyone, anyone? Hey sounds like a good T-shirt for thinkgeek.com
And yet a centralised system of government was pervasive until the late 1700's, when some upstarts in English colonies got it in their heads that a system which forced them to do much of the work and yet was prohibitively expensive when they wanted to reap their reward was stupid.
Actually the beginning of that was the decentralizaion of physical force/power through the development of weaponry that joe average could wield. When enough of the masses (usally 10%) determined they had the wherewithal, it happened.
nd before you go saying the fall of the Soviet Union was a victory for openness, look at our system. It is, for the most part, top-down.
Before you go presumign what I'm going to say, you may want to pause and read. I was not going to make any correlation there. However, you are confusing open with centralization or top-down. THese are not exclusive concepts. There is nothing fundamentally opposed in them. You CAN have open yet centralized, or open and top-down. You can also have closed yet decentralized. For example, take an ant colony.
Ant colonies are decentralized in that each at makes it's own decisions. Yet the is secrecy. Indeed, full decentralization increases privacy/secrecy by decreasing the obviousness of any single component. Ants do not share why they choose to be aworker today and a builder yesterday, They just do. Yet there is no "society" more decentralized than the ant colony.
Your premise that such as syetm as described a) requires aboslute anarchy is faulty on many grounds, as is your premise that lack of a centralized control is required to maintain societal structure.
Indeed, if you keep up with modern physics you will find the opposite occurs. The greater the control, the more rapid the decline, the less the control the more stable. Yes, even in Ancient Rome, and Modern America. In an entirely unregulated "information society", the regulation is the individual. What I want to disclose to whim is my choice. The ultimate arbiter of control is the individual. Such a system merely returns us to that state.
There is a reason that we assume that centralised systems work better; they are easier to establish, coordinate and control. This outlook only works if you are going for a fully anarchist system, which you will never get everyone to buy into, barring a massive sociological paradigm shift; something has to happen that convinces everyone that a truly open society is more beneficial than the current model.
If central command was easier, the USSR would be growing. Oh wait they don't exist anymore.
Now all you need to do to grow something like this is any one or more of the following:
a. convince people it'll get them better porn downloads b. convince people it will save them money c. convince people it will make them money d. convince the liberals it allows them to eliminate the public's acceptance of talk radio e. convince the conservatives it allows them to bypass the liberal media elite f. any combination of the above.
And as said, encryption can all but eliminate the "truly open" society you refer to. Indeed, I agree with another poster who said encryption can drive this, or this can drive encryption.
Americans can't get past the drive-fast-turn-left NASCAR mentality!
Not insightful, but quite trollike.
Especially after the third LeMans win in four years by the American Corvette Team, the win of the MLP2 class in Lemans by Clint Field (an All American team), and of course that an American team won the GT class as well. Yup, Americans won all but one class at Lemans this year. Twenty four hour endurance race on a long and varied course.
Not to mention the American Lemans Series, or the SCCA.. I'd bet there are more Americans involved in actually racing other than NASCAR than in all of Europe.
But hey go ahead, keep comforting yourself with that belief. That way should you ever find yourself in a race like the above you can be even more shocked when the Americans run right past you and are standing on the podium while you look on.
We should have found towers on mountains by now, no?
No, not necessarily. That would only be the case if we assume they were just like us. While it is human nature (arrogance or just lack of external viewpoints) to assume that prior civilizations would look like us, we don't really have any reason to believe they have to be.
For example, looking at the directions the Germans went in WWII compared to the allies shows striking differences, yet they nearly acheived the same essential end results. The technology is fundamentally different.
Even today there are things vacuum tubes do that we can't do in solid state or via transistors. It is not difficult to conceive of a technology that ook a different route: one of vaccum tubes as opposed to the digital route we are on.
There is this idea of zero point energy as well. If the suspicions of it's potential are even a third accurate, a ZPE weapon would be far more devastating than a nuclear one, and likely w/o the radiological contamination. Much of the exploration of ZPE uses what we consider "dead" technology. What if a prior civilization (assuming for sake of discussion it existed) went this route?
They may not have needed the infrastructure we currently have, and thus may not have the remnants we expect. Many truly groundbreaking discoveries have been when we were looking for one thing, yet somehow found another.
Of course, there's always the Stargate, too.;)
On the topic of Atlantis, I've often thought if it existed it was most likely Antarctica.
If by "before", you're talking about the 1960s or something, then yes, you would be correct, but America has been running trade deficits for an extremely long time--jobs have, for my entire lifetime, always flowed out of the United States.
Silly poster. A trade deficit is NOT the same thing as job flow. A trade deficit occurs when a county imports more (in monetary units) than it exports. On smaller levels, it occurs when country A imports more (in monetary units) from country B than A exports to N.
A trade decicit is measured in monetary units, such as dollars, as opposed to jobs. One would hope you could see that. The trade deficit mainly reflects faster economic growth in the United States than abroad and the dollar's high exchange rate. These factors hurt U.S. exports while increasing our imports. As foreign economic growth improves and the dollar drops, the trade deficit should stabilize or decline.
Further, your claim that jobs have been going away from the US in your lifetime is either false, or you don't exist. Not only is the trade deficit the wrogn tool to determine that, but between 1992 to 2002, U.S. multinational companies added around five American jobs for every three foreign jobs they added. This means more job growth in the American market than the foreign one with respect to American jobs.
Further, there is a higher percentage of capital investment in the use by multinationals than there used to be. Translation: they've moved more toward the US.
While the tech industry has seen the initial disturbance in increased competition, that does not mean as a whole the job market has. You are behind the times: factory jobs migration occured many years ago. Indeed, there are even some factory/mfging jobs that came *to* the US. The millions of Americans working for foreign multinationals such as Honda, Nissan, Toyota, etc. are a testament to that.
You are also dead wrong on another key point: yet they say nothing about the people in America who benefit from outsourcing.
Maybe you should listen for a change. Liek them or not, the millions of people employed by Walmart have their jobs due to offshore outsourcing (Lets call a spade a spade, you aren't talking about outsourcing, but offshore outsourcing).
