There is an Iraqi who defected (or something doesn't really say, he's in the US now) who is arguing with a lady on a radio program. The gyst of his argument is that what good will leaving Saddam in power do. The lady is unable to answer the question. I think it's funny, but also telling because I know most anti-war protesters couldn't answer the question. The Iraqi states that with Saddam in power Iraqi's are guaranteed to die, but with war a small amount will die initially, but in the end things will work out.
I haven't meet a single protestor who argues that Saddam should be left in power. For me it seems that there is no denying that he is the main issue of the war, despite any possible secondary issues that are good or bad for anyone else. No one that I know wants to argue that kicking Saddam out will be bad. Hence, for me, the strongest pro-war argument is that as the lone superpower, we will be doing more good than bad. I guess the issue up for debate is the means we use to kick him out, but honestly no one truly believes he will leave voluntarily.
Nineteen thousand. People with poor vision, people who received incorrect sample ballots.
Yes, 19,000 ballots were thrown out, but that was because those dumb people punched two holes for president. What kind of person doesn't know that you can't have two choices for president. These people obviously knew that something was wrong. They should have requested another ballot, rather than punch a second hole in the card. You can do that!
What many people don't realize is that the structural integrity of the space shuttle is pretty weak. Guess how many g's the shuttle can take. About 3.5, and during a launch it pushes it up to 3g. That's not a whole lot of room for error. The article stated that as the pin fell it would either strike the external tank (the big orange thing) or the engine covering. Unfortunately it doesn't give any more detail than that, but let's analizye past experiences.
When asked what caused the explosion of the Challenger, about 99 out of 100 would say: o-ring. Well, the o-ring certainly contributed, but really didn't actually cause the failure. The o-ring allowed exhaust gas was able to escape from the solid-rocket-booster and sever one of the support struts. This support then puntured the external tank. This fuel was then ignited by the SRB's (the big white things). This is the part where the external tank exploded. Most would say the shuttle exploded as well. However, the shuttle was merely broken into several chunks and tumbled to the ocean. As we can see if the external tank were punctured it could lead to critical failure.
Case two would have the pin hit the engine covering. This is a bit vague, but it could mean either the OMS/RCS engines or the main engines. The OMS/RCS engines are what the shuttle uses to manuever in space and de-orbit. If the pin were to strike the main engine coverings, it could puncture one of cooling lines. If memory serves correct this happened no to long ago. While on the ground, the leak appeared small. In the aforementioned case the shuttle nearly ran out of fuel. Big deal you say, so what, the engines quit a little early. Well, you're right, it is a big deal as it results in one big boom. If the shuttle were to run out of fuel, or hydrogen in this case the engines would explode.
It's not really that amazing that space vehicles are this fragile. The less structuraly sound they are the less they weigh. This means less thrust or more payload. It turns out to be a pretty good trade-off, but sometimes you lose and get setback by seemingly minor details.
For the most part I agree with you. But what happens in say, a history class. Pretty much everything the professor blurts out is a fact. I'm pretty sure facts can't be copyrighted, unless the prof. adds some sort of cause/effect analysis of his own creation. What happens then? And if the notes were sold, how could a professor prove that they were a derivative of his original work?
I don't know how these note selling sites operate, but what if they sell them generically by topic rather than the specific class they came from. Whether you go to school in California or elsewhere notes on Freud's theories are notes on Freud's theories.
It will probably turn out to be one of those laws that's rarely enforced. If you're interested in fair use/copyright/intellectual property info the University of Texas (no I don't go there) has a decent site with some general rules of them. It can be found here.
Wigs
--If we eliminate intellectual property, then intellectuals will have no property. Where have we seen that before?
I completely agree with you, and understand every point you make. One of the things that I think is ironic about slashdot is the fact that everyone here flames someone when they switch hacker and cracker, but slashdoters do the same thing in every other field. I'm sure there are a few lawyers among us, and every time something about the DMCA or a legal case gets posted they wince at the number of posts that try to interpret the results or give "legal opinions." I know I can't help but scream, "how'd this moron get moded up to +5 Informative", when there's something that I am truly informed and educated about on slashdot. These so called "Informative" posts usually sound like there pointing out facts, but the info is often completely wrong or outdated. Just as we all take other's posts with a grain of salt, so to should we take one with other people's perceptions of the hacker culture.
Wigs
--Ignorance is not to be shunned, only the satisfaction of it.
Umm... 128 kilobytes a second? 256 and 512 kilobytes... I think someone needs to fact check again... As much as I would love 5 meg a second skipping across grain elevators in Iowa, I don't think it's happening anytime soon.
I think the article might have been right. It sounds crazy, but I've seen similar technology with my own eyes. (Not in Iowa though) A small company (com-pair.net) does a similar thing. They set up a couple access points and one main point on top of a mountain. Although I really wasn't paying to much attention, it was definately fast, and it seemed more like kilobytes to me than kilobits. That's what it says on the webpage too (about half-way down). Cool pics of the equipment on that page as well. They also have some pricing and info on what makes it tick here.
As for weather effects that some people had concerns about in other posts, I think they had one problem when it got to hot, but they fixed that. It has to do with defraction, I think, but that's discussion for another article. You can get DSL in the area if you live in town, but most people don't. The phone lines are horrible, with a 24k carrier speed when I'm at home.
The only reason why I don't have this is cause I'm away at college, otherwise I'd settle the debate for sure. Looks like they changed their pricing plan so I could rent the equipment now. I'll have to look into it further next summer...
Wigs
--"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Cecil Adams
It seems that a great many of the slashdoters are un-ware of the profit potential for space. I don't know about what kind of profits Mir could turn, but I do know that our own shuttle could turn a profit.
