actually the Saturn V is not a lawn ornament, it is housed inside a tourista building. It is (or was) a flight-qualified vehicle, and a sci-fi movie used it in their story. Situation was hostile space aliens have a few "forward air controllers" as part of plans to launch an invasion of earth but how could NASA launch some guys to the moon, "hey, we already got a launch vehicle at KSC!" So off they go and successfully put a stop to the invasion. OK so offtopic, somewhat entertaining movie. It also starred Walter Koenig (name? same actor that played Chekov in Star Trek). There was another scene while traveling on the moon in a lunar rover, rover batteries die. One astronaut says, "So what do we do now?" Other answers, "We walk." First guy says, "Wow astonishing concept!"
but God please don't plonk them down on a real radio where people need to know what they are doing.
Ugh, yes I should have added that some training is needed (before the disaster strikes!) and DSW registered (disaster service worker which does not mean a background check). Untrained volunteers can be a problem when they get in the way and/or hurt themselves and add to the casualty count.
If there is one thing that is so cool is to pickup transmissions directly from an orbital spacecraft. There are more satellites like this, i.e. OOREOS, but for me I have yet to setup a worthwhile antenna (a j-pole rig in a window barely works, I've been too lazy to get something better). Someone with basic equipment can get hands-on experience of gathering information on frequencies, orbital predictions, getting it all together for that brief pass, recording and decoding the transmissions. All done without having to pay someone for online access, royalties, and licensing fees.
Yes, ham radio operators are important but using the "emergency communications" example has been overused and oversold. This constant promotion of how emcomm will save the day is giving the impression when disaster strikes, all will be saved by ham radio. Ham radio is just one of many tools to help mitigate effects of a disaster.
I think the argument should be is using basic communications gear with batteries or small generator. DHS spends billions on highly sophisticated equipment, but when disaster strikes, a basic radio where you just turn on, listen, and talk if need to (without having to establish a link, log in, read and sign the EULAs, download required updates, etc). And you don't need to spend billions, just need to draw in citizens willing to help their fellow citizens when disaster strikes. But also needed are plans and protocols established before the disaster strikes. I heard someone said during the San Bruno, CA, gas pipeline explosion Red Cross was looking for some amateur radio operators to help with the disaster, but couldn't find any. Nobody knew who to call.
Could flooded waters like this event cause sharks to become habitants of inland bodies of water? Isn't there some lakes in southeast portion of USA that has fish species not typically natural, they took residence as a result of a flood. Aftermath is these species are more aggressive than native fish, and local fishermen are not getting yields like they use to. But can sharks live in freshwater?
It seems to me if I as a commoner were to share jet technology, I would get a quick visit from the FBI... and be charged with many crimes and ITAR violation as well. Alrighty so I haven't RTFA like everyone else, but I don't think I need to, I just have a bad feeling about this. Oh well, that's my Gripe Of The Month.
I don't watch many movies lately, haven't seen any Harry Potter, etc. and I haven't watch the latest TV shows. The Star Trek movies I have seen so I can understand the "Scotsman tested" tagline, but I wonder if I'm missing other nuances. Though I have to ask, are there any new movie or TV memorable moments? Or do they all suck these days (i.e. when Sci-Fi went SyFy)? Another famous quote which practicing engineers and scientists have to occasionally say to their PHB, "I can't violate the laws of physics!"
When I mention of subjects that I read, I try to mention the person's name i.e. according to Jim Oberg the Soviets did this and that on their space program. or a website (i.e. "latest gripe I heard on slashdot or hamsexy or...") so if it's complete bunk, oh well, maybe someone can reply with a correction. But I get concern with so many wikipedia sites on slashdot. It has value but problem is wikipedia has contaminates which makes everything else suspect. I guess with Britannica, editors had to really work hard to doublecheck information or at least mention dubious information as not verified. Because once you print and send out, a bit difficult to make changes.
It may well prove to be more sustainable to stick to smaller rockets, launched rapidly in sequence, than it would be to design a super powerful rocket and man rate it.