The lower cost of cars, clothes, housing material, appliances are all largely due to the increased competition and lower cost of labor andmaterials in a global market. Even gasoline. Much of the gasoline proce increase is due to the US Government raising sulfur standards and as a result pushing out more foreign gasoline (not oil, gasoline, we do import it).
subsidize health care and education
There is no such thing as a free lunch. To do this requires raising taxes, taxes are net drain on the economy. Someone has to pay for it somewhere. Tax the rich too much and most of them will simply leave: they can afford to. Meanwhile the rest of us get stuck with the bill for the lady down the street who takes her kid to the doctor everytime he sneezes since she "doesn't have to pay for it". Don't say it doesn't happen, I've personally witnesed it.
eliminate regressive Social Security taxes.
A good start, though for reasons you probably don't realize.
Or make regular income taxes more progressive
You mean tax the rich more, so they invest less and move their assets and investment out of the country? Yeah, that'll help.
You forgot a few important facts about the market: Corporate taxes and heavy handed red-tape and regulation result in a higher cost to do business in the US. Cut those and you'll increase the competitiveness of US companies. American companies w/o the costs of government hoop-jumping and government added taxes are more than competitive with anywhere else on the planet.
Sales taxes. State level, but a massive impact. Sales tax is a consumption tax. Guess what drives the economy and provides the jobs you complain we a
If you thought FC was for linux newbies, then the mistake is yours. It is clearly and unmistakable marketed and targetted for "Linux Enthusiasts", bnot "Linux Newbies".
Does tha justify bugs? No. But it does point out the error you made in the first place. To judge a thing by standards it is not intended for is petty and... inconsistent.
Hmmm... Linus may be right. The story broke the same day it updated. I wonder who's serving the old DNS.
What are we fricking gerbils? To paraphrase a well known comic who's name is temporarily escaping me.
Network soplutionsupdates their whois database every fricking day. Go ahead, query it now and you'll see it is now "mysteriously updated" on the day AFTER the story! My gawd the horrah of it Marcey!
Sure I'll back it up. By pointing out you are ignoring what I said, and ignoring basic math.
E85, since you are apparently clueless, is a mixture of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline. Which means if I get 14MPG of E85 (I do in the city, on the highway it is more like 18), I keep track of these things. Do you? Or do you just trust what those little numbers claim?), it takes me 14.29 gallons of E85 to go 200 miles. Of that 14.29 gallons, only 2.14 gallons is gasoline.
2.14g/200 miles = 93MPG of GASOLINE. On the freeway at 17MPG for 200 miles = 11.76 gallons of FUEL. 15% of that is gasoline which means: 11.76 *.15 = 1.76 gallons of gasoline = 113.33 MPG of GASOLINE.
Meanwhile... Honda Civic HEV Automatic tranny: 47/48MPG City/Highway. Since what you are burning is all GASOLINE, you are getting 47/48 MPG of GASOLINE. Who burns less gasoline?
Even if you figure 10MPG city for the E85 Suburban it comes out to 3Gal-Gasoline city for 200 miles. (200 miles at 10MPG-F = 20 gallons of fuel *.15 = 3 gallons of gasoline). That is 66.67 MPG-Gasoline. Still better than the Civic hybrid on the freeway.
IIRC, the Prius comes in at 60MPG. That makes it close. Add in the highway driving and it is not even close: the Civic HEV burns more GASOLINE than my E85 powered Suburban.
Sure it costs me more to buy the Suburban, and it costs more to run the E85 than the Civic HEV. But I'm burning less oil than the Civic. I guess it's a matter of putting your money where your mouth, is.
And in final closing on laws of phsyics: all things equal the bigger behicle is safer than the smaller vehicle.
You have no idea what I need or don't need. I have no idea what you need or don't need. Hell you could probably get away with no vehicle. But you won't see me bashing you for your choice (unless you are being a hypocrite in which case I'd bash you for being a hypocrite not what you drive).
So you chose a Hybrid, good on you. I can tell you from experience however, that the car seats that are needed to provide maximum safety to my children do NOT fit in one. Add to this the stats in the article mentioned earlier showing that occupants of the Civic are nearly twice as likely to die in an accident and I can not in good conscious buy one for my family.
I value the safety of my children, you clearly do not. My children are safer in the Suburban for many reasons I stated and according to the article you posted, but these things you ignore. Probably because they aren't your children.
Ahh yes the good ole "I know an article you wont read because you are arrogant" ploy. Nice try, no not really; just standard staple for trolls. Unfortunately for you, and fortunately for those interested in reality, I read the article. Apparently you did not.
And now, the reaility not stated in the article you posted.
Fact: Honda Pilot is an SUV. Fact: It is one of the safest vehicles to be in according to the crash tests at NHTSA. http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/NCAP/Cars/2810.html
In fact it is pretty much as good as the civic: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/NCAP/Cars/2802.html
Note that on some indicators it is better than a civic.
Oh and the Honda CR-V is likewise a 5-star rated vehicle. http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/NCAP/Cars/2806. html
And one more Honda SUV: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/NCAP/Cars/2806.html
Again, 5 star rated vehicles, pal. There are little econo-boxes that don't do this well. These all do as well as Honda's minivan the Odyssey, and Honda's Civic.
But we don't want to talk about those facts, do we? Hell no that would show that our rage against others may well be wrong.
Is it only Honda? Nope. http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/NCAP/Cars/2667.htm l http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/NCAP/Cars/2638.html h ttp://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/NCAP/Cars/2683.html
In fact, the Blazer and Trailblazer get 4 and 5 stars for passenger side impacts. And some of their danger factors are even better than a Civic.
We certainly don't want to talk about how the 04 Durango is scoring 5 stars in it's tests so far. Instead we just want to say they aren't safe.
And heaven forbid we point out that the Prius has a higher chance of head injury than a Cadillac SUV, or that the Prius has a thoracic trauma index higher than that same Caddy SUV. Heaven forbid you actually look at the test you claim say SUVs are less safe.
Measuring accident avoidance is a key part of the Consumers Union evaluation. It's a simple setup. The driver has to navigate his vehicle through two rows of cones eight feet wide and sixty feet long. Then he has to steer hard to the left, guiding the vehicle through a gate set off to the side, and immediately swerve hard back to the right, and enter a second sixty-foot corridor of cones that are parallel to the first set. The idea is to see how fast you can drive through the course without knocking over any cones.