It is estimated that if a private company owned a space shuttle, it would see profit within the first 18 months of operations. Missions would be launched at a rate of four missions a year.
So why hasn't anyone done this yet? Well, it is rumored that a certain shuttle operating company looked into this possiblity. They even had the funds neccessary to acquire a shuttle. Apparently all went awry because they failed to talk to the right people. When a few key people found they were bypassed, they decided to axe the attempt. Apparantly this is the real reason the CEO is no longer with the company.
Wigs --Support better legislation for the privatization of space. Visit Pro Space today.
Either that, the lack of comments could be due to the fact that it's late on a Friday night. I just got back, but I'm sure a lot of people are still out. I would consider anything having to do with Linux geek news. Perhaps you could suggest some other newsworthy events, or maybe even submit an article of your own that you deem newsworthy.
Not sure if this is just stuff that I've seen in the movies or if it's true to life, but don't these people usually have the things handcuffed to them or something?
I know that the US president has a guy follow him around with a briefcase handcuffed to himself. Supposedly this has to do with our nuclear weapons, but I don't think there has ever been an official statement about what's inside.
I once saw a movie like this too. I think it starred Dolf Lungren(i butchered the spelling there), the Russian from Rocky IV. Anyway he lost the briefcase, and had to save the world and chase down some terrorists in some midwestern missle silo. Wish I could remember the name of the movie.
Wigs --"Only after you've lost everything are you free to do anything"
First off, I'd like to ask you a question. Please answer it honestly. It's not meant to be offensive, it's just something I'd like to know for myself. Email me, reply to this, whatever. Question: Have you ever been outside of Australia?
Secondly, you seem to be looking at the world from a very US centered position, so that you end up either ignoring or literally not seeing all the stuff that _isn't_ about the US - you heard lots of American music while you were in France, but you probably didn't even listen to anything that wasn't American, or very strongly influenced by American music. Likewise with the news, and with the movies you watched, and so forth.
It's not that I'm looking at the world from a very US centered position, in fact I'm on the east coast, and in Florida. That means I'm looking at the world from a south east US position. Okay, enough humor.
I've based my opinions on my observations. These observations have been based on my experiences abroad and around the US. Being at a university which represents over 56 countries I've got a few friends from around the world. In talking with them, I've found that they agree with my points of view. Sure I heard other music while in France. It was okay. My point is, that the French only thought it was okay too. They liked American music much better. (*note: I have to admit, other countries have some damn good food.) I think you were partly correct in your attempted analysis of my statement. America is just waaay better. Why should the rest of the world settle for second rate, when they can just be America-centric?
My other thoughts:
Good use of an example. I had no idea that ISDN wasn't invented in America. I like specific examples, it shows that a poster knows what he's talking about. Although, I don't think ISDN is really a networking technology. I look at it as a means to an end: access to the net. I don't know, maybe it's just my ignorance.
I generally stay away from paraphrasing. The way I see it, a poster usually reads to much into it. Just stick to the quoted text and let others decide what was meant. Or instead of sticking words in others mouths, ask for a clarification. It generally returns more positive results.
As far as getting my head out of my ass... I think I already mentioned this, but again: My ideas are based on observation, conversation, etc. I've traveled a fair amount and been exposed to other cultures. I guess that's not as good as actually being non-American to argue your viewpoints, but then it would not be as good to be Australian to argue mine.
First of all, I can't even believe I'm replying to this. I find your post humorous. Maybe it's just because it's late.
Trolling? Hell No! I was deep sea fishing.
Well, the "facist dictator" part was perhaps a little bit overkill. When I grew up, my parents always told me I had to abide by their rules, because I was in there(told you it was late) house.(No, I'm not blaming my parents, it's just an example.) See, they are like the facist dictators. They might say that, but really it's a free world.
Actually, I'm not brainwashed. I just have my head up my ass. Or at least that's what your other AC friends have said. I've actually visited parts of the world outside the Bible Belt myself. I've been to almost all of the 50 states, including Cambride MA. I live in California, and attend college in Florida. I've been to a few other countries as well. (Not including Mexico and Canada.) I consider myself an educated person, and have formed my opinions based on my observations during my travels.
By all means, pass us. If you think you can get up the speed. America doesn't set the speed limit for the world. There are lots of things that the US hasn't done yet. Despite what your facist dictator will tell you, it's a free world out there.
You - who have been handed everything, has no concept of sharing. Whats worse is you don't seem to see how this selfishness hurts you.
Sharing, so that's what you call taxes over there. And no, I don't see how this selfishness hurts me. For those that are in a generous mood, we have a thing called charity. We value these things called choices. See our government actually lets us choose where our money will go.
Wigs --Whatever happened to Preparations A through G?
but the fact is, the Internet has existed for many a year independent of economics.
Well, I'd have to agree that the Internet hasn't always been based on e-commerce alone. How long has the internet really been around? I mean for most people. Sure it was really invented a long time ago, but for all intents and purposes I don't think it was really around until 1993. And then I think that '96 or '97 has been refered to as the.com year. The internet never really became a big thing until all of these companies started making websites. What were these websites for? To get the companies name out in the public. Once businesses figured out that they could gain exposure. It was a cheap form of mass marketing.
If i use an Australian search engine / portal, like Anzwers, i get loads of Australian content.
Sure. I use other countries search engines all of the time. Well, not all the time, but when if I'm looking for something specific to a country or culture. If that's what your after check out this site. I'm not oblivious to the fact that there are other people in the world. I'm just saying that America rules while everyone else drools. There are lots of things (not just the internet) that many people have. That doesn't mean that they aren't America-centric, or didn't come from America.