Yes, this has been suggested because congress will never appropriate money for a HLV, and this is further highlighted with a recent NASA request turned down this week. So if you ain't got the money for a super rocket, you must make plans using smaller ones. Unlike during Apollo, they had money but they did not have the time (deadline was end of decade). Also docking in space was unproven and nobody had experience when LOR was decided in 1962.
There was a program on PBS or some other such channel about if any astronauts performed sex. One of the people they interviewed said it is highly unlikely as space missions are highly scripted (not much time for two to be alone) and the spacecraft (Shuttle or ISS) are not romantic places to engage. NASA will not even touch on such a subject, there was a author that published books on space, when she had a book that discussed such subject... wham it was yanked from JPL book sales.
But it has been said, if anyone has done sex in space, it is probably the Russians (they are looser about their space program than NASA. Take a look at Soyuz launches, it is a big carnival atmosphere as compared to Shuttle launches).
I think this whole thing is gonna die no matter how it is presented (which is too bad because all this great technology and we all still going to the same place Yuri Gagarin visited nearly 50 years ago).
I believe it was Dennis Wingo who wrote a comment on nasawatch.com that proposing HLV is a non-starter. Reason is such a launch vehicle is so expensive there is no way such a program will be approved by congress. It would be nice to have a Saturn V class vehicle that can place 100 tons in one shot but if you ain't got the money, then do planning for lower cost lower payload rockets (there are several). Supposably Sean Okeffe, NASA administrator before Mike Griffin, as a longtime Washington DC politico understood this so didn't push for a HLV. But he was replaced by Mike Griffin (man o man you should read the rants about Griffin on nasawatch). I don't know all the details but enough to bring up some interesting discussion (new topic for/.?)
I read on Wayne Hale's blog that OMB made the edict to Augustine Commission to not present any options that cost more than $3B which limited options "worthy of a great nation's exploration." Kind of reminds me of funding large programs, either put a lot of money upfront on development but save on operational costs, or skimp on development and have a more expensive operations cost.
I think the biggest question that needs to be answered is why go back to the moon and on to Mars? Back in the 60s, we knew exactly why a HLV had to be built. It was needed for Apollo so we can beat the Reds to the moon. Otherwise if they get there first, they will plant the Soviet flag on the moon seizing the high ground and enslave the rest of world in Communism. Now that all may sound silly but if you read all the history, it was serious back then. However, looking back the Apollo program could have "failed" like the Soviet lunar program (Korolev never had the resources needed for a HLV and much of the Politburo argued among themselves), the USAF MOL never flew (it just kept getting more and more complex), and John Houbolt at LaRC was able to successfully get the LOR adopted (which was among a few key fundamentals to have Apollo/Saturn work without violating the laws of physics). Also note that Saturn V was built to fulfill a single task. It was too expensive for "routine" flights to the moon, and Ares V is trying to be "routine" which I can never see congress funding.
I'd love to see us go back to the moon and see what the old Apollo sites look like now (and... what if they were to find the rovers on blocks with the tires missing?!?!). However, if I could wave the magic wand, I would direct NASA to do research and development in making access to space lowcost. So far all orbital access requires major bucks and a huge standing army just to get a small elite few into space (I'm not elite and I wanna go!)
That might be a good idea unless the cellphone has engraved, "State of California Property" (with set of numbers), it will have to be disposed through proper channels like all govmint equipment. But there may be some cellphones that will survive and be found on ebay i.e. older Motrac or Mocom70 control heads that say, "California Highway Patrol KA4993" (yep I have one, real cool looking too but I haven't put it to use, the trunkmount is a bit big and heavy).
Come to think of it there are a lot of state LEOs that carry cellphones so they can discuss matters not suitable for regular 2-way radio, and I think they use it a lot. Concept of reducing state cellphones may sound good but need to determine those that absolutely need them vs. true savings in overall budget.
FYI, Jerry Brown is the first politician in many years experienced with state govt and politics. His predecessor and all members of the legislative branch were all beginners.
