If you've never seen NASA TV, and just want it because you think it would be cool, let me tell you: it is NOT cool. Every time I've tried to watch something on there, they've done a miserable, fucked up job of it. I've seen interviews where the interviewer's questions can't be heard (and the interviewee does not restate them, so the answers would be something like "yes, you're right, except a bit more so." A bit more what?). I tried to watch the Galileo sendoff, but all they showed was several hours of static "please stand by" screens punctuated by the occasional 2 minute speech. I heard the footage from the control room for the Spirit rover landing was muted entirely.
If you're interested in NASA, best to just download the occasional webcast, or watch the highlights on your nightly news. NASA TV is totally incapable of putting together programming worth watching.
Historically good things seem to happen when we have competition.
And what are you basing this on? The 90's were one of the most explosive decades in American history for economic growth. Competition may be good for government programs like space flight, but I don't think the presence or lack of other superpowers has anything to do with how fast the economy grows (indeed, it just seems to fuel paranoid protectionist rhetoric, such as the anti-Japanese sentiment of the 80's)
Jesus Christ, someone set us up the bomb. Please, for God's sake, tell me you're not a native English speaker. There's at least a half dozen words in there that I think you just made up.
Actually, that was kind of my point, that it's not a war in any meaningful sense of the word. It's just murder. It is not an effective means of securing political aims, like war can be.
Sorry, I used to think that was a reasonable stance to take, but I've reconsidered. The difference is that terrorists have NO CENTRALIZED AUTHORITY. No one can be negotiated with. What could Israel do to make the terrorist attacks stop? Nothing. They could create an independent Palestinian state, and that might make some would-be terrorists reconsider, but there are others who hate Israel merely for existing, and would continue the attacks anyway.
With terrorist groups, there's no way to parlay, no way to set peace conditions. In the Civil War, when Robert E. Lee surrendered, the war was OVER. In the Revolutionary War, when the British pulled out, it was also over (at least until the British started enslaving American sailors to fight Napoleon, sparking the War of 1812). With terrorists, there's no victory or defeat, only eternal terror for both sides.
Well, I would guess that the HD is accumulating damage as time goes on, head crashes and the like. Have you checked how many bad sectors you have lately?
Also, 4 months really isn't that long, report back in a year.
The articles in question regarding SCO are highly insightful and inflamatory, going as far as calling all Linux users hippies and fanatics, and alluding that Linus, et al, are commies and such.
Wait, I'm confused. Insightful and inflammatory? So you're saying the article upset you, but it made good points about Linux users being hippies and fanatics? What are you trying to say here?
Analyzing meteorites from Mars in an Earthside laboratory is a hell of a lot cheaper than sending a probe to Mars. I believe this was obvious from the context.
Yes, all terrestrial planets in the solar system (excpet Venus, which appears to undergo periodic resurfacing, erasing old impact craters) show evidence of a period of extremely heavy bombardment in their early histories, about 3 billion years ago. This is why the lunar highlands are so much more heavily cratered than the mare (lava floodplains formed sometime after the heavy bombardment period). If you've got pictures of the moon handy, the "dark side" is primarily the heavily cratered highlands, while the side that faces us has more mare.
Now, I'm not saying that the rovers aren't doing good, important geological science. However, the range of tests that can be done on a rock in an Earth-based laboratory totally dwarfs anything on either rover. Plus, it's a hell of a lot cheaper.
I haven't read any Forbes coverage of SCO, but suffice it to say that Forbes is woefully incompetent when it comes to understanding technological issues. If they voice support for SCO, I'm sure it's because they've been tricked (like a large portion of the investing public) into thinking SCO is right, and Linus/IBM really did steal their code.
I had a subscription a while back, which I let lapse for a variety of reasons, but Forbes as a whole most certainly does NOT take the position that anything profitable is good. Forbes was the first source I read about corporations who draft laws (like building codes) and then use copyright law to charge the public for access. Forbes was highly critical of the practice. Every second or third issue there'll usually be a profile of some kind of scam artist who's got a new (likely fraudulent) business.
