I distinctly detect the reek of 'evil'...
Q: GrandCentral users have been able to upload sound files for their own ring back tones. Will this feature continue to be offered? A. GrandCentral users will be able to choose from a selection of licensed sound files made available within the GrandCentral service, but will not be able to upload their own files. Knee-capping an existing service in order to force people to rent crappy 1k midi files for eternity?
In the real world of adults, you do what the person paying the bills says you do. That would be the students here, and they aren't paying the prof to take attendance. (They aren't paying for overworked TAs to manage giant classloads for pennies either, but that's a different thread).
2-3 years? I just messed with a 3.2Ghz 8-core Mac Pro recently. And Nehelem is due by the end of _this_ year at 4 cores per cpu with 8 cores following rapidly. That's not counting hyper-threading, of course. If I'm not paying Nvidia $700 for a graphics card, that workstation is right in line with the top gaming rigs.
The future is closer than you think...
for Privacy Issues and related. Disclaimer: I'm not registered to any party, but Edwards has my vote unless he starts eating babies. Also the site is obviously in campaign-ese (as they all are). Apologies for length.
[I would argue these necessary for private or anonymous communication.]
"Fighting Media Concentration: Eight business conglomerates control the majority of media content in America, with extensive holdings in publishing, print journalism, online content, movies and radio. In the two years after Washington removed the 40-station radio ownership limit in 1996, nearly half of America's radio stations changed hands, and by 2000, one company had acquired over 1100 stations. Over the last 30 years, two-thirds of all independently-owned newspapers have shut down. The Bush Administration has repeatedly tried to dismantle limits on cable, broadcast and newspaper concentration. Edwards believes extreme media consolidation threatens free speech, tilts the public dialogue towards corporate priorities and away from local concerns, and makes it increasingly difficult for women and minorities to own a stake in our media. Edwards will strengthen local and national media ownership and concentration limits so that a few huge multinational corporations are not in charge of shaping our democracy. [Free Press, 2007; Clear Channel, 2007; Consumers Union, Undated]"
"Keeping an Open Internet: Edwards believes America must preserve the uniquely democratic nature of the Internet, which has allowed regular people to contribute on equal footing with big businesses and organizations. As president, he will ensure that the FCC preserves free expression and competition on the Internet by continuing to enforce net neutrality ensuring no degradation or blocking of access to websites. He will also bring interoperability to wireless communications so that Americans can connect any device or applications to their wireless service, just as they can to their landline phone service."
"Keeping America Safe And Free John Edwards believes we must stop the Bush administration's trampling of basic freedoms in the name of the war against terror. As president, Edwards will prohibit surveillance of Americans' phone calls and emails without a warrant, close down Guantanamo Bay, restore habeas corpus, and say no to torture."
"We are not the country of Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo. We are not the country of secret surveillance and government behind closed doors. We are Americans, and we're better than that." -- John Edwards America must do whatever it takes to defeat terrorism, but securing a lasting victory will take moral as well as military strength. President Bush's failure to respect the Constitution and our commitment to the fundamental rule of law has badly damaged our security and our standing in the world. President Bush has sent a message that torture and other human rights violations are acceptable, creating a precedent of disregard for the law that is being exploited by terrorists and repressive governments across the world. We must restore our moral leadership in the world, and we should begin here at home. If we want to spread democracy abroad, we must strengthen democracy in America, including our constitutional freedoms and the rule of law.
Restore Habeas Corpus and Shut Down Guantanamo The Bush Administration has claimed the power to seize and indefinitely detain anybody it labels an "enemy combatant" with no due process and no lawyer, even if they were seized here in America. It built a prison at Guantanamo Bay outside the reach of our courts, creating a symbol that galvanizes our enemies and alienates our allies. As president, Edwards will shut down Guantanamo
Although there does seem to be a REMARKABLE metal disconnect for an amazing number of brownshirts in this country. Ones that will say at first, "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns!!!111oneone!" then turn around and say, "If you outlaw encryption, daddy president will make us all nice and safe and happy from terrorists". Unbelievably deluded. (Of course, as crypto is digital, you can't even restrict by physical means or material cost).
Terrorists funded by $10 billion (well a shitload more, now that American pumped up the price of oil) rich oil or ancillary industry magnates is hardly going to be deterred. They weren't then, they aren't now.
WTF does restricting encryption accomplish? SPECIFICS please. A suicide bomber on American soil will be deterred suddenly becuase they found out the encrypted messages they were using results in a $1000 fine and a year in jail? What, the gonna scrape up the giblets and put them in a bucket in a prison cell? I'm sorry, but you are either a troll or f'ing retarded.
It's like outlawing baseball bats to prevent death-by-Slugger-to-skull. The tool itself is not the problem here, or there, nor is it the only means to accomplish the undesired behavior.
That's a good question. Even with Apple the supposed queen of usability, when walking a friend through some instructions for using their $100.Mac certificate for email, Apple has suddenly pulled the rug out and insists that that cert is only for iChat, not email now. Plenty of evidence around the net that this was not always so. WTF?