I do that alot, I autocross. Which makes me infinitely more qualified than the former Engineer they used. Let us look at how he did it, shall we?
"Suddenly, a kid on a bicycle veers out in front of you. You have to do whatever it takes to avoid the kid. But there's a tractor-trailer coming toward you in the other lane, so you've got to swing back into your own lane as quickly as possible. That's the scenario."
Where I live, tractor trailers are not allowed into the subdivisions, and kids don't ride bicycles on the heavy traffic roads that 18 wheelers do drive on. And if they do, the 18wheeler will be taking evasive manuevers as will the kid on the the bike, etc. But maybe in his world they do drive together and the only one reacting is him. AND of course if you can't handle this situation YOU are driving too fast. So...
Champion and I put on helmets. He accelerated toward the entrance to the obstacle course. "We do the test without brakes or throttle, so we can just look at handling,"
Furst call of bullshit. All vehicles are designed to handle turning manuevers under vary parts of throttle and/or brake. You drive a Corvette through a course that way and it will feel less agile and more vague. Why? It isn't designed to coast through a slalom. And most people won't coast through a slalom in real life. They will either be applying brake or throttle. I know, I watch it every month.
If you want to test just the car, you put an expert in the car. If you want to test pe
Crash tests only measure the intrusion of the car into occupant space and vica versa; not the effects of fuel in post-crash or crash situations.
Changing weight distribution and amounts in a car can dramatically affect it's ability to provide occupant protection. Not to mention it's handling capabilities. Ask racers (not ricers) about that.
That doesn't mean it does in the cases above, but it certaily can. Indeed, the NHTSA says to NOT compare ratings of cars that are +/- 250 punds in difference. And they don't test them in real life situations. They run a barrier into them for side impact, and use tracks, etc. to run them into barriers at known and consistent speeds for frontal/offset impacts.
Relying on these tests to say "oh this vehicle is safe" is folly. Even the testers tell you this.
The lighter the base car is, the more an effect battries and additional motors will have. Physics, man, physics.
"If they engineered the hybrid to detect when it's being rammed by some twit in an SUV, "
Spoken like a true twit. You ignore that many of the forthcoming hybrids ARE SUVs, and that a growing protion of them are flex-fuel vehicles.
Your hybrid may get 50-60 miles per galon of gasoline, but when I run my Suburban on E85, I get over a hundred miles per gallon of gasoline.
What is so ironic is that this article is essentauilly saying that hybrids are a greater risk to people OTHER than those in the car in an accident. Namely people who are trying to save your ass. And those of you who rail against SUVs for their alleged threat to others are ignoring the confirmed threat to others in your precious "hybrids".
Lesse... noiseless so a threat to bikers, pedestrians, etc.. Charged in uncertain ways after collision so a threat to others during the accident and after when they try to save your ass.
Basically, a key point to take from this is if you see a hybrid in an accident, don't go near it. Don't try to help the person, you might get killed yourself. If you are in that hybrid, you best hope you can hold out until rescuers who have the equipment and the training to deal with your dangerous hybrid electrical system can get to the scene.
So will the hypocrisy increase, or will you SUV bashers start bashing hybrids over their threat to others in accidents.
Additionally, Red Hat Desktop is only available in Proxy (10 system) or Satellite (50 system) deployments, which means that if you're a small business looking to set up 35 machines, you're going to have to buy either 4 Proxy packs or 1 Satellite pack. Either way, you're overpaying. Proxy packs are $2500, and Satellites are $13500; not exactly cheap. This means you're paying between $250 and $270 per machine, per year.
Actually, no that's not correct. If you read the page, you could buy the 50-machine "expansion pack" which doesn't include the proxy/satellite stuff. So if you dont need it, you don't buy it. At 3500 for 50 it comes out to 70/machine when using the remaining 15 as reserve for growth; 100/machine otherwise.
If you need the proxy and 35 machines, one option is to get proxy at 2500 and the expansion at 3500, for 6000 total. for 35 machines that comes to 171 and change per machine/year up front. A far cry from your numbers.
If you realize you get 60 machines for that it actually comes down to 100/machine/year.
Further, that comes with an An Enterprise server w/premium support for that timeframe too. On its own, that's 2500. When you factor in that, it comes out to far less costs for the desktops.
At that point, you are talking 6000, of which 2500 is for a server support deal, leaving you with 3500 for 60 machines; or if you want for 35 machines. That comes out to 58/year and 100/year respectively. Which puts the desktops in the 5/month/year as was noted initially.
So your overpaying scenario is only valid if you don't read the whole thing.
Informative? hah, more like inaccurate.
And no, most SMBs do not have multi-CPU DESKTOPS. Hell most machines in an global "enterprise" company are single-CPU. For those however that do, there is WS starting at 179/machine/year. So you see, they do in fact provide resources for those that have SMP machines.
All it takes is reading. Not merely skimming, but actual reading.;) I think it's a clever way to boost use of Advanced Server. It also encourages the use of desktop in companies that are looking at an AS install.
Think about it. Normal AS Premium cost is the same as a proxy server w/AS and 10 desktop module entitlements. Need/want and AS? Get the proxy setup and get bonuses.
Actually, we don't know that it does. It says "integrated" which could be a wrapper around the download and install it from elsewhere process. I can already get Adobe Acrobat Reader and Flash via yum/apt. That doesn't mean Fedora Core contains non-OSS.
Vmware... hmmm I doubt very much you get to use that beastie for that cost. Note that this is listed in the press release you linked to as a "future" thing.
Slashdot Mirror
From the bottom up to where I lost interest: Ah, so facts are not interesting to you. got it.
Maybe you should talk to NASA, management acumen like you posess could be a real boon to their organization; considering the meager ISS that they built with their 80b.
Actually, someone better qualified than I already has. But, NASA is interested in big budgets, not small ones. Indeed, after public pressure was brought to bear through Robert Zubrin demonstrating the fallacy of the NASA BG style missions, As a result they did modify their "plans" slightly for significant cost reductions Perhaps you should actually look into the situation and speak from knowledge rather than ignorance and arrogance.
The ISS wasn't built for scientific pursuits, it was built for political reasons, a sort of "flag and footprints" effort. That is, again, one of the problems with NASA: it's a government run organization.
