The Space Shuttle, for example, wasn't very safe:
- no crew escape system for most of the flight
- very complex (and expensive) heat protection system, the one that failed and led to the Columbia disaster
- orbiter mounted on the side of a rocket, making the complex heat protection system be vulnerable to debris (again, Columbia)
- gigantic solid rocket boosters that cannot be shut down once ignited
The planned crew-carrying Dragon capsule from SpaceX has an escape system that can be used at any point during the launch. So what you say about commercial vs state security concerns is incorrect.
Besides, training an astronaut is very expensive, you definitely don't want them killed.
All of today's rockets are bolted to the launch floor. Even with full thrust the rocket cannot take off until the bolt are cut. These are called pyrobolts because they have explosive which is used to sever the bolts.
The Space Shuttle could still launch even if the pyrobolts were never severed.
Sure, there are cheaper monitors. Dell's 24" is ~$550. Check http://www.anandtech.com/tag/displays, the have great monitor articles for more high resolution IPS or S-IPS monitors.
Why do you suppose it doesn't have redundancy or failback mechanisms? For example, it has SIX wheels. The Spirit rover could still work (and did) with only four wheels. Also, the whole rover is a complex laboratory capable of doing many experiments. If one of them fails, it can still do science with the others. Adding a secondary mast, computer, etc, adds weight besides redundancy.
Dude, this was not censorship. The blocked websites had private emails from private email accounts of government officials, journalists, celebrities, detailing such things as income (public for a government official, not for a journalist or celebrity), when they pickup the kids at school, etc. This is a clear violation of a citizens privacy, the equivalent of intercepting paper correspondance and publish it in a newspaper. Luckily in Argentina, and many other countries in the world, this is forbidden.
More than enough. The US should be ashamed, fuck, really ashamed, at the fact. And all you can say is that the US "just" used two.
We gained a lot of knowledge after using them and one of the things we learned is how horrific they are.
Bullshit, the US didn't didn't use any more nukes because the URSS had nukes too.
What would you rather us do, bomb them?
Well, you ALREADY bomb countries, I don't think I need to give examples, present and past. And what would those interests be?
How else are we going to convince countries not to pursue something against our interest?
And what would those interests be? Please, mention them explicitly, instead of just bombing the fuck of any country you want and excuse yourselves with WMDs and terrorism. Wait, no, even better, keep your "interests" in your own country and let Iran mind for themselves.
But you know, the minute we stop providing cash, then these governments are going to start complaining to their citizens how evil we are for not giving support.
Mention those governments, please. And also note that giving cash is not the same as a trade embargo. And also note that giving cash to buy weapons the US produces is not helping.
I'm sure it must be nice to have this view where the US is this evil entity and the rest of the world is perfect, but in reality every government sucks.
Yes, many governments suck, but the US is the one that is always at war. So yeah, the US is pretty evil.
Unless your job is designing large shapeless soft foam objects, you're always going to risk someone using your creation to hurt someone else, and at each point along the continuum from plastic bag designer to nuclear weapon designer, at least a few people are going to say they're not comfortable with doing that, and at least a few people are going to say they are.
Oh please, weapons are built with the purpose of hurting, or forcing someone do something you want (under threat of hurting him). Cars and garbage bags have many other uses besides killing.
They maximize their value for their shareholders. Since they have so much money, they have so much power. I don't understand why people oppose big governments but don't have problems with big corporations. They are the same kind of authoritarian entities, but at least you can elect officials for a government.
Change the laws regarding corporations.
Yes, the device is supposedly rechargeable and new content can be uploaded, but why would you make the effort to upload ads? How is this better than reading the same info on the internet, on a bigger screen and better interactivity? Whit will surely end in a landfill. How fucking wasteful.
Another detail about the US support to the Contras. Nicaragua took the case to the International Court of Justice, and won http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States/. The US then vetoed any resolution int the UN Security Council trying to enforce the ICJ resolution.
It's funny how free-market advocates call for no government intervention in the economy. It's ok for it to take risks and invest (with taxpayer money), just keep away from the rewards, those will remain private.
Communism is not the ONLY alternative to capitalism. So don't use a false dichotomy to defend capitalism.
It always surprises me how many people defend big corporations, maybe they think sometime they will get to own one. Statistically, it won't happen for everyone.
Slashdot Mirror
Capitalism is about accumulating capital. You can produce things, rent things, trade stocks, whatever.
The Space Shuttle, for example, wasn't very safe: - no crew escape system for most of the flight - very complex (and expensive) heat protection system, the one that failed and led to the Columbia disaster - orbiter mounted on the side of a rocket, making the complex heat protection system be vulnerable to debris (again, Columbia) - gigantic solid rocket boosters that cannot be shut down once ignited The planned crew-carrying Dragon capsule from SpaceX has an escape system that can be used at any point during the launch. So what you say about commercial vs state security concerns is incorrect. Besides, training an astronaut is very expensive, you definitely don't want them killed.
