I'm sorry, why would getting into Orbit around Mars (which requires accuracy of direction and speed) be easier than landing in the sun (which requires less accuracy and has minimal speed restrictions).
Probably because the Earth and Mars are both in orbit around the Sun, and to get from one to the other a spaceship would just have to change its orbit. To get to the Sun, you'd have to counteract the orbital velocity of the Earth entirely. Anything less and you'd just go into some crazy elliptical orbit that would probably slap us upside the head with radioactive sludge in a few years. As other posters in this thread pointed out it is easier to send a payload to Alpha Centauri than to our own Sun.
Keep in mind that you aren't going to load up a rocket to full capacity with nuclear waste. You need to contain it somehow, preferably in multiple boxes that will protect it in case of an accident on launch (or at least until it escapes Earth's gravity and the Sun's gravity takes over). Even then you're better off not loading it to capacity anyway, to make very sure you have enough lift and fuel to achieve its mission.
Also keep in mind that as far as I know all of our launch vehicles are designed to carry payloads into orbit, not all the way to the sun. Yes, we launch stuff to Mars and other planets, but not to the Sun. We would have to design and test a launch vehicle (even if just a second stage vehicle that would go from orbit to the Sun) specifically for the task at hand.
Finally, we have a large backlog of waste material that needs to go as well. This means more rockets to get the job done, which means more money. This also assumes we can't recycle some of the waste, which is a very real possibility.
Water, being the universal solvent, certainly has pretty much everything in it. This is especially true in the ocean wich covers the majority of the planet. However, most of the junk is extremely dillute. I am sure the ocean contains minute particles of Uranium or Uranium ore, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to dump a highly concentrated load of radioactive waste in it. Think of it this way. You measure radioactive waste in the ocean by parts per billion, and dropping a solid ingot or barrel of waste in there is a stupid idea.
...but in addition it upscales regular DVDs to 720p...
I guess I should be the one to break the news to you that regular DVDs are already encoded at 720p. Most DVD players downscale them to 480p over component video, so even on an HDTV, it usually is 480p. But they certainly aren't encoded that way on the disc itself.
"The clean way of writing applications with Qt"?!? You mean with its own required precompilation step in lieu of using modern C++ language facilities? You must not be a developer.
Just run "qmake" whenever you add a new compilation unit (i.e..cpp file) and then regular "make" to compile. Qt handles the rest. It really isn't all that complex. Also, the MOC is in addition to the precompiler. The MOC runs first, then the standard C++ compiler stack.
I think GTK+ looks fine, but performs slowly. In Linux it isn't bad, not as quick as QT (and I'm not talking KDE bloat but the underlying QT libraries), but sucks in Windows. FYI this is based off my impression of the only GTK+ app I have used in Windows, GIMP, but GIMP was much slower in Windows than Linux. The GUI just seemed laggy to me. Moving palettes around, menus, etc. just wasn't as snappy as in the Linux version or in other Windows apps (including QT apps).
GUI programming in C is a *pain*, it's awful beyond words.
Nah, it isn't all that bad. See, all you have to do is make a structure for your window. Then you set all the properties using preprocessor constants. Next you call some function and get a handle, which is like an object, but isn't. And, since it's a primitive, you can even use your window handle as a mouse handle, icon handle, etc. so it's really versatile! Also, creating a simple GUI in C is a short 50 lines of code, anyone can recite that from memory. Plus, you have the added advantage that C GUI code is tied to your architecture, so you can't port it from Win32 to X to MacOS without a lot of trouble. See? It isn't all that bad!
Your premise depends upon the terrorists being nice people that are just defending themselves - it's what they want you to think. In reality, these people are thugs - most of them grew up in the era of the Soviet invasion of Afganistan, and never learned how to be anything but mujahadeen. Its their worldview - that everybody's out to get them, so they must always be prepared to attack. It is, after all, what the Koran tells them about infidels. (That's us, by the way.)
Certainly they are thugs, and that fatwa isn't the only list of stuff that pisses them off. My point is we shouldn't be as big of a target. Terrorists are NOT nice people and will always have someone to fight. I just don't want them fighting us.