What I really hate is ALL cars (except pickups, crown vics and Cadillacs) have this big divider down the center. I'm a radio guy and I'd love to find a car that has open dash space, I once had a 1970 Plymouth Valiant (Dodge Dart) and then later a 1982 Mercury Zephyer (Ford Fairmont). The Zephyer had a lot of leg room both front and back seat, and a huge trunk too. I wasn't much into 2-way radios at the time but if I wanted I could easily have a radio console in the center. And this car had a 20 gallon fuel tank, at 22 mph, I had easily 400 mile range. I was able to top off the fuel tank, drive straight from SF bay area to LA area and still had fuel to shuttle around (of course that was back when I could "hold it" longer than now).
Another gripe I have of new cars is limited visibility, especially Acuras. Windows all around are shorter in height, rear view mirror seems more "tunnel vision" which makes changing lanes as much work like changing lanes driving a bus or a van. I have the smaller car for manuveurability and good windows is essential.
On subject of older cars vs. newer cars, movie Back To the Future Part II, Marty suggest to Doc they can fly down and stop Biff. Doc says, "he's in a 47 Dodge, we're in a 84 DeLorean. We'll be cut to pieces!" (or a similar quote to you get the idea). But then lighter materials give better handling so use the brain to avoid accidents. But then new cars will not work very well in demolition derbys.
>Unintended acceleration - fault of the car, what about the driver shutting
>the car down or putting it in neutral or using the parking brake (gently!) ?
I heard newer cars all these controls are actually switches to computers, which is kind of scary because that means no direct control of gearbox and brakes or simpy be able to turn the engine off. Occasionally I drive a car with a pushbutton start/stop switch and I don't like it. Now some may say "fly-by-wire airplanes have safely done this for years!" My rebuttal is aircraft software is tested to when piss turns to gold, and fighters have ejection seats (in rare cases, very rare of BSOD on the HUD).
>4-wheel drive - I see this once every winter. Some yob with all wheel drive blows past me
4WD vehicles are never used except by SAR or the Army.
>On Star - For not emergency situations having a basic toolkit, first aid kit, and enough water and blankets to survive a few hours would beat the hell out of OnStar.
packing a go-kit like this is a life saver for extreme weather conditions, i.e. situations not accessible by tow trucks.
> its the attitudes around its use that bother me. Its an asset or a tool not a replacement for personal responsibility
yes, I'd vote you up but I already see you have a high rating. Again, good post but then we all preaching to the choir.
"COULD..." yes, something to keep in mind as I comtemplate whether to go outside the city (SF bay area) to possibly observe (but fat chance, it's raining). I have heard photos and video doesn't really show true appearance of auroras. I were to see any I'll take some video.
I had a physics instructor describe while she was working on her PhD, she was with a team of physicists flying in airplanes near the poles. One team was north, the other south. Auroras appear on one pole then disappear, 20 minutes later they appear on the opposite pole as the particles bounce back and forth between the poles. This was back in 1970s, don't know what has been learned since.
Who is telling them that? Last I checked, we were telling our children that they should aspire to be either businessmen or celebrities.
They may also simply be following the money stream. There is lots of discussion about inspiring children to become engineers (i.e. STEM, Engineers Week, etc) and there is always the example of Sputnik. But then in 1958 there was a huge influx of money into schools and govt contracts, so not surprising many followed it.
Of course the movie has to be good, and a good movie gets children thinking about stuff, and there are TV shows that inspire. A recent post on Nova (PBS) discusses biologist Caryn Babaian inspired by The Professor on "Gilligan's Island" and she said, "He has a lot of authority... he was a chemist, he was a plant-person, he knew about ethnobotany and different cultures. But he was always wearing this shirt and khaki pants and the sneakers. So I thought, 'That's authoritative. That's scientific...' "
Hey, whatever works. There are shows that inspire me though they never said I also had to deal with unreasonable people and unrealistic projects, long boring meetings, gripes, etc.