However the nearest star is maybe 3.5ly away, also a big freakin distance, but if we spent money on propulsion systems instead of human habitation modules, maybe we would be able to handle that.
Money doesn't make starships that can travel 3.5 light years in a reasonable time, and you of all people should know that. It certainly won't happen for 80 billion. As someone with a physics degree, you know damned well what we expect to happen when we travel at significant fractions of the speed of light.
Odds are that if you can travel 3.5 LY in even 20 years, you've managed to make nearby planets a very short trip. Funny, you are talking about going to remote galaxies while calling those of us who simply want to hop to the next planet over living in a fantasy world.
You gotta be joking, who in their right mind would volunteer to move to Mars? What's the benefit for them?
Who I their right mind would move to a desert out west that is filled with dangers? Millions. Who would go to Mars? I've spoken with thousands of people, ordinary people doing ordinary jobs - not scientists. Hundreds of them are willing to move to Mars. Why? A better chance, an opportunity to go beyond the norm. Why did millions move to the American West? Why did thousands set sail over the Atlantic?
What kind of a wacko would sign up for that.
Thousands of us so-called whackos. What kind of idiot would sign up to sail over the Atlantic (a trip taking a year or more, IIRC) and then be required to work as an indentured servant for 7-10 years, and not get to come back unless you made it happen yourself? Clearly, thousands. By the way, ever seen the waiting list for a research post in Antarctica? CLearly, between the thousands of people willing to go there, and the thousands of people willing to go to Mars the world is well equipped with us whackos.
Let us assume that only one in a million people would be willing to move to Mars. That's mean around 5,000 statstically, would be willing to move there. As more people do in fact live there, more will be willing to go there.
As far as convincing the average person, I am quite successful at it. Clearly, however, "Above Average" people such as yourself with your know-it-all attitude, however, are much harder. Maybe because the average person has common sense and reads the facts.
If you had the courage to read the opposing view posted here, you would know that I am not suggesting rocketing off in all directions, Buck Rogers sty. I am specifically stating a singular target: Mars.
We *know* Mars is colonizable. We know how, and we know the risks. Mars has suitable resources. We don't need gold. Mars has something even better. Land. Opportunity. Resources.
The same thing as your space station.
Tsk, Tsk, maybe you glossed over the fact that I am not a proponent of the ISS. Or maybe you intentionally tried to mislead.
I was using the Websters definition of the word, novel, which is "New; recent; modern; fresh; strange; uncommon; rare; unusual.". By th
Whatever. Even just watching the DVD justifies the charge, IMHO.
Then so does:
* eating food while driving
* smoking while driving
* drinking anyything (even milk or water) while driving
* DUI (drugs/alcohol)
* Driving while tired
* Driving while angry ("Don't drive angry")
* Driving under any emotional duress
* Getting a BJ while driving
* Fiddling with the CD, mp3 player, iPod, radio, etc. while driving
* driving while sick
Every single one of those can be dropped in place of (allegedly) watching a DVD. Now do you think tha tteh charge is appropriate? If so, you'd better not do any of the above. I can practically guarantee you do.
Indeed, from the article:
Liz Neblett, spokeswoman for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, said more than 25 percent of police-reported crashes are distraction related, which covers everything from cell phone use to changing channels on a radio, screaming at kids, eating, applying makeup or reading a newspaper.
I'd add "talking on the police radio" or "looking up someones licesne plate number on the computer", or fiddling with the radar. But we won't talk about that, will we?
See what happens when you let your emotions get in the way. You wind up with over-reaching charges. Murder is intentional killing, manslaughter is negligent killing.
Note:
Initial Alaska State Trooper reports said Petterson was at fault when he took his eyes off the road to reach for a soda.
Then they saw a DVD player and they changed their tune. Not unlike the satellite guy who agreed that something was wrong with my dish setup UNTIL he spotted the computer then blamed it all on the computer.
If you beleive that killing someone in an accident in which someone was negligent (distracted by something they were doing), then you must lobby for the ELIMINATION of manslaughter, because then all of them become murder. But you won't. You're acting on emotion, not logic and reason.
"But he intentionally did something knowing it'd distract him". Who doesn't know that talking to the person next to you is distracting (arguably more so than talking to them on the cell phone!)?
Who doesn't know that fiddling with the radio, sneezing, driving mad, can have distrcting and negative impacts on your driving ability and that those actions could lead to accidents which can lead to death?
A manned mission to Mars at this point would be 1. costly,
Actually, less than have the cost for ISS.
concentrate on something that could really be built You mean *proven* space travel technology; none of what you listed qualifies.
For items like oxygen, water, propellant, food -- fire them into orbit with a cannon.
WRONG, Make the *on ite* (aka In-Situ).
Why go through the expense of supply from earth of these things when you can manufacture them on Mars?
This is really-really cost effective.
No, no it is not. You'b never calculated the energy to accomplish this in the quanitites needed, have you? Maybe you don't realize oxygen boils off quickly in space, and hydrogen boils off *very* fast in space.
Cost effective is flying via conventional rockets, a ton or two of hydrgen feedstock and producing tons upon tons of water, oxygen, more hydrogen, propellant, etc. using in site manufacturing using basic and proven technology from decades ago.
We've had the technology to colonize Mars since 1970. We've been using it for other things since then, too. Thus, it is a proven technology.
Kindly show me a functioning "rotovator". Oh, that's right they don't exist. Chemical rockets, even nuclear assisted rockets, have been done. For exploration you want to use as much basic, tested, and proven technology as possible.
To be really radical,
Sorry, practical works better than radical.
Just like you can dream about a hydrogen fueled car 50-100 years from now, or drive an ethanol powered one today. You can dream about magnetic launch assist, or rotating tethers, or whatever dream you want, or we can send and women to Mars now, using a proven and pretty well understood technology we've been using for decades.
First a nitpick: robots produce ZERO "science' All they produce is *data*. Nothing more.
Why build a vehicle before you have a place to go?
We have places to go. Mars, for starters.
If we had spent the 80 billion on better remote sensing gear then we might, by now, have found earth like planets around other stars.