"The fatwa lists three crimes and sins committed by the Americans:
- U.S. support of Israel. - U.S. occupation of the Arabian Peninsula. - U.S. aggression against the Iraqi people."
Since we don't negotiate with terrorists, we must continue supporting Israel, occupy the Arabian Peninsula, and be aggressive toward the Iraqi people. Even if Israel pisses us off and we have no other reason to continue the other two, we can't give in to the terrorists!
I seriously believe Osama and every other terrorist organization would leave us alone if we stopped screwing around in world affairs. We stick our nose where it doesn't belong, and THAT is what breeds terrorism. Sure, there would still be terrorists, but we wouldn't be a target. Russia continues to be aggressive (e.g. Chechnya) and continues to be on the receiving end of terrorism. Britain is Bush's bitch and they got bombed. Spain helped the U.S. in Iraq until they got bombed (well, it was meant to influence the election away from the Bush-lackey incumbant, close enough). As an American, I feel a lot of hatred in this world, and most of it is directed our way. We really need to shake up Washington and get the war-mongers out of office. War is justified, sometimes, but not since World War 2. Unfortunately, the only people that run for office either have no problem voting for war, or are hippies that would screw something else up. Sigh. We, the people, just can't win, can we?
My casters are female, because honestly, men should not wear dresses. Robes. Whatever. Judge for yourself: Armor Sets. Play around with that page for a bit. Try viewing one of the caster sets with both male and female models. Sorry, the men look gay as hell. A male should not wear the Devout Skirt.
Conversely, my other characters are all males: warrior, paladin, rogue, etc. Either way I don't think it reflects on me as a person. Gender plays no meaningful role in game mechanics. All it does is change how your character looks. I don't have any deep psychological reason for playing female casters and male everything else. I just think men look stupid in dresses.
Yeah, FF4 had a simple combat system that was actually quite nice. I just hated the long cutscenes all the time. Story is fine, but at least let me skip it if I've already seen it. It got to the point where I'd just hit the turbo button to advance the dialog while I went off and did something else.
Just build a spacedock first and we can start focusing on vehicles that don't need a re-entry heat shield, huge engines, or anywhere close to the same structural itegrity (in space, atmospheric pressure is zero)
Someone else pointed out the flaw in your design, but I think you're on to the right idea. I think a spaceport is a great idea. Ferry cargo and people up there separately: use heavy lift rockets for the cargo, like how we launch most satellites now, and something like the Apollo capsules for the people. We'd have to make it taller to fit more people to get more value out of the money spent, but the capsule design is inherently simpler, cheaper, and safer than a shuttle.
Once in space, you don't need to worry about atmospheric concerns with your spaceship. Aerodynamics, for example, are a moot point. You could attach a big box of cargo to a rocket and launch it from the space dock to whatever destination. Air resistance isn't an issue, but gravity is still a pesky problem even that high up. It would still take a lot of energy: I did the math a while ago showing that gravity is only about 2% weaker at the orbital altitude of the shuttle and ISS. But it would be easier in some ways. Essentially you separate the journey into two pieces: get people and cargo to orbit, using specialized ships that deal with the atmosphere and reentry; and other ships that deal only with the (near) vacuum of space.
A 2% failure rate is to be expected, and that's what we've got.
No, we have a 2% catastrophic failure rate. Shuttles have had issues before that have caused mission aborts, although not causing loss of life. For example, when a piece of debris hit one of the windows. Maybe not a failure per se, but it sure cut the mission short because of the concern. There have been numerous design flaws (search for fuel line cavitation for one) that plagued early shuttle flights. Some of these malfunctions caused by the shitty attitude of NASA administrators have caused other issues such as SMS thrusters that stopped working, IIRC more than once they weren't sure if they could maneuver for a safe (not crispy crunchy) reentry.
It's easy to look at the fireball that was Challenger or the debris over half the U.S.A. that was Columbia and say that's a failure, but those were just the catastrophic failures: total loss of orbiter and human life.
NASA is a failure because of their shitty attitude: fly it no matter what the risk and don't spend extra money to fix stuff until Congress and the President are breathing down your neck not to blow up another orbiter. Safety is an afterthought.