If this were true, maybe it's because they didn't pay local police a share of the money they took from hacking and setting up phony retail sites. I was talking with someone that does computer security (I learned from him one of the countries of post USSR is called "Hackensten"), when they find actual address of scammers in some town in Russia, they contact the police to have them go in and arrest/shutdown their operation. But local police don't do much but demand they get some of the loot.
Many slashdot people have presented good discussion, but.... ain't we all simply preaching to the choir? All these opinions and analysis do stimulate readers to consider of how and why certain govt decisions were made. I think only other place(s) that has this is wired.com, techdirt, or maybe PBS Newshour. Would there be some chance of a SlashDotChannel cable channel? (or Comcast may say, "sorry not enough bandwidth!). Could go satellite (FTA) but probably too expensive.
However, this encourages me to write my congressman, and I will use some of this discussion presented.
Hell no. America has an amazingly secure post system. You rarely have mail stolen (an enforced Federal Crime
Yes! You mess with USPS goods (letters, packages), you got The Feds after you. Private deliveries... probably the local cops unless there are regulatory that make it a federal offense. However, that probably will be FBI jurisdiction (but they may not have resources for small stuff).
Another thing to consider is USPS delivers everywhere for basically same price (letters). For those saying it should be privatized like many other govt functions, however, all these contractors saying how they are "private enterprise, etc." but they have only one customer: Govt that gets it's money from taxes. yes, going offtopic, ranting, etc.
But the PO is Constitutionally mandated service, and it's ridiculous to get rid of it when all it needs are tweaks.
Interesting point, maybe whole discussion of major changes to USPS may be a moot point unless changes to the Constitution. That is, nothing new here, move along to next topic.
If TV were to go by the wayside, probably not missing much. It can be a lot more, I remember when local stations showed old movies (in 1970s seeing Gina Lollobrigida in "Fast and Sexy" made me a fan of hers). But now it is all paid programming (why, why, why does anyone watch that stuff). Prime time shows don't do anything for me (same ol' themes: medical, law, crime, and reality shows). I used to watch Discovery, History, Sci-Fi but now they either do repeats or "ghost hunters" type of shows. So if these stations go out of business, I will not miss them because I don't watch their current programming.
I watch some channels such as TCM or Retro but I've noticed a trend of them repeating movies (hey, "it's been some years since you've shown Looking For Love").
I've heard many local stations are not doing very well financially. They are able to cut corners using paid programming or reduce staff (i.e. ENG vans have only the cameraman. They used to have three people: talent, soundman, and cameraman). Though it seems every TV station allocation (FCC Part 73) is already allocated.
But I also ask could it be they, the Hollywood and Media moguls, are pricing themselves out of the market? Such as TVLand only shows Andy Griffith, Everyone Loves Raymond, Hot in Cleveland, repeat... There are many shows that are ***never*** shown such as "Highway Patrol" and "Ripcord." I saw some listings of photos of celebrities by a well-known photog (I'll keep that nameless for now to not stir up the pot) which his son is selling but asking $75 a print (not originals but reprints), geez lighten up. It is not like he will make enough to buy a house. It leaves high potential for counterfeiters to zip in and capture the market with "bandit" prints at only $5 or $10 each.
Continuing with my rant, there's lots of good stuff out there but "copyright owners" demand so much in royalties and licenses that only way for us commoners to see these works are from bandits that post in Youtube and Flickr. Then the "copyright owners" scream foul, run to congress demanding laws to shutdown "The Internet" or some other screwy legislation.
This is so cool of one of four spacecraft to leave our solar system, all made back in the days when the Russians were are enemies and the Iranians were our friends.
I remember seeing photos of Jupiter in Aviation Week magazine at a library (hey kids, this was the first time people saw such details of Jupiter's clouds, Red Spot, etc. so it was really impressive). I was seriously thinking of stealing those pages, but backed off. I later got nice prints from NASA (which they gave away back in the 20th century). It was so cool to see such detail when best we had were images from ground based telescopes, or nice paintings from artists.
When Pioneer 11 past Saturn, they discussed the E ring, F ring, G ring, then debating designations of other rings. Then Voyager passed by and they just gave up naming all the rings (maybe they did, but Voyager images showed "thousands" of rings).