Not ot be rude but are you completely ignorant about the laws of physics and the sheer size of the universe? Spend as much money as you can imagine and it will not change facts about how fast light travels, the odds of being in the path of a comumunication you can interecept AND understand.
Gimme 80 billion and in 20 years I'll have a *thiving* self sufficient Mars colony with money to spare. This colony will be producing much better "scientific data", and will be an additional economy and civilization. This new civilization will be producing scientifically interestinng data in sociology, materials, economics, geology, politics, astronomy, astrophysics, medicine and biology, agriculture, ecology, space travel, communications, chemistry, etc.
What will your 80B "remote sensing" instruments be doing in 20 years? Gathering dust as they are obsolete and nearly or totally useless.
How about 50 years? You see, the more time passes, the more leverage a remote planetary colony generates over the initial investment, and the less valuable your data gathering "remote sensing" instruments become.
Instruments depreciate. A martian colony doesn't.
Real exploration involves going somewhere new, not going to somewhere you have been, using a different route.
So then Columbus was not an explorer in your eyes. He thought he was taking a different route (around the ocean) to a place we'd already been (India).
While I am not a proponent of the ISS, over it's lifecycle, it too would generate more scientificaly interesting data than your mythical remote sensing data that is somehow able to ascertain that a given start billions of miles away is earth-like. Talk about the result of a bad-scifi diet.
Properly utilized, an orbital SS would generate biologic, mecial, astronomic, materials, chemistry, etc. scientifically interesting data.
As opposed to "congratulations you've found a what might be a planet around a star system we couldn't reach for 2.4 million years" or "Congratulations, you've found what you think to be a radio transmission from another culture some billions of miles way that is probably millions of years old, and even if it is true we can't actually verify it is artificial."
Even if the human will provide 1000x the science of the robot, the robot will still deliver more information, because it will be in an area that is a million times more novel than the human.
Oh that is priceless! Here, let me set up a little "robot" to crawl the web and email you various snippets it finds. Now that'll be REAL exploration, as you've never gone there, and it is returning scads more data than you going to slashdot and analyzing what you find.
You see, DATA is a means to an end, not the end. I also disagree with your assertion that robot will provide more data. A robot will ONLY provide the data we designed it to provide. If something is different, or would be interesting if we tweak what we do/look for, it is unable to change it's capabilities. If you want that, be prepared to spend well in excess of 800 billion, and fail.
You see, you design a robot for the place it is going to. Thus, that destination is it's "natural habitat". A human in space, or in orbit, or on Mars is NOT in it's "Natrual habitat" (though a bear in a Studebaker is clearly in its natural habitat). and therefore by definition is obtaining more data, and more *interesting* data.
A human travelling in space is a mobile laboratory. Indeed, as we are a very adaptive specis, sending us to other habitats will induce an evolutionary change. Over the years, humans born in orbit that don't go planet
As already pointed out by another poster, the ocean through which the listed explorers travelled could provide sustenance. But much more importantly, wherever these explorers aimed for, they always had a hope that when they came to the end of their journey, the land that they arrived at could sustain them. A journey to the moon or to Mars would be the equivalent of Christopher Columbus setting off on a voyage to the gates of hell in the hope that future generations could somehow make hell hospitable and profit from it (perhaps the flames would provide a free energy source?). So, Van Allen is perfectly correct in calling these obfuscations.
Bunk WRT Mars. The Moon I'll grant you.
Mars in fact does have what it needs to sustain or provide the resources to sustain adventurers and explorers.
Water? Yup.
Methane? Yup.
The methane atmosphere allows us to use gas-lamp era technology to "create" water, oxygen, fuel, and components for plastics and metals as well as glass and others. It's proven technology from deacdes/hundred years ago that you could assemble in a frigging garage.
Combine the water with martian soil and you have a form of concrete that is strigner than terrestrial concrete -- in an environment where it can be less strong and just as effective. By using permafrost you get an amazingly strong material for anchoring and sealing buildings.
Combine the buildings with the water and permafrost and some basic plastics and seeds/young plants you can grow food. Take some industrial hemp and you have resources for plastics, foods, textiles, another energy source, (ok, you anti-/druggie freaks can now make fun of it, I just won't listen).
The Columbus analgy is fault yon many regards. Columbus thought he was goign to India via a different route. We *know* where we are going. He didn't set out to funs "new land" just a "new route". Nobody is suggesting we go to Europe via Mars.
Columbus was fully dependant on favorable weather conditions for movement. We'll take out own fuel and means of locomotion. IN fact, we'd send spares ahead of time. We'd arrive with a craft to take us home if he had to abandon ours, and the fuel/water/air to survive a trip home, or waiting for the next ships.
Overall, going to Mars (using the Mars Direct or nearly identical plan) is less risky than the Columbus search for a NEW ROUTE.
But too many people refuse to beleive anything but the idea that the BattleStar Galactica style plans from NASA are the only way to do it. You liek to believe there are such insurmountable problems because it minimizes the impact of you not doing it. We humans tend to feel better about not doing something if we can console ourselves into thinking it is too hard.
But that doesn't change the fact that Mars does not have to be hard, and that we can do it with decades and centuries old technology. We could have done it 30+ years ago in fact.
Van Allen is apparently ignorant of the reality of Mars' resources, thus HE is obfuscating due to ignorance.
The problem is space exploration is the government involvement and prohibitions against private exploration; not that it is hard or not economically feasible. It is relatively simple, and actually fesible economically, with profitability in less than 20 years, and self sufficiency for growth in 12 or less.
There is no benefit to a government to create a colony on a planet far away that could become independent, or represent a fresh start for society.
"Left Wing, Right Wing: it tastes the same to me." I gotta get me some of those T-Shirts.
Sure, Americans can't get past the drive-fast-turn-left NASCAR mentality! gets listed as insightful, but pointing out how Americans won 75% of Lemans this year, EuroPean no-left-turn-only and very grueling 24 hour race, and that an America team has dominated the GTS class for 3 of the last four years (taking 1st AND 2nd this year) is flamebait. Woohoo! Well that's a prime example of those who can't trying to bash those who do.