I rarely talk on the phone while driving. I only do so if the call can't wait and there is little to no traffic. Even then I find the extra gadget distracting. My MP3 player is conveniently located within a finger's reach when I have my hand on the gearshift, so as long as I'm in 1st, 3rd, or 5th gear I barely have to glance at it to change volume or tracks. Talking on a cell phone with a manual transmission is a bit tougher, which is partly why I don't like talking on it while driving. Headsets aren't a problem for me as long as I get the call set up while I'm stopped.
I think the key is knowing your limits. I know that trying to keep a phone on my head in the right spot to hear it while turning the wheel and shifting gears is more than I can handle, so I don't do it. I know my truck can't take corners well, so I have to slow down. I know my car can take the corners with its front wheel drive. I know I can talk easier on a cell phone in my (automatic) car, so my limit there is a little more relaxed.
Every day I see counterexamples, though. People driving big SUVs like sportscars when they can't corner and can't handle like one. Talking on cell phones in heavy traffic. Eating while driving in heavy traffic. Et al. This is a driver problem, not a gadget problem.
My favorite mistake was in the Chilton's manual I had for my '83 Firebird years back. The process for changing the wiper motor had step 1 as "disconnect the battery cable at the negative terminal" and step 2 was "raise the hood". Still makes me smile all these years later.
Some cars don't have the battery under the hood. Friend of mine had a 1983 Corvette and the battery was behind the driver's seat. In that case I could see disconnecting the battery first, although it doesn't matter if the hood is up or down. I'm guessing your car had it in a front corner under the hood if you found it humorous, though.
programmer/administrator with java/c#/perl/php/python experience and unix/linux/windows/mac experience = code monkey
Not really. A good programmer is also a computer scientist in the academic sense, since he must understand all the theory. I have the unfortunate task of cleaning up a code monkey's program. If he had understood computer science he would still be a programmer with Java and Windows experience, but would have wrote better code.
I consider myself a computer scientist and I can check off most of the list you provided. Sure, the degree is part of it, but I actually care about the programs I write. I think before I code, and make sure it works correctly.
Most of my computer science professors understood the racket that is the textbook industry, or had written so many of their own textbooks they just handed out notes (apparently it's unethical to teach from your own textbook, but not from the notes you used to write the textbook). So they had us buy cheap books that serve as good reference material, if any at all. And actually we did use them quite a bit anyway.
Maybe the market will find a good robot or two that are common across universities, that or an open standard that they all use. Imagine purchasing a robot your freshman year that is useful your entire college career. Studying data structures? Well you can use those to queue instructions to the robot. Studying operating systems? You could write a simple OS to control your robot. Pretty much any computer science topic has some application to robotics, and with a robot, you get visual confirmation that your program works. I think this could be awesome. Could be. Whether this idea will succeed or even get off the ground at all remains for us to see.
So, we should have massive social programs and regulations and raise taxes to support them? If we don't have a tax and spend government, it doesn't work?
Bullshit. Cut taxes, cut spending, let states and private organizations handle most of what the government does. I'd cut half the federal government and throw it in the garbage, and take the other half and shrink it to essential functions. THEN our government would work at the national level, and people would get the services they need closer to home, where they can be more effective. All massive taxes, spending, and regulation does is redistribute wealth -- federal taxes beyond the bare Constitutional duties are basically welfare.
That's a neat trick. How do you download something before it's been created?
I don't know, but Mel Brooks figured it out. Go watch Spaceballs again -- Colonel Sanders pulls the Spaceballs tape off the shelf to fast forward and figure out where Lonestar crash landed. He explains to Dark Helmet that thanks to modern technology, they can have the VHS ready before the movie is done filming.
I'm more concerned about the fact that the government is establishing a tax but the motion did not originate in the House of Representatives. No, delegating that job to a bureaucracy is not a valid excuse. The Constitution is very clear on this issue.
Section 7. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.
I like the line "...said Reutty was 'more interested in protecting' her library than helping the police." What, am I supposed to disagree with this? Hell yeah I want her to protect the library and its patrons and only help police when necessary. If it takes a subpeona, so be it. If she can help the police without compromising customers' privacy, that's cool too.