Also back then NASA still had the best "special effects."
reminds me of the tall tale regarding a printer with a chip containing a virus prior to Gulf War I. Story goes US Govt built a printer containing a virus. Printer is shipped to Europe. Through different stores, the printer is sold to Saddam Hussian's people. They install printer on their computer system. Virus then launches into the Iraq networks, take down the air defense system prior to US air strikes. I don't exactly know how the story goes but it was a good one, but later debunked.
And the silly thing while attending a computer network class in the 1990s, the instructor spoke of this as being true.
Slashdot Mirror
actually the Saturn V is not a lawn ornament, it is housed inside a tourista building. It is (or was) a flight-qualified vehicle, and a sci-fi movie used it in their story. Situation was hostile space aliens have a few "forward air controllers" as part of plans to launch an invasion of earth but how could NASA launch some guys to the moon, "hey, we already got a launch vehicle at KSC!" So off they go and successfully put a stop to the invasion. OK so offtopic, somewhat entertaining movie. It also starred Walter Koenig (name? same actor that played Chekov in Star Trek). There was another scene while traveling on the moon in a lunar rover, rover batteries die. One astronaut says, "So what do we do now?" Other answers, "We walk." First guy says, "Wow astonishing concept!"
but God please don't plonk them down on a real radio where people need to know what they are doing.
Ugh, yes I should have added that some training is needed (before the disaster strikes!) and DSW registered (disaster service worker which does not mean a background check). Untrained volunteers can be a problem when they get in the way and/or hurt themselves and add to the casualty count.
If there is one thing that is so cool is to pickup transmissions directly from an orbital spacecraft. There are more satellites like this, i.e. OOREOS, but for me I have yet to setup a worthwhile antenna (a j-pole rig in a window barely works, I've been too lazy to get something better). Someone with basic equipment can get hands-on experience of gathering information on frequencies, orbital predictions, getting it all together for that brief pass, recording and decoding the transmissions. All done without having to pay someone for online access, royalties, and licensing fees.
Yes, ham radio operators are important but using the "emergency communications" example has been overused and oversold. This constant promotion of how emcomm will save the day is giving the impression when disaster strikes, all will be saved by ham radio. Ham radio is just one of many tools to help mitigate effects of a disaster.
I think the argument should be is using basic communications gear with batteries or small generator. DHS spends billions on highly sophisticated equipment, but when disaster strikes, a basic radio where you just turn on, listen, and talk if need to (without having to establish a link, log in, read and sign the EULAs, download required updates, etc). And you don't need to spend billions, just need to draw in citizens willing to help their fellow citizens when disaster strikes. But also needed are plans and protocols established before the disaster strikes. I heard someone said during the San Bruno, CA, gas pipeline explosion Red Cross was looking for some amateur radio operators to help with the disaster, but couldn't find any. Nobody knew who to call.
Could flooded waters like this event cause sharks to become habitants of inland bodies of water? Isn't there some lakes in southeast portion of USA that has fish species not typically natural, they took residence as a result of a flood. Aftermath is these species are more aggressive than native fish, and local fishermen are not getting yields like they use to. But can sharks live in freshwater?
Not big enough for Elaine Reynolds or Cynthia Myers.
It seems to me if I as a commoner were to share jet technology, I would get a quick visit from the FBI... and be charged with many crimes and ITAR violation as well. Alrighty so I haven't RTFA like everyone else, but I don't think I need to, I just have a bad feeling about this. Oh well, that's my Gripe Of The Month.
I don't watch many movies lately, haven't seen any Harry Potter, etc. and I haven't watch the latest TV shows. The Star Trek movies I have seen so I can understand the "Scotsman tested" tagline, but I wonder if I'm missing other nuances. Though I have to ask, are there any new movie or TV memorable moments? Or do they all suck these days (i.e. when Sci-Fi went SyFy)? Another famous quote which practicing engineers and scientists have to occasionally say to their PHB, "I can't violate the laws of physics!"