All of today's rockets are bolted to the launch floor. Even with full thrust the rocket cannot take off until the bolt are cut. These are called pyrobolts because they have explosive which is used to sever the bolts.
The Space Shuttle could still launch even if the pyrobolts were never severed.
Sure, there are cheaper monitors. Dell's 24" is ~$550. Check http://www.anandtech.com/tag/displays, the have great monitor articles for more high resolution IPS or S-IPS monitors.
You can still buy 27" monitors with good resolution. Check the Dell U2711, or the Apple LED monitor.
Why do you suppose it doesn't have redundancy or failback mechanisms? For example, it has SIX wheels. The Spirit rover could still work (and did) with only four wheels. Also, the whole rover is a complex laboratory capable of doing many experiments. If one of them fails, it can still do science with the others. Adding a secondary mast, computer, etc, adds weight besides redundancy.
Dude, this was not censorship. The blocked websites had private emails from private email accounts of government officials, journalists, celebrities, detailing such things as income (public for a government official, not for a journalist or celebrity), when they pickup the kids at school, etc. This is a clear violation of a citizens privacy, the equivalent of intercepting paper correspondance and publish it in a newspaper. Luckily in Argentina, and many other countries in the world, this is forbidden.
You need a border around the mutitouch surface so you can grab the device. Otherwise your thumb would be generating touch events all the time.
Dude, government officials belong to the "rich people" group. They're the same!
We used two, "Fat man" and "Little Boy".
More than enough. The US should be ashamed, fuck, really ashamed, at the fact. And all you can say is that the US "just" used two.
We gained a lot of knowledge after using them and one of the things we learned is how horrific they are.
Bullshit, the US didn't didn't use any more nukes because the URSS had nukes too.
What would you rather us do, bomb them?
Well, you ALREADY bomb countries, I don't think I need to give examples, present and past. And what would those interests be?
How else are we going to convince countries not to pursue something against our interest?
And what would those interests be? Please, mention them explicitly, instead of just bombing the fuck of any country you want and excuse yourselves with WMDs and terrorism. Wait, no, even better, keep your "interests" in your own country and let Iran mind for themselves.
But you know, the minute we stop providing cash, then these governments are going to start complaining to their citizens how evil we are for not giving support.
Mention those governments, please. And also note that giving cash is not the same as a trade embargo. And also note that giving cash to buy weapons the US produces is not helping.
I'm sure it must be nice to have this view where the US is this evil entity and the rest of the world is perfect, but in reality every government sucks.
Yes, many governments suck, but the US is the one that is always at war. So yeah, the US is pretty evil.
I wish I could use the word "Fitler" frequently
So what? The US is doing it RIGHT NOW, that's a good reason to at least be against it. Who cares if the romans were at war in the past?
Unless your job is designing large shapeless soft foam objects, you're always going to risk someone using your creation to hurt someone else, and at each point along the continuum from plastic bag designer to nuclear weapon designer, at least a few people are going to say they're not comfortable with doing that, and at least a few people are going to say they are.
Oh please, weapons are built with the purpose of hurting, or forcing someone do something you want (under threat of hurting him). Cars and garbage bags have many other uses besides killing.
It seems there is no intention to ever leave Afghanistan if they plan to deploy this airship in two years.
They maximize their value for their shareholders. Since they have so much money, they have so much power. I don't understand why people oppose big governments but don't have problems with big corporations. They are the same kind of authoritarian entities, but at least you can elect officials for a government. Change the laws regarding corporations.
Yes, the device is supposedly rechargeable and new content can be uploaded, but why would you make the effort to upload ads? How is this better than reading the same info on the internet, on a bigger screen and better interactivity? Whit will surely end in a landfill. How fucking wasteful.
Why do you suppose they have reasons so different from yours? Maybe they are concerned by their children too...
Their OS, VxWorks, was/is used on many spacecrafts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VxWorks#Spacecraft_using_VxWorks
Another detail about the US support to the Contras. Nicaragua took the case to the International Court of Justice, and won http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States/. The US then vetoed any resolution int the UN Security Council trying to enforce the ICJ resolution.
With 1 million new Steve Jobs the reality destortion field will be stronger than ever.
It's funny how free-market advocates call for no government intervention in the economy. It's ok for it to take risks and invest (with taxpayer money), just keep away from the rewards, those will remain private.
Communism is not the ONLY alternative to capitalism. So don't use a false dichotomy to defend capitalism. It always surprises me how many people defend big corporations, maybe they think sometime they will get to own one. Statistically, it won't happen for everyone.