What can I get for this post? Surely Troll or something, right? How about an "I dared to point out the obvious flaws and bias in the parent post and all I got was the lousy flamebait moderation'? Anyone, anyone? Hey sounds like a good T-shirt for thinkgeek.com
And yet a centralised system of government was pervasive until the late 1700's, when some upstarts in English colonies got it in their heads that a system which forced them to do much of the work and yet was prohibitively expensive when they wanted to reap their reward was stupid.
Actually the beginning of that was the decentralizaion of physical force/power through the development of weaponry that joe average could wield. When enough of the masses (usally 10%) determined they had the wherewithal, it happened.
nd before you go saying the fall of the Soviet Union was a victory for openness, look at our system. It is, for the most part, top-down.
Before you go presumign what I'm going to say, you may want to pause and read. I was not going to make any correlation there.
However, you are confusing open with centralization or top-down. THese are not exclusive concepts. There is nothing fundamentally opposed in them. You CAN have open yet centralized, or open and top-down. You can also have closed yet decentralized. For example, take an ant colony.
Ant colonies are decentralized in that each at makes it's own decisions. Yet the is secrecy. Indeed, full decentralization increases privacy/secrecy by decreasing the obviousness of any single component. Ants do not share why they choose to be aworker today and a builder yesterday, They just do. Yet there is no "society" more decentralized than the ant colony.
Your premise that such as syetm as described a) requires aboslute anarchy is faulty on many grounds, as is your premise that lack of a centralized control is required to maintain societal structure.
Indeed, if you keep up with modern physics you will find the opposite occurs. The greater the control, the more rapid the decline, the less the control the more stable. Yes, even in Ancient Rome, and Modern America. In an entirely unregulated "information society", the regulation is the individual. What I want to disclose to whim is my choice. The ultimate arbiter of control is the individual. Such a system merely returns us to that state.
There is a reason that we assume that centralised systems work better; they are easier to establish, coordinate and control. This outlook only works if you are going for a fully anarchist system, which you will never get everyone to buy into, barring a massive sociological paradigm shift; something has to happen that convinces everyone that a truly open society is more beneficial than the current model.
If central command was easier, the USSR would be growing. Oh wait they don't exist anymore.
Now all you need to do to grow something like this is any one or more of the following:
a. convince people it'll get them better porn downloads
b. convince people it will save them money
c. convince people it will make them money
d. convince the liberals it allows them to eliminate the public's acceptance of talk radio
e. convince the conservatives it allows them to bypass the liberal media elite
f. any combination of the above.
And as said, encryption can all but eliminate the "truly open" society you refer to. Indeed, I agree with another poster who said encryption can drive this, or this can drive encryption.
Americans can't get past the drive-fast-turn-left NASCAR mentality!
Not insightful, but quite trollike.
Especially after the third LeMans win in four years by the American Corvette Team, the win of the MLP2 class in Lemans by Clint Field (an All American team), and of course that an American team won the GT class as well. Yup, Americans won all but one class at Lemans this year. Twenty four hour endurance race on a long and varied course.
Not to mention the American Lemans Series, or the SCCA.. I'd bet there are more Americans involved in actually racing other than NASCAR than in all of Europe.
But hey go ahead, keep comforting yourself with that belief. That way should you ever find yourself in a race like the above you can be even more shocked when the Americans run right past you and are standing on the podium while you look on.
Not if it can be shown they were doing it. Clearly, it didn't spring into existence when it was released.
IIRC, Boa Constructor has been doing this for many years as well. ISTR Emacs doing it as well.
We should have found towers on mountains by now, no?
;)
No, not necessarily. That would only be the case if we assume they were just like us. While it is human nature (arrogance or just lack of external viewpoints) to assume that prior civilizations would look like us, we don't really have any reason to believe they have to be.
For example, looking at the directions the Germans went in WWII compared to the allies shows striking differences, yet they nearly acheived the same essential end results. The technology is fundamentally different.
Even today there are things vacuum tubes do that we can't do in solid state or via transistors. It is not difficult to conceive of a technology that ook a different route: one of vaccum tubes as opposed to the digital route we are on.
There is this idea of zero point energy as well. If the suspicions of it's potential are even a third accurate, a ZPE weapon would be far more devastating than a nuclear one, and likely w/o the radiological contamination. Much of the exploration of ZPE uses what we consider "dead" technology. What if a prior civilization (assuming for sake of discussion it existed) went this route?
They may not have needed the infrastructure we currently have, and thus may not have the remnants we expect. Many truly groundbreaking discoveries have been when we were looking for one thing, yet somehow found another.
Of course, there's always the Stargate, too.
On the topic of Atlantis, I've often thought if it existed it was most likely Antarctica.
If by "before", you're talking about the 1960s or something, then yes, you would be correct, but America has been running trade deficits for an extremely long time--jobs have, for my entire lifetime, always flowed out of the United States.
Silly poster. A trade deficit is NOT the same thing as job flow. A trade deficit occurs when a county imports more (in monetary units) than it exports. On smaller levels, it occurs when country A imports more (in monetary units) from country B than A exports to N.
A trade decicit is measured in monetary units, such as dollars, as opposed to jobs. One would hope you could see that. The trade deficit mainly reflects faster economic growth in the United States than abroad and the dollar's high exchange rate. These factors hurt U.S. exports while increasing our imports. As foreign economic growth improves and the dollar drops, the trade deficit should stabilize or decline.
Further, your claim that jobs have been going away from the US in your lifetime is either false, or you don't exist. Not only is the trade deficit the wrogn tool to determine that, but between 1992 to 2002, U.S. multinational companies added around five American jobs for every three foreign jobs they added. This means more job growth in the American market than the foreign one with respect to American jobs.
Further, there is a higher percentage of capital investment in the use by multinationals than there used to be. Translation: they've moved more toward the US.
While the tech industry has seen the initial disturbance in increased competition, that does not mean as a whole the job market has. You are behind the times: factory jobs migration occured many years ago. Indeed, there are even some factory/mfging jobs that came *to* the US. The millions of Americans working for foreign multinationals such as Honda, Nissan, Toyota, etc. are a testament to that.
You are also dead wrong on another key point:
yet they say nothing about the people in America who benefit from outsourcing.
Maybe you should listen for a change. Liek them or not, the millions of people employed by Walmart have their jobs due to offshore outsourcing (Lets call a spade a spade, you aren't talking about outsourcing, but offshore outsourcing).