Certificate maintenance is a pain for normal users and can be hard to understand. Both usability of the apps AND infrastructure need to be maintained. Why can't all ISPs give me a good cert and manage it along with my email address? Or one for email, one for chat, one for software updates, etc. Am I missing something?
Understand it. Having to haul High Voltage AC over 3,000 miles is not ideal. Having to build out (and acquire property for) new point-to-point HVDC lines is crazy expensive. Local, decentralized, regionally grid-tied for backup.
And for those mocking methane and cow flatulence above, there's a 5.66 megawatt power plant running from landfill decomposition gasses in Oregon (since 2005, actually). Seems financially viable, as they just expanded it. http://www.cooscurryelectric.com/webfront/power/facts-coffin.php
Course, I'm personally a big fan of just skipping ahead already to spend INSANE money to sprinkle large nuclear facilities where feasible. As in: desalinization FAST type IIIa/IV high-temperature helium gas nuclear reactors. With integrated reprocessing and thermochemical conversion of a portion of purified seawater to H2 + ½O2 on the first turbine condenser stage (flash desalinization on the second). As a bonus, you end up with free ozone, when can then be used to preserve the clean water on its journey through the REAL series of tubes. I know I'm apparently alone on that one... but we'll all find out soon enough that water is the real priority.
It's what we'll end up doing anyway, why not star the research now? (And more wind farms, yes, are nifty too. Completely unreliable, and nifty.)
Actually this might benefit Kasparov's cause. He's a respected person both in Russia and abroad, and a move like this could provoke a stronger protest against Putin. I trust Kasparov has calculated this 6 moves ahead
I seriously doubt there is any positive outcome now, considering what happened to the last person seized: Larisa Arap I think they now know they could have gone much, much further with her without any kind of retribution from the outside world (we all like their oil and gas) or domestically. The Russians would rather have the known Putin, who they seem to like, than Kasparov, who many dislike and distrust as he is not really "Russian" at all. Ethnically or nationally it seems (or so I've been repeatedly admonished).
Beisides, why not? Who would challenge Putin (meaningfully, I mean)? No one. The U.S. has no traction anymore, and the U.N. is starting to wonder if they can accomplish anything at all together...
On 2007-07-05, Arap went to a clinic in the closed city of Severomorsk for the results of a medical examination, which she had passed a month earlier to renew her driver's license. Doctor Olga Reshet asked her whether she was the author of the "Madhouse" article. After receiving a confirmation from Arap that she was indeed the author, Dr. Reshet told her to wait outside and called militsiya (Russian police), who detained Arap until the arrival of a psychiatric ambulance. Arap was injected with drugs that caused her tongue to swell, weakened her, and affected her vision and balance, according to her relatives. The detention was illegal, since a decision of a judge authorizing her detention and treatment was issued subsequently, thirteen days later.
[...]
Arap claimed that she was severely beaten by the medical personnel and had bruises all over her body. She was tied to her bed and treated with unidentified 'sedatives'. To protest, Arap went on a five-day hunger strike, but she was eventually fed by force.
I'll be surprised if he can even figure out how to tie his own shoes by the time they are done with him.
he's not married, and I used to know this guy in the mid-1980s. Except that he has been married since 1986 and has a son. So what? 1985 isn't "mid-1980s"? It doesn't matter. He's also admitted to being an atheist, why should we care? This is what bothers me:
Karl Rove may or may not be gay (even while married), but the fact is his step father was gay -- and left Karl and his mother at a very impressionable age. He states it really changed him. Personally, I wouldn't give a damn if Karl was gay or not, but his well publicized issues with his father(s) explain a lot about his irrationality in all manner of governmental affairs. Whatever his words, his actions speak hatred. The man needs psychological help, not to be running the country as a puppet master.
Oh well, looks like he was able to stay at the trough until his belly was full, without even any charges filed.
"Remember, kiddies, honest only holds you back, and it's only wrong if you get caught. Let's all try to be more like Uncle Karl, mmkay?"
I was gifted with an early generation MiniDisc recorder back in the day that only required a specific resistor to be jammed into the remote control connecter to enter "debug mode" and turn off the "do not copy" bit to enable digital transfers. Are you suggesting a similar case here (not sarcastic)?
MS is an interested party, however, as selling a "copy proof" solution allows better access to media providers for exclusive content and codec sales. IMHO. MS is diverse. Surely they see this as a means to drive sales.
The source of our disagreement can probably be found in your assertion that colonizing space "is A little different from exploring space."
Makes quite a difference. 'A' difference. Actually, it addresses most of your post. Please re-read.
Spain's consequent bellicose borrowing to pay her war debts.