The internet doesn't exist so people can throw their money at amazon.com.
Wanna bet? Sure that's not how you and I think of it, but what do the none computer people think. To them the net is just another form of entertainment, and more recently sites of e-commerce like amazon.com. All they do are visit sites they've seen on tv.
Having been a foreign exchange student, I can say that there are a lot of things America-centric in Europe. News, music, movies, to name a few. Sports would be a partial exception, as some don't garner a lot of public attention. I played baseball while in France though. It was really quite popular with the local kids there. They have professional baseball leagues in Japan too. You can't deny that baseball isn't truely American though.
As far as digging a little deeper and thinking outside the sqaure, I wasn't just being specific to the Internet. I think that this goes for a lot of things.
Wigs --Never agree to plastic surgery if the doctor's office is full of paintings by Picasso.
Does America own the net? I don't think any person could successfully argue that any country owns the net. So who does own it? The people who own the net are the people who maintain it. And who are those people? The vast majority of those people are Americans. This isn't limited to people or just maintaining the internet. It pretty much goes for anyone who controls a major site or creates some innovative tool for use with the internet. This isn't just limited to the internet. It branches out to every spectrum of life. It isn't that the internet is America-centric, it's that everything is America-centric.
Most non-American posters whine about the size if Americas ego. In my opinion our ego isn't big at all. Our actual accomplishments far exceed what we brag about. Many complain that Americans have no sense of the other person(in this case person being country). Most only speak one language, don't know much about world history, and for the most part don't care. Why is this? Perhaps we should attempt to go to the cause of the problem instead of focusing on the effects.
The first question to ask is: What makes the world go around? The answer: Economics. Face the facts, the economic center of the world is America. America controls the vast majority of the economy. In recent times the world has seen many smaller countries economies decline, while the US economy has remained strong. The reason? For the most part America is pretty much self-sustaining. As an example: The son of a real estate broker, I can appreciate the value of agriculture. Most of the food in the world is produced in the US, more specifically California (We just have everything here don't we:-)). So, when Europe becomes the center of economics, I will gladly learn French, German, Italian or any other language necessary (Already speak Spanish).
The next thing which forces the world to be world to be America-centric is our level of technological achievment. Our laisse-faire economic system has led to many great break throughs. Are technological presence in all fields has allowed America to be on the cutting edge. As older technologies become obsolete people migrate to the new. This forces the world to focus on America. As e-commerce becomes more popular and as the net culture branches out the net will become less America-centric. But, at the cost of using the same ideals and pricipals that has made the world America-centric.
Wigs --The less a statesman amounts to, the more he loves the flag. -- Kin Hubbard
Most military computers or systems hooked up to the internet with potentially classified stuff on them have something that say:
"OFFICIAL U.S. GOVERNMENT SYSTEM FOR AUTHORIZED USE ONLY. DO NOT DISCUSS, ENTER, TRANSFER, PROCESS OR TRANSMIT CLASSIFIED/SENSITIVE NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION OF GREATER SENSITIVITY THAN THAT FOR WHICH THIS SYSTEM IS AUTHORIZED. USE OF THIS SYSTEM CONSTITUTES CONSENT TO SECURITY TESTING AND MONITORING. UNAUTHORIZED USE COULD RESULT IN CRIMINAL PROSECUTION."
Another thing I think worth mentioning: I've seen a lot of posts that talk about the fact that the military wouldn't talk about it if they did have tanks and such hooked up to the internet. This is probably true for the most part. See most squadrons, wings(in the AF, for the Army it's probably battalions, companys etc.) have this neat guy called the PR officer. Basically any public statements or talking to the press is done/authorized by him/her. There are often things that are initially classified info, then de-classified, but aren't released to the press. No officer/enlisted personel are going to say a word, unless the PR gives it the okay. That's the cool thing. If the PR person doesn't say anything about it, no one outside the military would ever know. I've been fortunate enough to hear some 'confidential information not released to CNN' breifings. They were interesting to say the least. I once even heard about a hack that accomplished the next best thing to taking over a vehicle.
Got 80,000 feet of wire hanging off the back of that F-117?
Actually, anti-tank missles have hung wire off for decades. It allows attack choppers to fire guided missles at targets, with out the need for expensive guidance systems. 80,000 feet sounds like quite abit since that's around 15 miles. I'd bet the amount of wire is more like 20,000 feet.
Besides protecting the pilot's life, the pilot can also do 20G air maneuvers that would kill a human being (9Gs max). The fighter plane could be used to maximum efficiency (unlike now) where the human is the limiting performance factor.
No, not even close.
First, a human being doesn't get killed at 9g's. The spine snaps around 12 for the average person. (It should be noted as an interesting side point, that the human body is capable of accepting higher g amounts but only for instantaneous amounts of time.)
Second, the human is not the limiting performance factor. The payload is. Most of the time an aircraft with any amount of weaponry aboard cannot exceed 550 knots and 5g's. The partial exception to this would be with reference to aircraft that don't carry their payloads externally. They would still be restricted to the 5g limit when carry the payload.
Thirdly(is that even a word?), most aircraft already operate at maximum efficiency, with respect to turn radius and turn rate. The corner(best manuverable) airspeed for most aircraft(all that I know of) is below five-hundred knots. At these airspeeds, the aircraft doesn't even pull 9g's.
Just a voice from the cockpit, Wigs --Flying is the second greatest feeling you can have. The greatest feeling? Landing...landing is the greatest feeling you can have.
Re:What about understanding???
on
Laptop Exams?
·
· Score: 1
I would put up big money on the bet that kids who learn to do calculus on paper are much better at applying their knowledge than kids who learn using calculators.