I was talking today about the recent theft of veterans' data and the recent trend of theft of personal data in general. Yes, I am one of those unlucky veterans. Sigh. Anyway, this really is not a privacy issue so much as a Congress issue. Until they force banks, phone companies, etc. to protect our privacy through common sense legislation, we will have personal records stolen with little to no accountability and police demanding our personal records from libraries and elsewhere (or the NSA demanding our records from AT&T). The worst part is, nobody seems to care. It is a non-issue in the news. It happens, but never ignites the flame of public debate and outcry. We care more about Jolie's new baby than our phone records. Sad.
Slashdot Mirror
Probably because the Earth and Mars are both in orbit around the Sun, and to get from one to the other a spaceship would just have to change its orbit. To get to the Sun, you'd have to counteract the orbital velocity of the Earth entirely. Anything less and you'd just go into some crazy elliptical orbit that would probably slap us upside the head with radioactive sludge in a few years. As other posters in this thread pointed out it is easier to send a payload to Alpha Centauri than to our own Sun.
Keep in mind that you aren't going to load up a rocket to full capacity with nuclear waste. You need to contain it somehow, preferably in multiple boxes that will protect it in case of an accident on launch (or at least until it escapes Earth's gravity and the Sun's gravity takes over). Even then you're better off not loading it to capacity anyway, to make very sure you have enough lift and fuel to achieve its mission.
Also keep in mind that as far as I know all of our launch vehicles are designed to carry payloads into orbit, not all the way to the sun. Yes, we launch stuff to Mars and other planets, but not to the Sun. We would have to design and test a launch vehicle (even if just a second stage vehicle that would go from orbit to the Sun) specifically for the task at hand.
Finally, we have a large backlog of waste material that needs to go as well. This means more rockets to get the job done, which means more money. This also assumes we can't recycle some of the waste, which is a very real possibility.
Water, being the universal solvent, certainly has pretty much everything in it. This is especially true in the ocean wich covers the majority of the planet. However, most of the junk is extremely dillute. I am sure the ocean contains minute particles of Uranium or Uranium ore, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to dump a highly concentrated load of radioactive waste in it. Think of it this way. You measure radioactive waste in the ocean by parts per billion, and dropping a solid ingot or barrel of waste in there is a stupid idea.
Fluffy articles? No way! He copied and pasted several paragraphs between the three reviews, it must have been quality material!
I guess I should be the one to break the news to you that regular DVDs are already encoded at 720p. Most DVD players downscale them to 480p over component video, so even on an HDTV, it usually is 480p. But they certainly aren't encoded that way on the disc itself.
Just run "qmake" whenever you add a new compilation unit (i.e. .cpp file) and then regular "make" to compile. Qt handles the rest. It really isn't all that complex. Also, the MOC is in addition to the precompiler. The MOC runs first, then the standard C++ compiler stack.
I think GTK+ looks fine, but performs slowly. In Linux it isn't bad, not as quick as QT (and I'm not talking KDE bloat but the underlying QT libraries), but sucks in Windows. FYI this is based off my impression of the only GTK+ app I have used in Windows, GIMP, but GIMP was much slower in Windows than Linux. The GUI just seemed laggy to me. Moving palettes around, menus, etc. just wasn't as snappy as in the Linux version or in other Windows apps (including QT apps).
Nah, it isn't all that bad. See, all you have to do is make a structure for your window. Then you set all the properties using preprocessor constants. Next you call some function and get a handle, which is like an object, but isn't. And, since it's a primitive, you can even use your window handle as a mouse handle, icon handle, etc. so it's really versatile! Also, creating a simple GUI in C is a short 50 lines of code, anyone can recite that from memory. Plus, you have the added advantage that C GUI code is tied to your architecture, so you can't port it from Win32 to X to MacOS without a lot of trouble. See? It isn't all that bad!
Certainly they are thugs, and that fatwa isn't the only list of stuff that pisses them off. My point is we shouldn't be as big of a target. Terrorists are NOT nice people and will always have someone to fight. I just don't want them fighting us.