You prove my point. What does Spain later borrowing for war debts have to do with exploring space? It is beside the point. The new world made people very wealthy. If they then choose to spend all that wealth so what? In fact, if Spain had focused more on exploration and less on old European rivalries, she would have been far better off. We'd be having this conversation in Spanish. Perhaps it is the same in this discussion. You have avoided the thrust of this section, however, which is not all space exploration is a 'mass hallucination' of 'altruism', or 'communist'. It can, in fact, be very lucrative in self interested ways.
I suppose you could have also mentioned the wonderful effects that colonization had upon the native civilizations of the Americas, but why browbeat a point well-made?
What does that have to do with? Completely unrelated. Unless you think there are First Nations on the moon.
an op-ed on spacedaily.com which starts with the author saying, "Lately I have been seeing lots of bad historical analogies drawn from a somewhat later time, the great age of European sea exploration," and ends with his remark that "today's space advocates...often show the same mixture of technical incompetence, slanted data, fanatical devotion to the cause, and brilliant salesmanship that led Columbus and Spain to disaster." I suggest starting your own reading there.
First of all, an "op-ed on spacedaily.com" by this unnamed author is not exactly an historical authority. I am aware of history. Second, Columbus trying and failing to reach the Indies to get rich on spice trade worked out fantastically for me. Are you just jealous because I am an American? You're welcome to be bitter, but it hardly proves anything.
You didn't mention whether you had read Charlie Stross's article on the sheer implausibility of colonizing space
I have, thanks for the link. Charlie seems like a nice guy. He has a degree in Pharmacy, and wrote some creature descriptions for the AD&D Fiend Folio (including one of my favorites). I'd probably get a kick out of talking with him over a beer. But his fiction is hardly the word of law of the natural universe. The question is whether we invest off planet. Whether it is impractical to reach other galaxies or not... I could care less. That is not the same thing.
let's not lose our grip on reality
I agree. I live in a reality where human beings have walked on moon in the cold vacuum of space. I live in a reality where we are technologically capable of sending explorer robots an incredible distance to measure, sample, and record a completely different planet just for our amusement-- without even spending a statistically significant portion of the world's wealth to do so!! Not everyone has to "share my dreams". But that doesn't change this reality, and our capabilities within it. Nor am I a 'junkie' as you put it.
And if your canned NASA engineer went on to develop a way to feed, house, deliver potable water or medicine to, even a fraction of those people, then that would indeed be "a drop in the bucket," wouldn't it?
No. And I refuse to apologize for being either pro-geek or pro-American. We already HAVE technological solutions for all of those problems. Right now. We have had them for years. That is NOT A TECHNICAL PROBLEM, and is unrelated to space exploration, it is a political/social problem. I'll give you an example... 40 years ago, people talked about what a problem overpopulation could be in the future. There were even new technological devices invented to help avert this
Another good point. Science orthogonal to morality I agree.
I brought up Hawking because he recently elaborated the physical dangers we face on the planet with respect to the universe at large. He is worshipped more than I am comfortable with, but this would seem to be in his field, IMHO. I'm not persuaded by Hawkings' argument to explore space because it is a moral imperative, only that we explore space if we think humans should continue to exist.
One could think "humans should cease to exist" as a moral imperative as articulated frequently (early on anyway) in this thread.
I find that profoundly disturbing. Wouldn't most writers and ethicists agree? Aristotle says justice, charity, and generosity are important (who else but humans understands those concepts?). Kant says it is our duty to respect our fellow rational beings (so far, just other humans). Utilitarianism asserts that the guiding principle of conduct should be the greatest happiness or benefit of the greatest number.
In summary, I completely agree with you! I fear that precious few scientists or creators of new technology DO listen to those outside their field -- they are wrapped up in their own arrogance and conceit as creators of their own universes, and as such 'experts' on everything. Or at least, that would explain the above to me...
that single grain is a more important part of that beach that this planet is of the universe Important to who? Sand? Beach? Planet? Universe? No rational human would agree with you (ie. "I will sacrifice my life for this grain of sand arbitrarily") that sand has more "value". What else is there to ask about "value"?
Isn't that a quote from somebody? Perhaps there was different context for the word "important" there; it would make far more sense to me (as in "relative size" instead of "value"). But if you argue that the universe doesn't know whether humans are important or not, how can you argue that grain of sand knows it is more important to its context than Earth is to its own? Or are you just saying that we are small? That is beside the point. Maybe I misunderstand.
I wasn't trying to say that you think sand has brains literally, but that it is inconsistent. I humbly suggest that we all agree whoever wrote the TFA is a TERRIBLE writer.
"The next step" for a man on the edge of a mountainous cliff is most certainly not progress That is an awfully good point -- well put. That is why I phrased my post as a emotional "common sense" perspective (that I believe every word of). I'm not anywhere near smart enough to be the 'daddy' of humanity and tell them definitively what will be good for them in the future.