When I mention of subjects that I read, I try to mention the person's name i.e. according to Jim Oberg the Soviets did this and that on their space program. or a website (i.e. "latest gripe I heard on slashdot or hamsexy or...") so if it's complete bunk, oh well, maybe someone can reply with a correction. But I get concern with so many wikipedia sites on slashdot. It has value but problem is wikipedia has contaminates which makes everything else suspect. I guess with Britannica, editors had to really work hard to doublecheck information or at least mention dubious information as not verified. Because once you print and send out, a bit difficult to make changes.
"Get away from that, you don't know the components!"
"'American' components!? 'Russian' components!? All made in Taiwan!"
Unfortunately Taiwan outsourced much of their manufacturing to mainland China.
It may well prove to be more sustainable to stick to smaller rockets, launched rapidly in sequence, than it would be to design a super powerful rocket and man rate it.
Yes, this has been suggested because congress will never appropriate money for a HLV, and this is further highlighted with a recent NASA request turned down this week. So if you ain't got the money for a super rocket, you must make plans using smaller ones. Unlike during Apollo, they had money but they did not have the time (deadline was end of decade). Also docking in space was unproven and nobody had experience when LOR was decided in 1962.
But it has been said, if anyone has done sex in space, it is probably the Russians (they are looser about their space program than NASA. Take a look at Soyuz launches, it is a big carnival atmosphere as compared to Shuttle launches).
I think this whole thing is gonna die no matter how it is presented (which is too bad because all this great technology and we all still going to the same place Yuri Gagarin visited nearly 50 years ago).
I believe it was Dennis Wingo who wrote a comment on nasawatch.com that proposing HLV is a non-starter. Reason is such a launch vehicle is so expensive there is no way such a program will be approved by congress. It would be nice to have a Saturn V class vehicle that can place 100 tons in one shot but if you ain't got the money, then do planning for lower cost lower payload rockets (there are several). Supposably Sean Okeffe, NASA administrator before Mike Griffin, as a longtime Washington DC politico understood this so didn't push for a HLV. But he was replaced by Mike Griffin (man o man you should read the rants about Griffin on nasawatch). I don't know all the details but enough to bring up some interesting discussion (new topic for /.?)
I read on Wayne Hale's blog that OMB made the edict to Augustine Commission to not present any options that cost more than $3B which limited options "worthy of a great nation's exploration." Kind of reminds me of funding large programs, either put a lot of money upfront on development but save on operational costs, or skimp on development and have a more expensive operations cost.
I think the biggest question that needs to be answered is why go back to the moon and on to Mars? Back in the 60s, we knew exactly why a HLV had to be built. It was needed for Apollo so we can beat the Reds to the moon. Otherwise if they get there first, they will plant the Soviet flag on the moon seizing the high ground and enslave the rest of world in Communism. Now that all may sound silly but if you read all the history, it was serious back then. However, looking back the Apollo program could have "failed" like the Soviet lunar program (Korolev never had the resources needed for a HLV and much of the Politburo argued among themselves), the USAF MOL never flew (it just kept getting more and more complex), and John Houbolt at LaRC was able to successfully get the LOR adopted (which was among a few key fundamentals to have Apollo/Saturn work without violating the laws of physics). Also note that Saturn V was built to fulfill a single task. It was too expensive for "routine" flights to the moon, and Ares V is trying to be "routine" which I can never see congress funding.
I'd love to see us go back to the moon and see what the old Apollo sites look like now (and... what if they were to find the rovers on blocks with the tires missing?!?!). However, if I could wave the magic wand, I would direct NASA to do research and development in making access to space lowcost. So far all orbital access requires major bucks and a huge standing army just to get a small elite few into space (I'm not elite and I wanna go!)
That might be a good idea unless the cellphone has engraved, "State of California Property" (with set of numbers), it will have to be disposed through proper channels like all govmint equipment. But there may be some cellphones that will survive and be found on ebay i.e. older Motrac or Mocom70 control heads that say, "California Highway Patrol KA4993" (yep I have one, real cool looking too but I haven't put it to use, the trunkmount is a bit big and heavy).