Since we don't negotiate with terrorists, we must continue supporting Israel, occupy the Arabian Peninsula, and be aggressive toward the Iraqi people. Even if Israel pisses us off and we have no other reason to continue the other two, we can't give in to the terrorists!
I seriously believe Osama and every other terrorist organization would leave us alone if we stopped screwing around in world affairs. We stick our nose where it doesn't belong, and THAT is what breeds terrorism. Sure, there would still be terrorists, but we wouldn't be a target. Russia continues to be aggressive (e.g. Chechnya) and continues to be on the receiving end of terrorism. Britain is Bush's bitch and they got bombed. Spain helped the U.S. in Iraq until they got bombed (well, it was meant to influence the election away from the Bush-lackey incumbant, close enough). As an American, I feel a lot of hatred in this world, and most of it is directed our way. We really need to shake up Washington and get the war-mongers out of office. War is justified, sometimes, but not since World War 2. Unfortunately, the only people that run for office either have no problem voting for war, or are hippies that would screw something else up. Sigh. We, the people, just can't win, can we?
My casters are female, because honestly, men should not wear dresses. Robes. Whatever. Judge for yourself: Armor Sets. Play around with that page for a bit. Try viewing one of the caster sets with both male and female models. Sorry, the men look gay as hell. A male should not wear the Devout Skirt.
Conversely, my other characters are all males: warrior, paladin, rogue, etc. Either way I don't think it reflects on me as a person. Gender plays no meaningful role in game mechanics. All it does is change how your character looks. I don't have any deep psychological reason for playing female casters and male everything else. I just think men look stupid in dresses.
Yeah, FF4 had a simple combat system that was actually quite nice. I just hated the long cutscenes all the time. Story is fine, but at least let me skip it if I've already seen it. It got to the point where I'd just hit the turbo button to advance the dialog while I went off and did something else.
Maybe it was an 82, maybe you're full of shit, Mr. Coward. I don't know. I'm not a Corvette expert.
Someone else pointed out the flaw in your design, but I think you're on to the right idea. I think a spaceport is a great idea. Ferry cargo and people up there separately: use heavy lift rockets for the cargo, like how we launch most satellites now, and something like the Apollo capsules for the people. We'd have to make it taller to fit more people to get more value out of the money spent, but the capsule design is inherently simpler, cheaper, and safer than a shuttle.
Once in space, you don't need to worry about atmospheric concerns with your spaceship. Aerodynamics, for example, are a moot point. You could attach a big box of cargo to a rocket and launch it from the space dock to whatever destination. Air resistance isn't an issue, but gravity is still a pesky problem even that high up. It would still take a lot of energy: I did the math a while ago showing that gravity is only about 2% weaker at the orbital altitude of the shuttle and ISS. But it would be easier in some ways. Essentially you separate the journey into two pieces: get people and cargo to orbit, using specialized ships that deal with the atmosphere and reentry; and other ships that deal only with the (near) vacuum of space.
No, we have a 2% catastrophic failure rate. Shuttles have had issues before that have caused mission aborts, although not causing loss of life. For example, when a piece of debris hit one of the windows. Maybe not a failure per se, but it sure cut the mission short because of the concern. There have been numerous design flaws (search for fuel line cavitation for one) that plagued early shuttle flights. Some of these malfunctions caused by the shitty attitude of NASA administrators have caused other issues such as SMS thrusters that stopped working, IIRC more than once they weren't sure if they could maneuver for a safe (not crispy crunchy) reentry.
It's easy to look at the fireball that was Challenger or the debris over half the U.S.A. that was Columbia and say that's a failure, but those were just the catastrophic failures: total loss of orbiter and human life.
NASA is a failure because of their shitty attitude: fly it no matter what the risk and don't spend extra money to fix stuff until Congress and the President are breathing down your neck not to blow up another orbiter. Safety is an afterthought.
I rarely talk on the phone while driving. I only do so if the call can't wait and there is little to no traffic. Even then I find the extra gadget distracting. My MP3 player is conveniently located within a finger's reach when I have my hand on the gearshift, so as long as I'm in 1st, 3rd, or 5th gear I barely have to glance at it to change volume or tracks. Talking on a cell phone with a manual transmission is a bit tougher, which is partly why I don't like talking on it while driving. Headsets aren't a problem for me as long as I get the call set up while I'm stopped.