But then, apparently, Stephen Hawking isn't smart enough to have a valid perspective on space either, according to most here.
drunken buffoon expanding our Lebensraum Nice. But isn't that just who we are? Eccentric; human. Being human enough to possibly mistakes isn't wrong in itself, not bothering to try is far worse, IMHO. Anyway, no I didn't not list any rational proofs in the 'pro' column for space exploration. But the "not all eggs in one basket" theory is self-evident, for example.
No, see, I knew that problem was ahead:
But in actually, we are a much bigger risk to other species and to ourselves than any asteroid out there. Sure, why not.
The last big asteroid hit was about sixty million years ago. Ok.
Humans will make the planet uninhabitable for ourselves as well as the majority of other species long before another sixty million years have passed. If you have some inside knowledge of this, I'm sure people would love to know. That is a such a leap from your other statements it does not follow.
It is like so many people will cry in their milk if humanity survives. Sad.
All it would take is for one inhabitant to go "postal", to destroy precarious life support systems and wipe out the entire colony. What makes you think that isn't possible right now on Earth? As you point out:
He is already killing and poisoning himself here upon a much more forgiving... planet So don't you think we might want options?
Ok, non-sarcastically? I would agree to #1 and disagree with #2.
Nothing is easy, no one knows the future, but we DO know that the universe is a mean, uncaring place that could wipe all life out in a blink.
I seriously think we have an advantage with intellects, thumbs, and technology to help preserve other life when it is threatened in a way that it can't avoid. (Actually, in my own weird view all life is the same organism, really. You don't cut out your brain because you made a few bad decisions, and you body will NOT do just fine without it). We are life. Earth ('s skin) is life -- the only life we've observed in a very large area. We're in it together, like it or no. Where ever humans go, millions of other species will come with us (or in us). IMHO.
We just need to bring enough other nations up to a decent standard of living so that their birthrates also decline. We'll be fine. Natural disasters that wipe out huge chunks of the prevalent life form on Earth happen constantly, on a geologic timescale. The next tidal wave, super-caldera, asteroid, or earthquake will take care of that. These people should really worry about covering their bets instead of killing their fellow humans down to some arbitrary number.
I'm not saying humans are angels, but these people that apparently really believe "all humans must die" is WAYYYYYY too "12 Monkeys" for comfort. And this at least some relatively "elite" portion of society (educated, computer access, technology interest/aptitude). That is bizarre, and disturbing.
What, I don't get a personal troll? Aww. Wow, you do have some real gems in there though...
Sure, I'll grade your book report, whatever...
1. You waste a lot of words on 'colonizing the universe'. That is a little different from exploring space, which is what we can do at this very moment. If that makes it a 'pipe dream' in your mind then I guess you're smoking the wrong pipe.
2. 'science fiction' is FICTION. See? Says right there in the title. Not 'hallucination'. Fiction. We all are in on the joke, that fiction is not reality. Most of us, anyway. Also, 'science fiction' is not equivalent to 'space exploration', and more than 'Penthouse Forums' are 'like, totally true, dude!'.
3. "the human psyche which instinctually strives discover and dominate, like a slime mold which oozes away from the light and toward the darkness" Riiight. Sorry. "oozing away from the light" does not really sound like "discover and dominate". Quite the opposite.
4. 'feverish masturbatory fantasies of science fiction'. I'm beginning to understand that part of the problem is that you've obviously never read serious science fiction. Long winded details of orbital mechanics just aren't feverishly anything. Besides, do you know how to write science fiction? Here is a tip, take society today, add one seemingly possible, but not invented technology. Now report on how that society might react. You see, science fiction isn't really about science at all, (99%) it is about sociology. Something you seem to be poking around at. Read some.
5. "space exploration is done for the benefit and glory of all mankind". Actually we HAVE ended up with some pretty amazing side benefits from space exploration (not even counting satellites) that you almost certainly depend on today. But largely, I actually agree with you 'mankind' doesn't fund research programs any more than 'mankind' sponsored Columbus to sail to the 'Indies'. Spain did. And she was eventually made very wealthy from her investment. So what is the problem here?
6. "rationally considered, it is a silly and juvenile fantasy". Oh shoot. Well, I guess if YOU say so... wait, don't you have any logic to back this up? You need to explain WHY you THINK it is a juvenile fantasy unless you currently a expert on the subject. I don't mean to be rude but I kinda don't think you are. You'd know the definition of 'rational'.
7. "space colonization is the primary and ultimate *delusionary* drive which props up and continuously feeds multiple sundry industries... Films and television series such as Star Wars, Star Trek and Stargate all serve to reinforce... irrepressable urge to Discover & Dominate". You are doing your very best to make this somehow sound like a bad thing. The problem is something that feeds multiple industries, has the support of popular film and drives us to discover is probably going to sound good to most people. I would argue that TV is not really representative of the * literature * genre of science fiction. So, again, I think you should at least try reading some good sci-fi or "speculative fiction". Most of the authors I read growing up were all relatively poor. Their writing didn't make anybody rich, not even the publishers, really. They just wanted to share ideas.