Yep, I can agree with this one. When I first arrived at school last fall, I just about went out and bought myself a graphing calculator. Then I found out from my physics prof. that we wouldn't be allowed to use them in that class. Instead I just stuck with the handy dandy TI-36x. At the end of the semester I had passed my calculus and physics class with an A.(My other classes were all A's too.) Many of my fellow students asked me how I did so well with only a TI-36. They were barely getting it with their 89's that could do everything but write their names on the test. These were the same students who had taken calculus in high school as well. They had twice as much experience with the subject matter, but I still managed to do at least as well in the course.
Just to let everyone know, there still are professors out there who don't allow the use of laptops, just because everyone doesn't have one. This is true in my C programming class. My calculus professor said he would look into it, but doubted that he would allow laptops, simply because not everyone has one. This from the same guy that encourages and recommends using Maple.
I think there are some cases where laptops are okay to use. Certain subjects lend themselves to this approach more readily than others. I think in the future we will see a movement toward this trend in some courses, while others stick with more traditional methods.
Wigs --Universities are full of knowledge. Incoming freshman bring a little in, and departing seniors don't take any away.
Our space agency has become an outdated dinosaur, capable only of ponderous movement, when it isn't mired in the swamp of bureaucracy.
One problem for NASA is the current demand for it to launch satellites. It's rocket science, which makes it a difficult and expensive mission. Currently NASA's manned vehicle program includes the Space Shuttle. For interplanetary space travel, NASA needs a new vehicle. Unfortunately this just isn't included in the current budgets. The demand for NASA to assist in sattelite launches and other earth bound tasks with the Space Shuttle is big. This costs NASA money, movey that could be spent elsewhere.
Hopefully some of the other companies that have been mentioned(Cerulean, Pioneer, Kistler) will help lift this burden. The other company mentioned, Kelly, is one that I think has the greatest chance for success. Their website demonstrates their towing concept. This has many great advantages over traditional launch methods. For one, the craft can carry a payload approximately 7 times greater than one carried in a rocket. The cost to get that same payload up in the air with the 747 isn't that expensive either. Kelly has realistic goals to be flying their first craft in a few years.(There are three crafts, each becoming progressivly larger.) I only glanced at the website, but I believe it fails to mention that this is a proven concept. They successfully modeled a test and then actually had several test flights. A C-141 towed an F-106. I was fortunate enough to see a video of this. It was pretty impressive.
Wigs --Why do you press harder on a remote-control when you know the battery is dead?
Unfortunately I'm not the person to give you an accurate comparison of the two amounts. I'm pretty sure the Apollo program cost around 1 billion dollars. I'm not sure if that included things like Skylab though, which I'm sure had a big price tag. I have no idea how much it would cost to get to Mars.
However, I can tell you that even with the exponential advance in technology and computing power the cost to go to Mars is surely much greater. It isn't so much new technology that is required to go to Mars, but the vast amount of resources. Mars is a similar size to the Earth. We've all seen what it takes to escape earth's gravity. Imagine having to transport the equivalent of a Saturn V to Mars.(The space shuttle wouldn't be practicle as it only reaches low orbits.) It isn't that I high level of technology would be required to get it there, it's just that it would take a lot of rocket fuel. That rocket fuel translates into money. That would be the real cost in going to Mars.
Wigs --I just got skylights put in my place. The people who live above me are furious.
They will bring the satellites down over the ocean, most likely the Pacific if they can. The last thing they want to do is risk causing damage to something. As unlikely as the possibility of damaging something may be, there are 66 of those things, and 66 chances to screw up.
Why don't they just hand this over to NASA. They seem to be getting pretty good at crashing satellites these days. From what I've read in the news lately, they're actually designing these crashes into the missions now.(Galileo, NEAR)
Wigs . -- " . That's a grain of salt, and it should be taken with this post." -Enrico
No, it's not a missconception and the FTL implies time travel arguement has nothing to do with the way things ``appear.'' Actaully, almost nothing from realitivity talks about the way things appear. Realitivity talks about the way things ARE
I think there is something called length dialation. It says the faster you go, the shorter things appear.(it's mind boggoling to think about whether or not the actually 'are' this way) This makes sense. I think the equation for this is something like (1/y)*L, where y is gamma and L is the original length. It's an interesting thought experiment. Picture a yard stick(i suppose we could make it a meter stick too), horizontal to the ground, pointed away from you. Imagine a frame of reference where the speed of light is slow. Now push the meter stick away from you. As the end close to you leaves, that end appears to move away. But, the light from the far end hasn't reached your eyes yet, and it appears to be in the same spot. Since the close end is getting farther away, and the far end is remaining in the same spot, the yard stick appears to be shorter. So, if you think about applying it to that x+y stuff, it starts to make a little sense. Either it eventually vanishes, or the close end becomes the far end, and appears to arrive at the destination before the original far end.
I think there is even a Hawking quote about "We have not seen any visitors from the future, so there is probable no way to go FTL."
I've also heard that the reason we haven't seen any visitors from the future is because we haven't invented a time machine yet. Some(can't remember who) say that you can't bring something back before it existed. I guess that makes sense. So if this worm-hole generater thing actually works for backwards time travel, then start looking for things arriving from the future.
Another thing i find interesting about traveling at the speed of light:
If one could start from a stop and start accelerating towards the speed of light, time would slow down. The person going the speed of light wouldn't go through as much time as the person standing still. So eventually this person(we'll call him Light Man) reaches the speed of light. Between Light Man and the person standing still, it would appear that all time has stopped(for Light Man) when he goes the speed of light. That's interesting enough to think about, but what else does it say. I saw a good quote the other day: "Everywhere is within walking distance if you've got the time." Well, this guy definately has the time, if none is passing. It is saying that he can go anywhere with out any time having passed. He can in effect be everywhere at the same time. I guess that's something to think about.