I agree with the submitter, Forbes standing up for a junk fax company seems quite contradictory to their usual position. Forbes is decidedly against the "nanny state," preferring to believe that people ought to be able to educate themselves and make informed consumer choices. Forbes is generally not in favor of outright fraud or theft (which is what junk faxes are).
No, I think we're just suggesting that we can't REALLY be certain that dust has been collected (and that contamination has been avoided) until we get the probe back to Earth.
First of all, I should mention that I wish the MA court had not done this. By striking down gay marriage on constitutional grounds, they are making it likely that the state will add an anti gay marriage ammendment to the state constitution. This will be much harder to reverse in the future than a simple law passed by legislature.
That being said, the court was by no means legislating. A law existed which granted the LEGAL STATUS of marriage solely to a pairing of a man and a woman. The court found that this violated equal protection provisions in the state constitution. The real idiots in this whole thing are the people who made marriage a legal institution in the first place (with implications for taxation, immigration, insurance, and so forth), it should have remained nothing more than a civil contract. If an institution exists which confers special advantages to certain people but not to others, then it is going to be found unconstitutional by the courts.
The penalty really only appears when the two spouses earn about the same income.
Yes, this is key. If you think about it for a minute, you will realize that there is no way to craft a progressive income tax system which does not create an incentive or penalty for marriage for one of these two couples:
One person makes $80,000 per year, the other stays home and earns no money.
Both people work and each make $40,000 per year.
So the government tries to do a best guess approximation of what will provide little net benefit or penalty to married couples on the whole. Obviously if you fall on the side where you are penalized, no one's forcing you to get married. You must believe that marriage has some other benefit which compensates you.
One other benefit of marriage: immigration. There is a gay man at the Cato Institute who has a boyfriend in Europe (England, I believe, though I don't remember for certain). INS is giving them a hard time. If they were a heterosexual couple, they could get married, and avoid this entirely. Being gay, they cannot, and have to go through all the red tape and paperwork of any other immigrant. Of course, an even better solution would be to allow free movement between countries, but that is neither here nor there.
Will, what the hell is your problem? Look, I know you're upset about the fact that my girlfriend has chosen to stay with me, rather than dating you. However, spending all your mod points every time you get them to give me 5 "overrated" mods is just petty. Get over it, move on, there are other girls out there. We all have to deal with disappointment in our lives.
Re:How will H usage affect this?
on
Global Dimming
·
· Score: 0
I'd assume we'd get the hydrogen from liquid water, right? So we're using electricity to effectively increase the rate of evaporation, taking more water out of the oceans, and putting it into the atmoshpere. One would expect that this would increase cloud cover, which would in turn decrease sunlight further.
Unless you can think of an efficient way to extract hydrogen from water vapor in the atmosphere?
I don't know the name of the first doctor to perform any number of amazingly useful surgeries.
But do you understand the general process of medical development? Do you know, for example, when penicillin was introduced, or when the germ theory of disease was advanced? Do you know that prior to the 20th century, wounds routinely required amputation, performed without anesthetic? I'm not talking about day, month and year of discoveries, but more about general time frame. If your answer for penicillin is "sometime in the first half of the 1900's, before WWII," that's perfectly fine. If your answer is "I don't know, maybe 1700 or so?" then yes, I believe you are poorly educated.
Many facts are required for a proper perspective on the world. Details, such as inventor's names, are not necessarily important, but part of being a well educated person is having a general understanding of fields beyond your specific interests. It's not enough to simply look up facts as necessary. Indeed, in the above example of penicillin, it is meaningful to know not only that penicillin was introduced in the first half of the 20th century, but moreover that it was available during the Second World War, which in turn implies that you have a general idea of when that took place. I don't care if you think military history is boring and stupid, if you don't know the approximate dates of WWII, you are not going to be able to understand the importance of events that took place around it.