The lower cost of cars, clothes, housing material, appliances are all largely due to the increased competition and lower cost of labor andmaterials in a global market. Even gasoline. Much of the gasoline proce increase is due to the US Government raising sulfur standards and as a result pushing out more foreign gasoline (not oil, gasoline, we do import it).
subsidize health care and education
There is no such thing as a free lunch. To do this requires raising taxes, taxes are net drain on the economy. Someone has to pay for it somewhere. Tax the rich too much and most of them will simply leave: they can afford to. Meanwhile the rest of us get stuck with the bill for the lady down the street who takes her kid to the doctor everytime he sneezes since she "doesn't have to pay for it". Don't say it doesn't happen, I've personally witnesed it.
eliminate regressive Social Security taxes.
A good start, though for reasons you probably don't realize.
Or make regular income taxes more progressive
You mean tax the rich more, so they invest less and move their assets and investment out of the country? Yeah, that'll help.
You forgot a few important facts about the market:
Corporate taxes and heavy handed red-tape and regulation result in a higher cost to do business in the US. Cut those and you'll increase the competitiveness of US companies. American companies w/o the costs of government hoop-jumping and government added taxes are more than competitive with anywhere else on the planet.
Sales taxes. State level, but a massive impact. Sales tax is a consumption tax. Guess what drives the economy and provides the jobs you complain we a
If you thought FC was for linux newbies, then the mistake is yours. It is clearly and unmistakable marketed and targetted for "Linux Enthusiasts", bnot "Linux Newbies".
... inconsistent.
Does tha justify bugs? No. But it does point out the error you made in the first place. To judge a thing by standards it is not intended for is petty and
Database last updated 17-May-2004 19:14:38 EDT.
Hmmm... Linus may be right. The story broke the same day it updated. I wonder who's serving the old DNS.
What are we fricking gerbils? To paraphrase a well known comic who's name is temporarily escaping me.
Network soplutionsupdates their whois database every fricking day. Go ahead, query it now and you'll see it is now "mysteriously updated" on the day AFTER the story! My gawd the horrah of it Marcey!
Simple: all those nasty apps don't run in Linux.
The Santa Clause 2 movie already did it.
Listing the parent post as Insightful is like listing a post that said "Humans breath air" is insightful.
Most people probably thought he was an employee.
Sure I'll back it up. By pointing out you are ignoring what I said, and ignoring basic math.
.15 = 1.76 gallons of gasoline = 113.33 MPG of GASOLINE.
...
.15 = 3 gallons of gasoline). That is 66.67 MPG-Gasoline. Still better than the Civic hybrid on the freeway.
E85, since you are apparently clueless, is a mixture of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline. Which means if I get 14MPG of E85 (I do in the city, on the highway it is more like 18), I keep track of these things. Do you? Or do you just trust what those little numbers claim?), it takes me 14.29 gallons of E85 to go 200 miles. Of that 14.29 gallons, only 2.14 gallons is gasoline.
2.14g/200 miles = 93MPG of GASOLINE.
On the freeway at 17MPG for 200 miles = 11.76 gallons of FUEL. 15% of that is gasoline which means:
11.76 *
Meanwhile
Honda Civic HEV Automatic tranny: 47/48MPG City/Highway. Since what you are burning is all GASOLINE, you are getting 47/48 MPG of GASOLINE. Who burns less gasoline?
Even if you figure 10MPG city for the E85 Suburban it comes out to 3Gal-Gasoline city for 200 miles.
(200 miles at 10MPG-F = 20 gallons of fuel *
IIRC, the Prius comes in at 60MPG. That makes it close. Add in the highway driving and it is not even close: the Civic HEV burns more GASOLINE than my E85 powered Suburban.
Sure it costs me more to buy the Suburban, and it costs more to run the E85 than the Civic HEV. But I'm burning less oil than the Civic. I guess it's a matter of putting your money where your mouth, is.
And in final closing on laws of phsyics: all things equal the bigger behicle is safer than the smaller vehicle.
You have no idea what I need or don't need. I have no idea what you need or don't need. Hell you could probably get away with no vehicle. But you won't see me bashing you for your choice (unless you are being a hypocrite in which case I'd bash you for being a hypocrite not what you drive).
So you chose a Hybrid, good on you. I can tell you from experience however, that the car seats that are needed to provide maximum safety to my children do NOT fit in one. Add to this the stats in the article mentioned earlier showing that occupants of the Civic are nearly twice as likely to die in an accident and I can not in good conscious buy one for my family.
I value the safety of my children, you clearly do not. My children are safer in the Suburban for many reasons I stated and according to the article you posted, but these things you ignore. Probably because they aren't your children.
Ahh yes the good ole "I know an article you wont read because you are arrogant" ploy. Nice try, no not really; just standard staple for trolls. Unfortunately for you, and fortunately for those interested in reality, I read the article. Apparently you did not.
...
And now, the reaility not stated in the article you posted.
Fact: Honda Pilot is an SUV.
Fact: It is one of the safest vehicles to be in according to the crash tests at NHTSA. http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/NCAP/Cars/2810.html
In fact it is pretty much as good as the civic: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/NCAP/Cars/2802.html
Note that on some indicators it is better than a civic.
Oh and the Honda CR-V is likewise a 5-star rated vehicle.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/NCAP/Cars/2806. html
And one more Honda SUV:
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/NCAP/Cars/2806.html
Again, 5 star rated vehicles, pal. There are little econo-boxes that don't do this well. These all do as well as Honda's minivan the Odyssey, and Honda's Civic.
But we don't want to talk about those facts, do we? Hell no that would show that our rage against others may well be wrong.
Is it only Honda? Nope.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/NCAP/Cars/2667.htm l
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/NCAP/Cars/2638.html
h ttp://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/NCAP/Cars/2683.html
In fact, the Blazer and Trailblazer get 4 and 5 stars for passenger side impacts. And some of their danger factors are even better than a Civic.
We certainly don't want to talk about how the 04 Durango is scoring 5 stars in it's tests so far. Instead we just want to say they aren't safe.