I think the key is knowing your limits. I know that trying to keep a phone on my head in the right spot to hear it while turning the wheel and shifting gears is more than I can handle, so I don't do it. I know my truck can't take corners well, so I have to slow down. I know my car can take the corners with its front wheel drive. I know I can talk easier on a cell phone in my (automatic) car, so my limit there is a little more relaxed.
Every day I see counterexamples, though. People driving big SUVs like sportscars when they can't corner and can't handle like one. Talking on cell phones in heavy traffic. Eating while driving in heavy traffic. Et al. This is a driver problem, not a gadget problem.
Some cars don't have the battery under the hood. Friend of mine had a 1983 Corvette and the battery was behind the driver's seat. In that case I could see disconnecting the battery first, although it doesn't matter if the hood is up or down. I'm guessing your car had it in a front corner under the hood if you found it humorous, though.
It makes it 50% more difficult for her to come back as a zombie.
Not really. A good programmer is also a computer scientist in the academic sense, since he must understand all the theory. I have the unfortunate task of cleaning up a code monkey's program. If he had understood computer science he would still be a programmer with Java and Windows experience, but would have wrote better code.
I consider myself a computer scientist and I can check off most of the list you provided. Sure, the degree is part of it, but I actually care about the programs I write. I think before I code, and make sure it works correctly.
Most of my computer science professors understood the racket that is the textbook industry, or had written so many of their own textbooks they just handed out notes (apparently it's unethical to teach from your own textbook, but not from the notes you used to write the textbook). So they had us buy cheap books that serve as good reference material, if any at all. And actually we did use them quite a bit anyway.
Maybe the market will find a good robot or two that are common across universities, that or an open standard that they all use. Imagine purchasing a robot your freshman year that is useful your entire college career. Studying data structures? Well you can use those to queue instructions to the robot. Studying operating systems? You could write a simple OS to control your robot. Pretty much any computer science topic has some application to robotics, and with a robot, you get visual confirmation that your program works. I think this could be awesome. Could be. Whether this idea will succeed or even get off the ground at all remains for us to see.
So, we should have massive social programs and regulations and raise taxes to support them? If we don't have a tax and spend government, it doesn't work?
Bullshit. Cut taxes, cut spending, let states and private organizations handle most of what the government does. I'd cut half the federal government and throw it in the garbage, and take the other half and shrink it to essential functions. THEN our government would work at the national level, and people would get the services they need closer to home, where they can be more effective. All massive taxes, spending, and regulation does is redistribute wealth -- federal taxes beyond the bare Constitutional duties are basically welfare.
But look at his long, girly hair! I would love to be his bitch!
I don't know, but Mel Brooks figured it out. Go watch Spaceballs again -- Colonel Sanders pulls the Spaceballs tape off the shelf to fast forward and figure out where Lonestar crash landed. He explains to Dark Helmet that thanks to modern technology, they can have the VHS ready before the movie is done filming.
I'm more concerned about the fact that the government is establishing a tax but the motion did not originate in the House of Representatives. No, delegating that job to a bureaucracy is not a valid excuse. The Constitution is very clear on this issue.
I like the line "...said Reutty was 'more interested in protecting' her library than helping the police." What, am I supposed to disagree with this? Hell yeah I want her to protect the library and its patrons and only help police when necessary. If it takes a subpeona, so be it. If she can help the police without compromising customers' privacy, that's cool too.
I was talking today about the recent theft of veterans' data and the recent trend of theft of personal data in general. Yes, I am one of those unlucky veterans. Sigh. Anyway, this really is not a privacy issue so much as a Congress issue. Until they force banks, phone companies, etc. to protect our privacy through common sense legislation, we will have personal records stolen with little to no accountability and police demanding our personal records from libraries and elsewhere (or the NSA demanding our records from AT&T). The worst part is, nobody seems to care. It is a non-issue in the news. It happens, but never ignites the flame of public debate and outcry. We care more about Jolie's new baby than our phone records. Sad.