Huh, I never really thought about it, but now that you mention it, what else was it useful for? I don't think it was significantly useful for transportation, shipping, or any other peaceful purpose until after the advances made during WWI (the World Wars, of course, are pivotal points in the development of aircraft). So in 1905, Wilbur was probably right, that probably was the only conceivable use of the aircraft at the time, recon. I'm sure Wilbur did NOT mean it was useful for killing people, early military aircraft were simply used for scouting around behind enemy lines. Even once they did start getting guns mounted on them, the offensive usefulness was still rather limited, it was more a matter of disruption of supply lines.
Good call, I read The Wealth of Nations in 12th grade. It is excellent. If you like it, I also recommend anything by Milton Friedman, and The Road to Serfdom, by F.A. Hayek.
I see, and how much coffee is one pill equivalent to?
As an aside, I prefer Penguin Mints. Approximately 14 mg each (3 mints = 1 can of Coke), so you get a much lower dose, but they're also some of the tastiest mints I've ever had, so I'd probably buy them even without the caffeine.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're interested in NASA, best to just download the occasional webcast, or watch the highlights on your nightly news. NASA TV is totally incapable of putting together programming worth watching.
And what are you basing this on? The 90's were one of the most explosive decades in American history for economic growth. Competition may be good for government programs like space flight, but I don't think the presence or lack of other superpowers has anything to do with how fast the economy grows (indeed, it just seems to fuel paranoid protectionist rhetoric, such as the anti-Japanese sentiment of the 80's)
Jesus Christ, someone set us up the bomb. Please, for God's sake, tell me you're not a native English speaker. There's at least a half dozen words in there that I think you just made up.
With encryption I doubt that'd be a realistic concern. Probably the bigger worry would be jamming.
Amen. As long as we're on the subject, I recommend that anyone in need of a good laugh take a look at Baby's Named a Bad, Bad Thing.
Actually, that was kind of my point, that it's not a war in any meaningful sense of the word. It's just murder. It is not an effective means of securing political aims, like war can be.
With terrorist groups, there's no way to parlay, no way to set peace conditions. In the Civil War, when Robert E. Lee surrendered, the war was OVER. In the Revolutionary War, when the British pulled out, it was also over (at least until the British started enslaving American sailors to fight Napoleon, sparking the War of 1812). With terrorists, there's no victory or defeat, only eternal terror for both sides.
Well, I would guess that the HD is accumulating damage as time goes on, head crashes and the like. Have you checked how many bad sectors you have lately?
Also, 4 months really isn't that long, report back in a year.
Wait, I'm confused. Insightful and inflammatory? So you're saying the article upset you, but it made good points about Linux users being hippies and fanatics? What are you trying to say here?
Analyzing meteorites from Mars in an Earthside laboratory is a hell of a lot cheaper than sending a probe to Mars. I believe this was obvious from the context.
Yes, all terrestrial planets in the solar system (excpet Venus, which appears to undergo periodic resurfacing, erasing old impact craters) show evidence of a period of extremely heavy bombardment in their early histories, about 3 billion years ago. This is why the lunar highlands are so much more heavily cratered than the mare (lava floodplains formed sometime after the heavy bombardment period). If you've got pictures of the moon handy, the "dark side" is primarily the heavily cratered highlands, while the side that faces us has more mare.
Now, I'm not saying that the rovers aren't doing good, important geological science. However, the range of tests that can be done on a rock in an Earth-based laboratory totally dwarfs anything on either rover. Plus, it's a hell of a lot cheaper.
I haven't read any Forbes coverage of SCO, but suffice it to say that Forbes is woefully incompetent when it comes to understanding technological issues. If they voice support for SCO, I'm sure it's because they've been tricked (like a large portion of the investing public) into thinking SCO is right, and Linus/IBM really did steal their code.
I agree with the submitter, Forbes standing up for a junk fax company seems quite contradictory to their usual position. Forbes is decidedly against the "nanny state," preferring to believe that people ought to be able to educate themselves and make informed consumer choices. Forbes is generally not in favor of outright fraud or theft (which is what junk faxes are).