Come to think of it there are a lot of state LEOs that carry cellphones so they can discuss matters not suitable for regular 2-way radio, and I think they use it a lot. Concept of reducing state cellphones may sound good but need to determine those that absolutely need them vs. true savings in overall budget.
FYI, Jerry Brown is the first politician in many years experienced with state govt and politics. His predecessor and all members of the legislative branch were all beginners.
What I really hate is ALL cars (except pickups, crown vics and Cadillacs) have this big divider down the center. I'm a radio guy and I'd love to find a car that has open dash space, I once had a 1970 Plymouth Valiant (Dodge Dart) and then later a 1982 Mercury Zephyer (Ford Fairmont). The Zephyer had a lot of leg room both front and back seat, and a huge trunk too. I wasn't much into 2-way radios at the time but if I wanted I could easily have a radio console in the center. And this car had a 20 gallon fuel tank, at 22 mph, I had easily 400 mile range. I was able to top off the fuel tank, drive straight from SF bay area to LA area and still had fuel to shuttle around (of course that was back when I could "hold it" longer than now).
Another gripe I have of new cars is limited visibility, especially Acuras. Windows all around are shorter in height, rear view mirror seems more "tunnel vision" which makes changing lanes as much work like changing lanes driving a bus or a van. I have the smaller car for manuveurability and good windows is essential.
On subject of older cars vs. newer cars, movie Back To the Future Part II, Marty suggest to Doc they can fly down and stop Biff. Doc says, "he's in a 47 Dodge, we're in a 84 DeLorean. We'll be cut to pieces!" (or a similar quote to you get the idea). But then lighter materials give better handling so use the brain to avoid accidents. But then new cars will not work very well in demolition derbys.
>Unintended acceleration - fault of the car, what about the driver shutting >the car down or putting it in neutral or using the parking brake (gently!) ?
I heard newer cars all these controls are actually switches to computers, which is kind of scary because that means no direct control of gearbox and brakes or simpy be able to turn the engine off. Occasionally I drive a car with a pushbutton start/stop switch and I don't like it. Now some may say "fly-by-wire airplanes have safely done this for years!" My rebuttal is aircraft software is tested to when piss turns to gold, and fighters have ejection seats (in rare cases, very rare of BSOD on the HUD).
>4-wheel drive - I see this once every winter. Some yob with all wheel drive blows past me
4WD vehicles are never used except by SAR or the Army.
>On Star - For not emergency situations having a basic toolkit, first aid kit, and enough water and blankets to survive a few hours would beat the hell out of OnStar.
packing a go-kit like this is a life saver for extreme weather conditions, i.e. situations not accessible by tow trucks.
> its the attitudes around its use that bother me. Its an asset or a tool not a replacement for personal responsibility
yes, I'd vote you up but I already see you have a high rating. Again, good post but then we all preaching to the choir.
"COULD..." yes, something to keep in mind as I comtemplate whether to go outside the city (SF bay area) to possibly observe (but fat chance, it's raining). I have heard photos and video doesn't really show true appearance of auroras. I were to see any I'll take some video.
I had a physics instructor describe while she was working on her PhD, she was with a team of physicists flying in airplanes near the poles. One team was north, the other south. Auroras appear on one pole then disappear, 20 minutes later they appear on the opposite pole as the particles bounce back and forth between the poles. This was back in 1970s, don't know what has been learned since.
Who is telling them that? Last I checked, we were telling our children that they should aspire to be either businessmen or celebrities.
They may also simply be following the money stream. There is lots of discussion about inspiring children to become engineers (i.e. STEM, Engineers Week, etc) and there is always the example of Sputnik. But then in 1958 there was a huge influx of money into schools and govt contracts, so not surprising many followed it.