Wigs --"As a scientist, I expect statistical proof whenever possible to convince me of most things. But as I continue to mature, I've become more and more impressed by the frequency of statistically highly improbable events. In their very improbability, I began to see the fingerprints of God." --M. Scott Peck, M.D.
It's good to hear that NASA is taking a more critical look at themselves. Over the past few years NASA has definately come under more scrutiny, mostly due to failures. In my opinion, this is definately a good thing.
As more press (be it good or bad) is generated, I think NASA realizes that they are being watched closely. I've talked with people who work with NASA/USA and from what I heard, they never payed as much attention to all the little things. Actually they did, they just didn't see the need to do anything about them.
When things aren't as they should be, the engineers are called in. They give the people in charge a descision on the effects of the problem. Nine times out of ten this will be something that isn't critical. Well, lately more managers are starting to act like politicians.(Yes, you know what I mean.) They've started to put less trust in their engineers opinions and more into their own fears of what could happen to their careers if something should happen.
I don't know about anyone else, but I remember what happened the last time they disregarded an engineers thoughts. (Hint: Challenger) Now obviously the recent descisions aren't nearly as drastic. I just wonder how much more might possibly get done if they just put their trust in the people who actually know what they are doing.
Wigs --We're not making the same mistakes twice. No, we're making all new ones.
Who knows, this may be redundant by now (I didn't read the follow-ups), but here goes.
We had "HEAVY" lift capacity decades ago, not in chemical but in nuclear rockects.
Actually our "HEAVY" lift capacity had a limiting effect on our space programs. This was one reasons why the Soviets kicked our butts in the space race for quite a while. You see, the US just has these kick butt scientists who where able to build outstanding nuclear weapons. In fact, these weapons were much smaller in size than the Soviets(but they carried a much bigger punch). This allowed the rocket scientists(people like me) to not waste as many resources building big rockets. They were able to get the same effect out of smaller rockets, due to a smaller payload.
Unfortunately when it came time for the US to go to space, our rockets weren't powerful enough to get us into orbit. We had to make bigger rockets. The Soviets already had these rockets. In the end our obvious mastery at technological superiority allowed us to put a man on the moon.
The protein 'turns off' particular genes, which means that these genes will not be expressed. The organization of which genes are "turned on" and which ones are "turned off" is vital to human structure.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the federal government of the USA is on the metric system. The American people, being free, use whatever system they please.
God Bless America!!!
I thought this was an interesting radio interview (http://www.spikeyworld.com/politics/pwndhippie.mp 3).
In case it gets /.ed, a brief synopsis:
There is an Iraqi who defected (or something doesn't really say, he's in the US now) who is arguing with a lady on a radio program. The gyst of his argument is that what good will leaving Saddam in power do. The lady is unable to answer the question. I think it's funny, but also telling because I know most anti-war protesters couldn't answer the question. The Iraqi states that with Saddam in power Iraqi's are guaranteed to die, but with war a small amount will die initially, but in the end things will work out.
I haven't meet a single protestor who argues that Saddam should be left in power. For me it seems that there is no denying that he is the main issue of the war, despite any possible secondary issues that are good or bad for anyone else. No one that I know wants to argue that kicking Saddam out will be bad. Hence, for me, the strongest pro-war argument is that as the lone superpower, we will be doing more good than bad. I guess the issue up for debate is the means we use to kick him out, but honestly no one truly believes he will leave voluntarily.
Anyone care to answer the mans simple question?
Yes, 19,000 ballots were thrown out, but that was because those dumb people punched two holes for president. What kind of person doesn't know that you can't have two choices for president. These people obviously knew that something was wrong. They should have requested another ballot, rather than punch a second hole in the card. You can do that!
Wigs
When asked what caused the explosion of the Challenger, about 99 out of 100 would say: o-ring. Well, the o-ring certainly contributed, but really didn't actually cause the failure. The o-ring allowed exhaust gas was able to escape from the solid-rocket-booster and sever one of the support struts. This support then puntured the external tank. This fuel was then ignited by the SRB's (the big white things). This is the part where the external tank exploded. Most would say the shuttle exploded as well. However, the shuttle was merely broken into several chunks and tumbled to the ocean. As we can see if the external tank were punctured it could lead to critical failure.
Case two would have the pin hit the engine covering. This is a bit vague, but it could mean either the OMS/RCS engines or the main engines. The OMS/RCS engines are what the shuttle uses to manuever in space and de-orbit. If the pin were to strike the main engine coverings, it could puncture one of cooling lines. If memory serves correct this happened no to long ago. While on the ground, the leak appeared small. In the aforementioned case the shuttle nearly ran out of fuel. Big deal you say, so what, the engines quit a little early. Well, you're right, it is a big deal as it results in one big boom. If the shuttle were to run out of fuel, or hydrogen in this case the engines would explode.
It's not really that amazing that space vehicles are this fragile. The less structuraly sound they are the less they weigh. This means less thrust or more payload. It turns out to be a pretty good trade-off, but sometimes you lose and get setback by seemingly minor details.
Wigs
I don't know how these note selling sites operate, but what if they sell them generically by topic rather than the specific class they came from. Whether you go to school in California or elsewhere notes on Freud's theories are notes on Freud's theories.
It will probably turn out to be one of those laws that's rarely enforced. If you're interested in fair use/copyright/intellectual property info the University of Texas (no I don't go there) has a decent site with some general rules of them. It can be found here. Wigs
--If we eliminate intellectual property, then intellectuals will have no property. Where have we seen that before?