Wouldn't that be "one step below k-mart?" I mean, L comes after K...
No, I think we're just suggesting that we can't REALLY be certain that dust has been collected (and that contamination has been avoided) until we get the probe back to Earth.
That being said, the court was by no means legislating. A law existed which granted the LEGAL STATUS of marriage solely to a pairing of a man and a woman. The court found that this violated equal protection provisions in the state constitution. The real idiots in this whole thing are the people who made marriage a legal institution in the first place (with implications for taxation, immigration, insurance, and so forth), it should have remained nothing more than a civil contract. If an institution exists which confers special advantages to certain people but not to others, then it is going to be found unconstitutional by the courts.
Yes, this is key. If you think about it for a minute, you will realize that there is no way to craft a progressive income tax system which does not create an incentive or penalty for marriage for one of these two couples:
One person makes $80,000 per year, the other stays home and earns no money.
Both people work and each make $40,000 per year.
So the government tries to do a best guess approximation of what will provide little net benefit or penalty to married couples on the whole. Obviously if you fall on the side where you are penalized, no one's forcing you to get married. You must believe that marriage has some other benefit which compensates you.
One other benefit of marriage: immigration. There is a gay man at the Cato Institute who has a boyfriend in Europe (England, I believe, though I don't remember for certain). INS is giving them a hard time. If they were a heterosexual couple, they could get married, and avoid this entirely. Being gay, they cannot, and have to go through all the red tape and paperwork of any other immigrant. Of course, an even better solution would be to allow free movement between countries, but that is neither here nor there.
Will, what the hell is your problem? Look, I know you're upset about the fact that my girlfriend has chosen to stay with me, rather than dating you. However, spending all your mod points every time you get them to give me 5 "overrated" mods is just petty. Get over it, move on, there are other girls out there. We all have to deal with disappointment in our lives.
Unless you can think of an efficient way to extract hydrogen from water vapor in the atmosphere?
But do you understand the general process of medical development? Do you know, for example, when penicillin was introduced, or when the germ theory of disease was advanced? Do you know that prior to the 20th century, wounds routinely required amputation, performed without anesthetic? I'm not talking about day, month and year of discoveries, but more about general time frame. If your answer for penicillin is "sometime in the first half of the 1900's, before WWII," that's perfectly fine. If your answer is "I don't know, maybe 1700 or so?" then yes, I believe you are poorly educated.
Many facts are required for a proper perspective on the world. Details, such as inventor's names, are not necessarily important, but part of being a well educated person is having a general understanding of fields beyond your specific interests. It's not enough to simply look up facts as necessary. Indeed, in the above example of penicillin, it is meaningful to know not only that penicillin was introduced in the first half of the 20th century, but moreover that it was available during the Second World War, which in turn implies that you have a general idea of when that took place. I don't care if you think military history is boring and stupid, if you don't know the approximate dates of WWII, you are not going to be able to understand the importance of events that took place around it.
Huh, I never really thought about it, but now that you mention it, what else was it useful for? I don't think it was significantly useful for transportation, shipping, or any other peaceful purpose until after the advances made during WWI (the World Wars, of course, are pivotal points in the development of aircraft). So in 1905, Wilbur was probably right, that probably was the only conceivable use of the aircraft at the time, recon. I'm sure Wilbur did NOT mean it was useful for killing people, early military aircraft were simply used for scouting around behind enemy lines. Even once they did start getting guns mounted on them, the offensive usefulness was still rather limited, it was more a matter of disruption of supply lines.
I'm more concerned with his plan to detonate explosives under the craft for propulsion...
Good call, I read The Wealth of Nations in 12th grade. It is excellent. If you like it, I also recommend anything by Milton Friedman, and The Road to Serfdom, by F.A. Hayek.
I see, and how much coffee is one pill equivalent to?
As an aside, I prefer Penguin Mints. Approximately 14 mg each (3 mints = 1 can of Coke), so you get a much lower dose, but they're also some of the tastiest mints I've ever had, so I'd probably buy them even without the caffeine.