8. "Why... so much energy, thought and hope directed toward--colonizing space, when every living person on earth will be dead before so much as even a red, white and blue outhouse is erected on Mars". I don't know, why did Europeans colonize America and Australia? Why did the first humans leave Africa? They aren't still around, but we certainly enjoy the benefits of their efforts.
9. "delusional ideology not unsimilar to communism". Now you can do better than this!! How can it be "like communism" and "leave... on the moon was a silly flag, and certainly not one representing the whole world or all of humanity, but of a single country"-- America. Sounds like we aren't sharing our tractor with the other comrades, nyet? (see #5)
Slashdot Mirror
A. GrandCentral users will be able to choose from a selection of licensed sound files made available within the GrandCentral service, but will not be able to upload their own files. Knee-capping an existing service in order to force people to rent crappy 1k midi files for eternity?
Yep. Evil, alright.
In the real world of adults, you do what the person paying the bills says you do. That would be the students here, and they aren't paying the prof to take attendance. (They aren't paying for overworked TAs to manage giant classloads for pennies either, but that's a different thread).
2-3 years? I just messed with a 3.2Ghz 8-core Mac Pro recently. And Nehelem is due by the end of _this_ year at 4 cores per cpu with 8 cores following rapidly. That's not counting hyper-threading, of course. If I'm not paying Nvidia $700 for a graphics card, that workstation is right in line with the top gaming rigs. The future is closer than you think...
Well, *I* though that was funny...
Well, from 2 weeks ago:
NASA Inspector General: NASA's Most Serious Management and Performance Challenges [PDF]
for Privacy Issues and related. Disclaimer: I'm not registered to any party, but Edwards has my vote unless he starts eating babies. Also the site is obviously in campaign-ese (as they all are). Apologies for length.
http://johnedwards.com/issues/open-media/
[I would argue these necessary for private or anonymous communication.]
"Fighting Media Concentration: Eight business conglomerates control the majority of media content in America, with extensive holdings in publishing, print journalism, online content, movies and radio. In the two years after Washington removed the 40-station radio ownership limit in 1996, nearly half of America's radio stations changed hands, and by 2000, one company had acquired over 1100 stations. Over the last 30 years, two-thirds of all independently-owned newspapers have shut down. The Bush Administration has repeatedly tried to dismantle limits on cable, broadcast and newspaper concentration. Edwards believes extreme media consolidation threatens free speech, tilts the public dialogue towards corporate priorities and away from local concerns, and makes it increasingly difficult for women and minorities to own a stake in our media. Edwards will strengthen local and national media ownership and concentration limits so that a few huge multinational corporations are not in charge of shaping our democracy. [Free Press, 2007; Clear Channel, 2007; Consumers Union, Undated]"
"Keeping an Open Internet: Edwards believes America must preserve the uniquely democratic nature of the Internet, which has allowed regular people to contribute on equal footing with big businesses and organizations. As president, he will ensure that the FCC preserves free expression and competition on the Internet by continuing to enforce net neutrality ensuring no degradation or blocking of access to websites. He will also bring interoperability to wireless communications so that Americans can connect any device or applications to their wireless service, just as they can to their landline phone service."
http://johnedwards.com/issues/homeland-security/
"Keeping America Safe And Free
John Edwards believes we must stop the Bush administration's trampling of basic freedoms in the name of the war against terror. As president, Edwards will prohibit surveillance of Americans' phone calls and emails without a warrant, close down Guantanamo Bay, restore habeas corpus, and say no to torture."
http://johnedwards.com/issues/civil-liberties/
"We are not the country of Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo. We are not the country of secret surveillance and government behind closed doors. We are Americans, and we're better than that." -- John Edwards
America must do whatever it takes to defeat terrorism, but securing a lasting victory will take moral as well as military strength. President Bush's failure to respect the Constitution and our commitment to the fundamental rule of law has badly damaged our security and our standing in the world. President Bush has sent a message that torture and other human rights violations are acceptable, creating a precedent of disregard for the law that is being exploited by terrorists and repressive governments across the world. We must restore our moral leadership in the world, and we should begin here at home. If we want to spread democracy abroad, we must strengthen democracy in America, including our constitutional freedoms and the rule of law.
Restore Habeas Corpus and Shut Down Guantanamo
The Bush Administration has claimed the power to seize and indefinitely detain anybody it labels an "enemy combatant" with no due process and no lawyer, even if they were seized here in America. It built a prison at Guantanamo Bay outside the reach of our courts, creating a symbol that galvanizes our enemies and alienates our allies. As president, Edwards will shut down Guantanamo
I call troll.
Although there does seem to be a REMARKABLE metal disconnect for an amazing number of brownshirts in this country. Ones that will say at first, "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns!!!111oneone!" then turn around and say, "If you outlaw encryption, daddy president will make us all nice and safe and happy from terrorists". Unbelievably deluded. (Of course, as crypto is digital, you can't even restrict by physical means or material cost).