Wigs
--Ignorance is not to be shunned, only the satisfaction of it.
I think the article might have been right. It sounds crazy, but I've seen similar technology with my own eyes. (Not in Iowa though) A small company (com-pair.net) does a similar thing. They set up a couple access points and one main point on top of a mountain. Although I really wasn't paying to much attention, it was definately fast, and it seemed more like kilobytes to me than kilobits. That's what it says on the webpage too (about half-way down). Cool pics of the equipment on that page as well. They also have some pricing and info on what makes it tick here.
As for weather effects that some people had concerns about in other posts, I think they had one problem when it got to hot, but they fixed that. It has to do with defraction, I think, but that's discussion for another article. You can get DSL in the area if you live in town, but most people don't. The phone lines are horrible, with a 24k carrier speed when I'm at home.
The only reason why I don't have this is cause I'm away at college, otherwise I'd settle the debate for sure. Looks like they changed their pricing plan so I could rent the equipment now. I'll have to look into it further next summer...
Wigs
--"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts." Cecil Adams
It is estimated that if a private company owned a space shuttle, it would see profit within the first 18 months of operations. Missions would be launched at a rate of four missions a year.
So why hasn't anyone done this yet? Well, it is rumored that a certain shuttle operating company looked into this possiblity. They even had the funds neccessary to acquire a shuttle. Apparently all went awry because they failed to talk to the right people. When a few key people found they were bypassed, they decided to axe the attempt. Apparantly this is the real reason the CEO is no longer with the company.
Wigs
--Support better legislation for the privatization of space. Visit Pro Space today.
Wigs .sig press 3.
--To see my
I know that the US president has a guy follow him around with a briefcase handcuffed to himself. Supposedly this has to do with our nuclear weapons, but I don't think there has ever been an official statement about what's inside.
I once saw a movie like this too. I think it starred Dolf Lungren(i butchered the spelling there), the Russian from Rocky IV. Anyway he lost the briefcase, and had to save the world and chase down some terrorists in some midwestern missle silo. Wish I could remember the name of the movie.
Wigs
--"Only after you've lost everything are you free to do anything"
First off, I'd like to ask you a question. Please answer it honestly. It's not meant to be offensive, it's just something I'd like to know for myself. Email me, reply to this, whatever. Question: Have you ever been outside of Australia?
Secondly, you seem to be looking at the world from a very US centered position, so that you end up either ignoring or literally not seeing all the stuff that _isn't_ about the US - you heard lots of American music while you were in France, but you probably didn't even listen to anything that wasn't American, or very strongly influenced by American music. Likewise with the news, and with the movies you watched, and so forth.
It's not that I'm looking at the world from a very US centered position, in fact I'm on the east coast, and in Florida. That means I'm looking at the world from a south east US position. Okay, enough humor.
I've based my opinions on my observations. These observations have been based on my experiences abroad and around the US. Being at a university which represents over 56 countries I've got a few friends from around the world. In talking with them, I've found that they agree with my points of view. Sure I heard other music while in France. It was okay. My point is, that the French only thought it was okay too. They liked American music much better. (*note: I have to admit, other countries have some damn good food.) I think you were partly correct in your attempted analysis of my statement. America is just waaay better. Why should the rest of the world settle for second rate, when they can just be America-centric?
My other thoughts:
Good use of an example. I had no idea that ISDN wasn't invented in America. I like specific examples, it shows that a poster knows what he's talking about. Although, I don't think ISDN is really a networking technology. I look at it as a means to an end: access to the net. I don't know, maybe it's just my ignorance.
I generally stay away from paraphrasing. The way I see it, a poster usually reads to much into it. Just stick to the quoted text and let others decide what was meant. Or instead of sticking words in others mouths, ask for a clarification. It generally returns more positive results.
As far as getting my head out of my ass... I think I already mentioned this, but again: My ideas are based on observation, conversation, etc. I've traveled a fair amount and been exposed to other cultures. I guess that's not as good as actually being non-American to argue your viewpoints, but then it would not be as good to be Australian to argue mine.
Wigs
Trolling? Hell No! I was deep sea fishing.
Well, the "facist dictator" part was perhaps a little bit overkill. When I grew up, my parents always told me I had to abide by their rules, because I was in there(told you it was late) house.(No, I'm not blaming my parents, it's just an example.) See, they are like the facist dictators. They might say that, but really it's a free world.
Actually, I'm not brainwashed. I just have my head up my ass. Or at least that's what your other AC friends have said. I've actually visited parts of the world outside the Bible Belt myself. I've been to almost all of the 50 states, including Cambride MA. I live in California, and attend college in Florida. I've been to a few other countries as well. (Not including Mexico and Canada.) I consider myself an educated person, and have formed my opinions based on my observations during my travels.
Wigs
By all means, pass us. If you think you can get up the speed. America doesn't set the speed limit for the world. There are lots of things that the US hasn't done yet. Despite what your facist dictator will tell you, it's a free world out there.
You - who have been handed everything, has no concept of sharing. Whats worse is you don't seem to see how this selfishness hurts you.
Sharing, so that's what you call taxes over there. And no, I don't see how this selfishness hurts me. For those that are in a generous mood, we have a thing called charity. We value these things called choices. See our government actually lets us choose where our money will go.
Wigs
--Whatever happened to Preparations A through G?
Well, I'd have to agree that the Internet hasn't always been based on e-commerce alone. How long has the internet really been around? I mean for most people. Sure it was really invented a long time ago, but for all intents and purposes I don't think it was really around until 1993. And then I think that '96 or '97 has been refered to as the .com year. The internet never really became a big thing until all of these companies started making websites. What were these websites for? To get the companies name out in the public. Once businesses figured out that they could gain exposure. It was a cheap form of mass marketing.