Of course the movie has to be good, and a good movie gets children thinking about stuff, and there are TV shows that inspire. A recent post on Nova (PBS) discusses biologist Caryn Babaian inspired by The Professor on "Gilligan's Island" and she said, "He has a lot of authority... he was a chemist, he was a plant-person, he knew about ethnobotany and different cultures. But he was always wearing this shirt and khaki pants and the sneakers. So I thought, 'That's authoritative. That's scientific...' "
Hey, whatever works. There are shows that inspire me though they never said I also had to deal with unreasonable people and unrealistic projects, long boring meetings, gripes, etc.
If this were true, maybe it's because they didn't pay local police a share of the money they took from hacking and setting up phony retail sites. I was talking with someone that does computer security (I learned from him one of the countries of post USSR is called "Hackensten"), when they find actual address of scammers in some town in Russia, they contact the police to have them go in and arrest/shutdown their operation. But local police don't do much but demand they get some of the loot.
Many slashdot people have presented good discussion, but.... ain't we all simply preaching to the choir? All these opinions and analysis do stimulate readers to consider of how and why certain govt decisions were made. I think only other place(s) that has this is wired.com, techdirt, or maybe PBS Newshour. Would there be some chance of a SlashDotChannel cable channel? (or Comcast may say, "sorry not enough bandwidth!). Could go satellite (FTA) but probably too expensive.
However, this encourages me to write my congressman, and I will use some of this discussion presented.
Hell no. America has an amazingly secure post system. You rarely have mail stolen (an enforced Federal Crime
Yes! You mess with USPS goods (letters, packages), you got The Feds after you. Private deliveries... probably the local cops unless there are regulatory that make it a federal offense. However, that probably will be FBI jurisdiction (but they may not have resources for small stuff).
Another thing to consider is USPS delivers everywhere for basically same price (letters). For those saying it should be privatized like many other govt functions, however, all these contractors saying how they are "private enterprise, etc." but they have only one customer: Govt that gets it's money from taxes. yes, going offtopic, ranting, etc.
But the PO is Constitutionally mandated service, and it's ridiculous to get rid of it when all it needs are tweaks.
Interesting point, maybe whole discussion of major changes to USPS may be a moot point unless changes to the Constitution. That is, nothing new here, move along to next topic.
I watch some channels such as TCM or Retro but I've noticed a trend of them repeating movies (hey, "it's been some years since you've shown Looking For Love").
I've heard many local stations are not doing very well financially. They are able to cut corners using paid programming or reduce staff (i.e. ENG vans have only the cameraman. They used to have three people: talent, soundman, and cameraman). Though it seems every TV station allocation (FCC Part 73) is already allocated.
But I also ask could it be they, the Hollywood and Media moguls, are pricing themselves out of the market? Such as TVLand only shows Andy Griffith, Everyone Loves Raymond, Hot in Cleveland, repeat... There are many shows that are ***never*** shown such as "Highway Patrol" and "Ripcord." I saw some listings of photos of celebrities by a well-known photog (I'll keep that nameless for now to not stir up the pot) which his son is selling but asking $75 a print (not originals but reprints), geez lighten up. It is not like he will make enough to buy a house. It leaves high potential for counterfeiters to zip in and capture the market with "bandit" prints at only $5 or $10 each.
Continuing with my rant, there's lots of good stuff out there but "copyright owners" demand so much in royalties and licenses that only way for us commoners to see these works are from bandits that post in Youtube and Flickr. Then the "copyright owners" scream foul, run to congress demanding laws to shutdown "The Internet" or some other screwy legislation.
I remember seeing photos of Jupiter in Aviation Week magazine at a library (hey kids, this was the first time people saw such details of Jupiter's clouds, Red Spot, etc. so it was really impressive). I was seriously thinking of stealing those pages, but backed off. I later got nice prints from NASA (which they gave away back in the 20th century). It was so cool to see such detail when best we had were images from ground based telescopes, or nice paintings from artists.
When Pioneer 11 past Saturn, they discussed the E ring, F ring, G ring, then debating designations of other rings. Then Voyager passed by and they just gave up naming all the rings (maybe they did, but Voyager images showed "thousands" of rings).
Also back then NASA still had the best "special effects."
And the silly thing while attending a computer network class in the 1990s, the instructor spoke of this as being true.