Terrorists funded by $10 billion (well a shitload more, now that American pumped up the price of oil) rich oil or ancillary industry magnates is hardly going to be deterred. They weren't then, they aren't now.
WTF does restricting encryption accomplish? SPECIFICS please. A suicide bomber on American soil will be deterred suddenly becuase they found out the encrypted messages they were using results in a $1000 fine and a year in jail? What, the gonna scrape up the giblets and put them in a bucket in a prison cell? I'm sorry, but you are either a troll or f'ing retarded.
It's like outlawing baseball bats to prevent death-by-Slugger-to-skull. The tool itself is not the problem here, or there, nor is it the only means to accomplish the undesired behavior.
That's a good question. Even with Apple the supposed queen of usability, when walking a friend through some instructions for using their $100 .Mac certificate for email, Apple has suddenly pulled the rug out and insists that that cert is only for iChat, not email now. Plenty of evidence around the net that this was not always so. WTF?
Certificate maintenance is a pain for normal users and can be hard to understand. Both usability of the apps AND infrastructure need to be maintained. Why can't all ISPs give me a good cert and manage it along with my email address? Or one for email, one for chat, one for software updates, etc. Am I missing something?
Understand it. Having to haul High Voltage AC over 3,000 miles is not ideal. Having to build out (and acquire property for) new point-to-point HVDC lines is crazy expensive. Local, decentralized, regionally grid-tied for backup.
And for those mocking methane and cow flatulence above, there's a 5.66 megawatt power plant running from landfill decomposition gasses in Oregon (since 2005, actually). Seems financially viable, as they just expanded it. http://www.cooscurryelectric.com/webfront/power/facts-coffin.php
Course, I'm personally a big fan of just skipping ahead already to spend INSANE money to sprinkle large nuclear facilities where feasible. As in: desalinization FAST type IIIa/IV high-temperature helium gas nuclear reactors. With integrated reprocessing and thermochemical conversion of a portion of purified seawater to H2 + ½O2 on the first turbine condenser stage (flash desalinization on the second). As a bonus, you end up with free ozone, when can then be used to preserve the clean water on its journey through the REAL series of tubes. I know I'm apparently alone on that one... but we'll all find out soon enough that water is the real priority.
It's what we'll end up doing anyway, why not star the research now? (And more wind farms, yes, are nifty too. Completely unreliable, and nifty.)
I seriously doubt there is any positive outcome now, considering what happened to the last person seized: Larisa Arap I think they now know they could have gone much, much further with her without any kind of retribution from the outside world (we all like their oil and gas) or domestically. The Russians would rather have the known Putin, who they seem to like, than Kasparov, who many dislike and distrust as he is not really "Russian" at all. Ethnically or nationally it seems (or so I've been repeatedly admonished).
Beisides, why not? Who would challenge Putin (meaningfully, I mean)? No one. The U.S. has no traction anymore, and the U.N. is starting to wonder if they can accomplish anything at all together...
An excerpt from her wikipedia entry:
I'll be surprised if he can even figure out how to tie his own shoes by the time they are done with him.
One week can be a long time to wait for payment for small business.
i cane_Katrina-PayPal_conflict
I think there definitely needs to be more serious competition in this area, just to provide a little healthier competition.
I'm sure we all remember other problems with PayPal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Something_Awful#Hurr
Karl Rove may or may not be gay (even while married), but the fact is his step father was gay -- and left Karl and his mother at a very impressionable age. He states it really changed him. Personally, I wouldn't give a damn if Karl was gay or not, but his well publicized issues with his father(s) explain a lot about his irrationality in all manner of governmental affairs. Whatever his words, his actions speak hatred. The man needs psychological help, not to be running the country as a puppet master.
Oh well, looks like he was able to stay at the trough until his belly was full, without even any charges filed.
"Remember, kiddies, honest only holds you back, and it's only wrong if you get caught. Let's all try to be more like Uncle Karl, mmkay?"
So it is true! You CAN actually steal enough money to buy happiness.
Karl Rove is my hero.
I like the tech report's personality better, but not really surprising results, IMHO. Old news from May:
a ge=0%2C7
http://www.storagereview.com/HDS721010KLA330.sr?p
I was gifted with an early generation MiniDisc recorder back in the day that only required a specific resistor to be jammed into the remote control connecter to enter "debug mode" and turn off the "do not copy" bit to enable digital transfers. Are you suggesting a similar case here (not sarcastic)?
MS is an interested party, however, as selling a "copy proof" solution allows better access to media providers for exclusive content and codec sales. IMHO. MS is diverse. Surely they see this as a means to drive sales.
The source of our disagreement can probably be found in your assertion that colonizing space "is A little different from exploring space."
Makes quite a difference. 'A' difference. Actually, it addresses most of your post. Please re-read.
Spain's consequent bellicose borrowing to pay her war debts.