If i use an Australian search engine / portal, like Anzwers, i get loads of Australian content.
Sure. I use other countries search engines all of the time. Well, not all the time, but when if I'm looking for something specific to a country or culture. If that's what your after check out this site. I'm not oblivious to the fact that there are other people in the world. I'm just saying that America rules while everyone else drools. There are lots of things (not just the internet) that many people have. That doesn't mean that they aren't America-centric, or didn't come from America.
The internet doesn't exist so people can throw their money at amazon.com.
Wanna bet? Sure that's not how you and I think of it, but what do the none computer people think. To them the net is just another form of entertainment, and more recently sites of e-commerce like amazon.com. All they do are visit sites they've seen on tv.
Having been a foreign exchange student, I can say that there are a lot of things America-centric in Europe. News, music, movies, to name a few. Sports would be a partial exception, as some don't garner a lot of public attention. I played baseball while in France though. It was really quite popular with the local kids there. They have professional baseball leagues in Japan too. You can't deny that baseball isn't truely American though.
As far as digging a little deeper and thinking outside the sqaure, I wasn't just being specific to the Internet. I think that this goes for a lot of things.
Wigs
--Never agree to plastic surgery if the doctor's office is full of paintings by Picasso.
Most non-American posters whine about the size if Americas ego. In my opinion our ego isn't big at all. Our actual accomplishments far exceed what we brag about. Many complain that Americans have no sense of the other person(in this case person being country). Most only speak one language, don't know much about world history, and for the most part don't care. Why is this? Perhaps we should attempt to go to the cause of the problem instead of focusing on the effects.
The first question to ask is: What makes the world go around? The answer: Economics. Face the facts, the economic center of the world is America. America controls the vast majority of the economy. In recent times the world has seen many smaller countries economies decline, while the US economy has remained strong. The reason? For the most part America is pretty much self-sustaining. As an example: The son of a real estate broker, I can appreciate the value of agriculture. Most of the food in the world is produced in the US, more specifically California (We just have everything here don't we :-)). So, when Europe becomes the center of economics, I will gladly learn French, German, Italian or any other language necessary (Already speak Spanish).
The next thing which forces the world to be world to be America-centric is our level of technological achievment. Our laisse-faire economic system has led to many great break throughs. Are technological presence in all fields has allowed America to be on the cutting edge. As older technologies become obsolete people migrate to the new. This forces the world to focus on America. As e-commerce becomes more popular and as the net culture branches out the net will become less America-centric. But, at the cost of using the same ideals and pricipals that has made the world America-centric.
Wigs
--The less a statesman amounts to, the more he loves the flag. -- Kin Hubbard
Another thing I think worth mentioning:
I've seen a lot of posts that talk about the fact that the military wouldn't talk about it if they did have tanks and such hooked up to the internet. This is probably true for the most part. See most squadrons, wings(in the AF, for the Army it's probably battalions, companys etc.) have this neat guy called the PR officer. Basically any public statements or talking to the press is done/authorized by him/her. There are often things that are initially classified info, then de-classified, but aren't released to the press. No officer/enlisted personel are going to say a word, unless the PR gives it the okay. That's the cool thing. If the PR person doesn't say anything about it, no one outside the military would ever know. I've been fortunate enough to hear some 'confidential information not released to CNN' breifings. They were interesting to say the least. I once even heard about a hack that accomplished the next best thing to taking over a vehicle.
Wigs
Actually, anti-tank missles have hung wire off for decades. It allows attack choppers to fire guided missles at targets, with out the need for expensive guidance systems. 80,000 feet sounds like quite abit since that's around 15 miles. I'd bet the amount of wire is more like 20,000 feet.
Besides protecting the pilot's life, the pilot can also do 20G air maneuvers that would kill a human being (9Gs max). The fighter plane could be used to maximum efficiency (unlike now) where the human is the limiting performance factor.
No, not even close.
Just a voice from the cockpit,
Wigs
--Flying is the second greatest feeling you can have. The greatest feeling? Landing...landing is the greatest feeling you can have.
Yep, I can agree with this one. When I first arrived at school last fall, I just about went out and bought myself a graphing calculator. Then I found out from my physics prof. that we wouldn't be allowed to use them in that class. Instead I just stuck with the handy dandy TI-36x. At the end of the semester I had passed my calculus and physics class with an A.(My other classes were all A's too.) Many of my fellow students asked me how I did so well with only a TI-36. They were barely getting it with their 89's that could do everything but write their names on the test. These were the same students who had taken calculus in high school as well. They had twice as much experience with the subject matter, but I still managed to do at least as well in the course.
Just to let everyone know, there still are professors out there who don't allow the use of laptops, just because everyone doesn't have one. This is true in my C programming class. My calculus professor said he would look into it, but doubted that he would allow laptops, simply because not everyone has one. This from the same guy that encourages and recommends using Maple.
I think there are some cases where laptops are okay to use. Certain subjects lend themselves to this approach more readily than others. I think in the future we will see a movement toward this trend in some courses, while others stick with more traditional methods.
Wigs
--Universities are full of knowledge. Incoming freshman bring a little in, and departing seniors don't take any away.
One problem for NASA is the current demand for it to launch satellites. It's rocket science, which makes it a difficult and expensive mission. Currently NASA's manned vehicle program includes the Space Shuttle. For interplanetary space travel, NASA needs a new vehicle. Unfortunately this just isn't included in the current budgets. The demand for NASA to assist in sattelite launches and other earth bound tasks with the Space Shuttle is big. This costs NASA money, movey that could be spent elsewhere.