And heaven forbid we point out that the Prius has a higher chance of head injury than a Cadillac SUV, or that the Prius has a thoracic trauma index higher than that same Caddy SUV. Heaven forbid you actually look at the test you claim say SUVs are less safe.
Measuring accident avoidance is a key part of the Consumers Union evaluation. It's a simple setup. The driver has to navigate his vehicle through two rows of cones eight feet wide and sixty feet long. Then he has to steer hard to the left, guiding the vehicle through a gate set off to the side, and immediately swerve hard back to the right, and enter a second sixty-foot corridor of cones that are parallel to the first set. The idea is to see how fast you can drive through the course without knocking over any cones.
I do that alot, I autocross. Which makes me infinitely more qualified than the former Engineer they used. Let us look at how he did it, shall we?
"Suddenly, a kid on a bicycle veers out in front of you. You have to do whatever it takes to avoid the kid. But there's a tractor-trailer coming toward you in the other lane, so you've got to swing back into your own lane as quickly as possible. That's the scenario."
Where I live, tractor trailers are not allowed into the subdivisions, and kids don't ride bicycles on the heavy traffic roads that 18 wheelers do drive on. And if they do, the 18wheeler will be taking evasive manuevers as will the kid on the the bike, etc. But maybe in his world they do drive together and the only one reacting is him. AND of course if you can't handle this situation YOU are driving too fast. So
Champion and I put on helmets. He accelerated toward the entrance to the obstacle course. "We do the test without brakes or throttle, so we can just look at handling,"
Furst call of bullshit. All vehicles are designed to handle turning manuevers under vary parts of throttle and/or brake. You drive a Corvette through a course that way and it will feel less agile and more vague. Why? It isn't designed to coast through a slalom. And most people won't coast through a slalom in real life. They will either be applying brake or throttle. I know, I watch it every month.
If you want to test just the car, you put an expert in the car. If you want to test pe
Of course, I also see Microsoft releasing a lower end OS for the rest of the world.
... Windows 95, 98, 2000, 2003 ... ;)
Me too
Crash tests only measure the intrusion of the car into occupant space and vica versa; not the effects of fuel in post-crash or crash situations.
Changing weight distribution and amounts in a car can dramatically affect it's ability to provide occupant protection. Not to mention it's handling capabilities. Ask racers (not ricers) about that.
That doesn't mean it does in the cases above, but it certaily can. Indeed, the NHTSA says to NOT compare ratings of cars that are +/- 250 punds in difference. And they don't test them in real life situations. They run a barrier into them for side impact, and use tracks, etc. to run them into barriers at known and consistent speeds for frontal/offset impacts.
Relying on these tests to say "oh this vehicle is safe" is folly. Even the testers tell you this.
The lighter the base car is, the more an effect battries and additional motors will have. Physics, man, physics.
"If they engineered the hybrid to detect when it's being rammed by some twit in an SUV, "
... noiseless so a threat to bikers, pedestrians, etc.. Charged in uncertain ways after collision so a threat to others during the accident and after when they try to save your ass.
Spoken like a true twit. You ignore that many of the forthcoming hybrids ARE SUVs, and that a growing protion of them are flex-fuel vehicles.
Your hybrid may get 50-60 miles per galon of gasoline, but when I run my Suburban on E85, I get over a hundred miles per gallon of gasoline.
What is so ironic is that this article is essentauilly saying that hybrids are a greater risk to people OTHER than those in the car in an accident. Namely people who are trying to save your ass. And those of you who rail against SUVs for their alleged threat to others are ignoring the confirmed threat to others in your precious "hybrids".
Lesse
Basically, a key point to take from this is if you see a hybrid in an accident, don't go near it. Don't try to help the person, you might get killed yourself. If you are in that hybrid, you best hope you can hold out until rescuers who have the equipment and the training to deal with your dangerous hybrid electrical system can get to the scene.
So will the hypocrisy increase, or will you SUV bashers start bashing hybrids over their threat to others in accidents.
I'm betting on the former.
Additionally, Red Hat Desktop is only available in Proxy (10 system) or Satellite (50 system) deployments, which means that if you're a small business looking to set up 35 machines, you're going to have to buy either 4 Proxy packs or 1 Satellite pack. Either way, you're overpaying. Proxy packs are $2500, and Satellites are $13500; not exactly cheap. This means you're paying between $250 and $270 per machine, per year.
;) I think it's a clever way to boost use of Advanced Server. It also encourages the use of desktop in companies that are looking at an AS install.
Actually, no that's not correct. If you read the page, you could buy the 50-machine "expansion pack" which doesn't include the proxy/satellite stuff. So if you dont need it, you don't buy it. At 3500 for 50 it comes out to 70/machine when using the remaining 15 as reserve for growth; 100/machine otherwise.
If you need the proxy and 35 machines, one option is to get proxy at 2500 and the expansion at 3500, for 6000 total. for 35 machines that comes to 171 and change per machine/year up front. A far cry from your numbers.
If you realize you get 60 machines for that it actually comes down to 100/machine/year.
Further, that comes with an An Enterprise server w/premium support for that timeframe too. On its own, that's 2500. When you factor in that, it comes out to far less costs for the desktops.
At that point, you are talking 6000, of which 2500 is for a server support deal, leaving you with 3500 for 60 machines; or if you want for 35 machines. That comes out to 58/year and 100/year respectively. Which puts the desktops in the 5/month/year as was noted initially.
So your overpaying scenario is only valid if you don't read the whole thing.
Informative? hah, more like inaccurate.
And no, most SMBs do not have multi-CPU DESKTOPS. Hell most machines in an global "enterprise" company are single-CPU. For those however that do, there is WS starting at 179/machine/year. So you see, they do in fact provide resources for those that have SMP machines.
All it takes is reading. Not merely skimming, but actual reading.
Think about it. Normal AS Premium cost is the same as a proxy server w/AS and 10 desktop module entitlements. Need/want and AS? Get the proxy setup and get bonuses.
Actually, we don't know that it does. It says "integrated" which could be a wrapper around the download and install it from elsewhere process. I can already get Adobe Acrobat Reader and Flash via yum/apt. That doesn't mean Fedora Core contains non-OSS.
... hmmm I doubt very much you get to use that beastie for that cost. Note that this is listed in the press release you linked to as a "future" thing.
Vmware