You prove my point. What does Spain later borrowing for war debts have to do with exploring space? It is beside the point. The new world made people very wealthy. If they then choose to spend all that wealth so what? In fact, if Spain had focused more on exploration and less on old European rivalries, she would have been far better off. We'd be having this conversation in Spanish. Perhaps it is the same in this discussion. You have avoided the thrust of this section, however, which is not all space exploration is a 'mass hallucination' of 'altruism', or 'communist'. It can, in fact, be very lucrative in self interested ways.
I suppose you could have also mentioned the wonderful effects that colonization had upon the native civilizations of the Americas, but why browbeat a point well-made?
What does that have to do with? Completely unrelated. Unless you think there are First Nations on the moon.
an op-ed on spacedaily.com which starts with the author saying, "Lately I have been seeing lots of bad historical analogies drawn from a somewhat later time, the great age of European sea exploration," and ends with his remark that "today's space advocates...often show the same mixture of technical incompetence, slanted data, fanatical devotion to the cause, and brilliant salesmanship that led Columbus and Spain to disaster." I suggest starting your own reading there.
First of all, an "op-ed on spacedaily.com" by this unnamed author is not exactly an historical authority. I am aware of history. Second, Columbus trying and failing to reach the Indies to get rich on spice trade worked out fantastically for me. Are you just jealous because I am an American? You're welcome to be bitter, but it hardly proves anything.
You didn't mention whether you had read Charlie Stross's article on the sheer implausibility of colonizing space
I have, thanks for the link. Charlie seems like a nice guy. He has a degree in Pharmacy, and wrote some creature descriptions for the AD&D Fiend Folio (including one of my favorites). I'd probably get a kick out of talking with him over a beer. But his fiction is hardly the word of law of the natural universe. The question is whether we invest off planet. Whether it is impractical to reach other galaxies or not... I could care less. That is not the same thing.
let's not lose our grip on reality
I agree. I live in a reality where human beings have walked on moon in the cold vacuum of space. I live in a reality where we are technologically capable of sending explorer robots an incredible distance to measure, sample, and record a completely different planet just for our amusement-- without even spending a statistically significant portion of the world's wealth to do so!! Not everyone has to "share my dreams". But that doesn't change this reality, and our capabilities within it. Nor am I a 'junkie' as you put it.
And if your canned NASA engineer went on to develop a way to feed, house, deliver potable water or medicine to, even a fraction of those people, then that would indeed be "a drop in the bucket," wouldn't it?
No. And I refuse to apologize for being either pro-geek or pro-American. We already HAVE technological solutions for all of those problems. Right now. We have had them for years. That is NOT A TECHNICAL PROBLEM, and is unrelated to space exploration, it is a political/social problem. I'll give you an example... 40 years ago, people talked about what a problem overpopulation could be in the future. There were even new technological devices invented to help avert this
What a troll.
c tions_on_the_Romance_of_Science
Read much? I think your statement bears "little resemblance to rational scientific thought".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broca's_Brain:_Refle
Another good point. Science orthogonal to morality I agree.
I brought up Hawking because he recently elaborated the physical dangers we face on the planet with respect to the universe at large. He is worshipped more than I am comfortable with, but this would seem to be in his field, IMHO. I'm not persuaded by Hawkings' argument to explore space because it is a moral imperative, only that we explore space if we think humans should continue to exist.
One could think "humans should cease to exist" as a moral imperative as articulated frequently (early on anyway) in this thread.
I find that profoundly disturbing. Wouldn't most writers and ethicists agree? Aristotle says justice, charity, and generosity are important (who else but humans understands those concepts?). Kant says it is our duty to respect our fellow rational beings (so far, just other humans). Utilitarianism asserts that the guiding principle of conduct should be the greatest happiness or benefit of the greatest number.
In summary, I completely agree with you! I fear that precious few scientists or creators of new technology DO listen to those outside their field -- they are wrapped up in their own arrogance and conceit as creators of their own universes, and as such 'experts' on everything. Or at least, that would explain the above to me...
Isn't that a quote from somebody? Perhaps there was different context for the word "important" there; it would make far more sense to me (as in "relative size" instead of "value"). But if you argue that the universe doesn't know whether humans are important or not, how can you argue that grain of sand knows it is more important to its context than Earth is to its own? Or are you just saying that we are small? That is beside the point. Maybe I misunderstand.
I wasn't trying to say that you think sand has brains literally, but that it is inconsistent. I humbly suggest that we all agree whoever wrote the TFA is a TERRIBLE writer.
But then, apparently, Stephen Hawking isn't smart enough to have a valid perspective on space either, according to most here. drunken buffoon expanding our Lebensraum Nice. But isn't that just who we are? Eccentric; human. Being human enough to possibly mistakes isn't wrong in itself, not bothering to try is far worse, IMHO. Anyway, no I didn't not list any rational proofs in the 'pro' column for space exploration. But the "not all eggs in one basket" theory is self-evident, for example.