Hopefully some of the other companies that have been mentioned(Cerulean, Pioneer, Kistler) will help lift this burden. The other company mentioned, Kelly, is one that I think has the greatest chance for success. Their website demonstrates their towing concept. This has many great advantages over traditional launch methods. For one, the craft can carry a payload approximately 7 times greater than one carried in a rocket. The cost to get that same payload up in the air with the 747 isn't that expensive either. Kelly has realistic goals to be flying their first craft in a few years.(There are three crafts, each becoming progressivly larger.) I only glanced at the website, but I believe it fails to mention that this is a proven concept. They successfully modeled a test and then actually had several test flights. A C-141 towed an F-106. I was fortunate enough to see a video of this. It was pretty impressive.
Wigs
--Why do you press harder on a remote-control when you know the battery is dead?
However, I can tell you that even with the exponential advance in technology and computing power the cost to go to Mars is surely much greater. It isn't so much new technology that is required to go to Mars, but the vast amount of resources. Mars is a similar size to the Earth. We've all seen what it takes to escape earth's gravity. Imagine having to transport the equivalent of a Saturn V to Mars.(The space shuttle wouldn't be practicle as it only reaches low orbits.) It isn't that I high level of technology would be required to get it there, it's just that it would take a lot of rocket fuel. That rocket fuel translates into money. That would be the real cost in going to Mars.
Wigs
--I just got skylights put in my place. The people who live above me are furious.
Why don't they just hand this over to NASA. They seem to be getting pretty good at crashing satellites these days. From what I've read in the news lately, they're actually designing these crashes into the missions now.(Galileo, NEAR)
Wigs
. -- " . That's a grain of salt, and it should be taken with this post." -Enrico
I think there is something called length dialation. It says the faster you go, the shorter things appear.(it's mind boggoling to think about whether or not the actually 'are' this way) This makes sense. I think the equation for this is something like (1/y)*L, where y is gamma and L is the original length. It's an interesting thought experiment. Picture a yard stick(i suppose we could make it a meter stick too), horizontal to the ground, pointed away from you. Imagine a frame of reference where the speed of light is slow. Now push the meter stick away from you. As the end close to you leaves, that end appears to move away. But, the light from the far end hasn't reached your eyes yet, and it appears to be in the same spot. Since the close end is getting farther away, and the far end is remaining in the same spot, the yard stick appears to be shorter. So, if you think about applying it to that x+y stuff, it starts to make a little sense. Either it eventually vanishes, or the close end becomes the far end, and appears to arrive at the destination before the original far end.
I think there is even a Hawking quote about "We have not seen any visitors from the future, so there is probable no way to go FTL."
I've also heard that the reason we haven't seen any visitors from the future is because we haven't invented a time machine yet. Some(can't remember who) say that you can't bring something back before it existed. I guess that makes sense. So if this worm-hole generater thing actually works for backwards time travel, then start looking for things arriving from the future.
Another thing i find interesting about traveling at the speed of light:
If one could start from a stop and start accelerating towards the speed of light, time would slow down. The person going the speed of light wouldn't go through as much time as the person standing still. So eventually this person(we'll call him Light Man) reaches the speed of light. Between Light Man and the person standing still, it would appear that all time has stopped(for Light Man) when he goes the speed of light. That's interesting enough to think about, but what else does it say. I saw a good quote the other day: "Everywhere is within walking distance if you've got the time." Well, this guy definately has the time, if none is passing. It is saying that he can go anywhere with out any time having passed. He can in effect be everywhere at the same time. I guess that's something to think about.
Wigs
--"As a scientist, I expect statistical proof whenever possible to convince me of most things. But as I continue to mature, I've become more and more impressed by the frequency of statistically highly improbable events. In their very improbability, I began to see the fingerprints of God." --M. Scott Peck, M.D.
As more press (be it good or bad) is generated, I think NASA realizes that they are being watched closely. I've talked with people who work with NASA/USA and from what I heard, they never payed as much attention to all the little things. Actually they did, they just didn't see the need to do anything about them.
When things aren't as they should be, the engineers are called in. They give the people in charge a descision on the effects of the problem. Nine times out of ten this will be something that isn't critical. Well, lately more managers are starting to act like politicians.(Yes, you know what I mean.) They've started to put less trust in their engineers opinions and more into their own fears of what could happen to their careers if something should happen.
I don't know about anyone else, but I remember what happened the last time they disregarded an engineers thoughts. (Hint: Challenger) Now obviously the recent descisions aren't nearly as drastic. I just wonder how much more might possibly get done if they just put their trust in the people who actually know what they are doing.
Wigs
--We're not making the same mistakes twice. No, we're making all new ones.
We had "HEAVY" lift capacity decades ago, not in chemical but in nuclear rockects.
Actually our "HEAVY" lift capacity had a limiting effect on our space programs. This was one reasons why the Soviets kicked our butts in the space race for quite a while. You see, the US just has these kick butt scientists who where able to build outstanding nuclear weapons. In fact, these weapons were much smaller in size than the Soviets(but they carried a much bigger punch). This allowed the rocket scientists(people like me) to not waste as many resources building big rockets. They were able to get the same effect out of smaller rockets, due to a smaller payload.
Unfortunately when it came time for the US to go to space, our rockets weren't powerful enough to get us into orbit. We had to make bigger rockets. The Soviets already had these rockets. In the end our obvious mastery at technological superiority allowed us to put a man on the moon.
Wigs
Okay, so this would be like an anit-viagra?
Wigs
--I'm hungry, time to eat lunch.