It is like so many people will cry in their milk if humanity survives. Sad.
Ok, non-sarcastically? I would agree to #1 and disagree with #2.
Nothing is easy, no one knows the future, but we DO know that the universe is a mean, uncaring place that could wipe all life out in a blink.
I seriously think we have an advantage with intellects, thumbs, and technology to help preserve other life when it is threatened in a way that it can't avoid. (Actually, in my own weird view all life is the same organism, really. You don't cut out your brain because you made a few bad decisions, and you body will NOT do just fine without it). We are life. Earth ('s skin) is life -- the only life we've observed in a very large area. We're in it together, like it or no. Where ever humans go, millions of other species will come with us (or in us). IMHO.
We just need to bring enough other nations up to a decent standard of living so that their birthrates also decline. We'll be fine. Natural disasters that wipe out huge chunks of the prevalent life form on Earth happen constantly, on a geologic timescale. The next tidal wave, super-caldera, asteroid, or earthquake will take care of that. These people should really worry about covering their bets instead of killing their fellow humans down to some arbitrary number.
I'm not saying humans are angels, but these people that apparently really believe "all humans must die" is WAYYYYYY too "12 Monkeys" for comfort. And this at least some relatively "elite" portion of society (educated, computer access, technology interest/aptitude). That is bizarre, and disturbing.
What, I don't get a personal troll? Aww. Wow, you do have some real gems in there though...
Sure, I'll grade your book report, whatever...
1. You waste a lot of words on 'colonizing the universe'. That is a little different from exploring space, which is what we can do at this very moment. If that makes it a 'pipe dream' in your mind then I guess you're smoking the wrong pipe.
2. 'science fiction' is FICTION. See? Says right there in the title. Not 'hallucination'. Fiction. We all are in on the joke, that fiction is not reality. Most of us, anyway. Also, 'science fiction' is not equivalent to 'space exploration', and more than 'Penthouse Forums' are 'like, totally true, dude!'.
3. "the human psyche which instinctually strives discover and dominate, like a slime mold which oozes away from the light and toward the darkness" Riiight. Sorry. "oozing away from the light" does not really sound like "discover and dominate". Quite the opposite.
4. 'feverish masturbatory fantasies of science fiction'. I'm beginning to understand that part of the problem is that you've obviously never read serious science fiction. Long winded details of orbital mechanics just aren't feverishly anything. Besides, do you know how to write science fiction? Here is a tip, take society today, add one seemingly possible, but not invented technology. Now report on how that society might react. You see, science fiction isn't really about science at all, (99%) it is about sociology. Something you seem to be poking around at. Read some.
5. "space exploration is done for the benefit and glory of all mankind". Actually we HAVE ended up with some pretty amazing side benefits from space exploration (not even counting satellites) that you almost certainly depend on today. But largely, I actually agree with you 'mankind' doesn't fund research programs any more than 'mankind' sponsored Columbus to sail to the 'Indies'. Spain did. And she was eventually made very wealthy from her investment. So what is the problem here?
6. "rationally considered, it is a silly and juvenile fantasy". Oh shoot. Well, I guess if YOU say so... wait, don't you have any logic to back this up? You need to explain WHY you THINK it is a juvenile fantasy unless you currently a expert on the subject. I don't mean to be rude but I kinda don't think you are. You'd know the definition of 'rational'.
7. "space colonization is the primary and ultimate *delusionary* drive which props up and continuously feeds multiple sundry industries... Films and television series such as Star Wars, Star Trek and Stargate all serve to reinforce... irrepressable urge to Discover & Dominate". You are doing your very best to make this somehow sound like a bad thing. The problem is something that feeds multiple industries, has the support of popular film and drives us to discover is probably going to sound good to most people. I would argue that TV is not really representative of the * literature * genre of science fiction. So, again, I think you should at least try reading some good sci-fi or "speculative fiction". Most of the authors I read growing up were all relatively poor. Their writing didn't make anybody rich, not even the publishers, really. They just wanted to share ideas.
8. "Why... so much energy, thought and hope directed toward--colonizing space, when every living person on earth will be dead before so much as even a red, white and blue outhouse is erected on Mars". I don't know, why did Europeans colonize America and Australia? Why did the first humans leave Africa? They aren't still around, but we certainly enjoy the benefits of their efforts.
9. "delusional ideology not unsimilar to communism". Now you can do better than this!! How can it be "like communism" and "leave... on the moon was a silly flag, and certainly not one representing the whole world or all of humanity, but of a single country"-- America. Sounds like we aren't sharing our tractor with the other comrades, nyet? (see #5)
10. "time and energy could be spe
Oh, I'm sorry-- you're out there saving the children, with no tolerance wacky high-tech ideas?
Funny, 'cuz it sure as hell looked like you were trolling on a fucking technology blog... And if you know how to prevent it, what is stopping you?
WTF is Star Trek, my post advocates not being a whiny self-hating bitch instead of tolerating the idea that you are human.