Maybe someone can explain why the doors don't just open in a way that takes up minimal horizontal space all the time? Parking garages with low ceilings?
Exactly. Maybe there is a solution that minimizes both height and width, but they went for an active system that adjusts to the environment. If I had to guess, it's probably also trying to minimize power requirements. But that is just a guess.
Selling cars that cost as much as a small house is all well and good if your target market is 1%ers and boomers, but if you want to sell to the mass market you need something that's priced for a generation that will probably never be able to afford to own a home.
Tesla's business model is explicitly to use the experience and funds generated by high end models to create less expensive models. Elon musk has repeated this over and over. Here is a blog post from 2006. Why is this so hard for people to understand? Where else is Tesla suppose to get the money and experience to create the car? Tesla is using the money of 1%ers (as you say) to fund development of cars for the 50%ers and people bitch about it like it's a bad thing.
So what's the gripe? They aren't proceeding fast enough? They are proceeding as fast as they can. They want to sell a shit ton of cars, do you think they are sandbagging? I get so sick of the "cut off your nose to spite your face" envy and jealousy.
If you think it's easy to make an inexpensive but compelling electric car from scratch, then start a freaking car company and do it. Or join GM, Ford, or some other company and help them to it.
Can I point out that the NSA is only doing what the current administration tells them to do and that it is President Obama that has not pardoned him and is pushing for his arrest?
Yes, the executive branch and congress are complicit in this. How does that make it any "better?" Also, this started a long time ago. In case some nitwit wants to turn this into an Obama sucks rant. He does suck in this regard. And so did Bush. And no doubt Clinton. And every blowhard that's a serious contender for president on both sides of the aisle. And the vast majority of congress.
Honestly, I think you have it backwards. The president and congress do what the NSA tells them. Not in a crazy conspiracy way. Just in the simple, "you don't want to risk an attack on your watch, do you?" sort of way.
Nothing is stopping the Russian government from providing him with travel documents, if it were so inclined.
You seem really confused about why he is in Russia. Russia is not detaining him, they are simply not honoring the US request to extradite Snowden for prosecution. Russia was not Snowden's destination, it's just where he was when the US cancelled his passport. So he doesn't have a passport, no other country has the will to offer him political asylum. So he's stuck. Russia is no doubt doing this simply to thumb its noise at the US. Snowden understands that and I'm absolutely sees the irony in it.
He's right that we need rounded people as programmers - but we are more likely to get them if the possibility of being a programmer is accessible to a wider range of people than at present. That's the virtue of this approach; it opens the prospect of programming as a career to a wider range beyond us geeks and nerds!
On the other hand it may make us unemployable as ordinary people nick our jobs...
I'd much prefer that that the limited time available to educate children be spent on topics that will help them make better decisions. Teaching children about cognitive biases and basic logic would benefit them and society way more than teaching them to program.
But I think it would take an awful lot of launches to get the fuel production up and running on the moon. And you'd need to design a new, hopefully reusable, moon launched vehicle/fuel depot.
I think the real problem is how expensive the SLS will be to launch, not the number of launches. Build a truly reusable vehicle, orbit the fuel depots around Earth. Send ISRU equipment to Mars (with lots of backups) and produce the fuel for the return trip. Then the cost of launching large payloads is reduced and there is no need to build a Moon base.
I'm asking, not arguing, because I don't know. Is there any consensus answer to the question: What is the greatest accomplishment of the International Space Station?
Right now all I know is that from time to time I can point my finger to the sky, at a rapidly moving spot of light and say, "Yup, there it is."
Well, for one thing, a shit ton of research on the effects of micro gravity on humans and how to mitigate them. Which is pretty important for a nation with aspirations of prolonged human space flight.
But it you really want to know, the NASA website has all sorts of information on the goals of the ISS and all the research that is planned or already occurred: International Space Station.
It's entertaining to watch all the shitlibs froth at the mouth and lose their minds merely because Ronald Reagan was mentioned for any reason. You're still pissed your side lost the Cold War, aren't you?
Reagan supported the development of "Space Station Freedom," but as happens with all post Apollo space programs, it ran into cost overruns, various conflicts of interests (science, DoD, etc...) and never really got fully funded. The project eventually got merged with other space station projects, scaled down, and with the addition of the Russian Space Agency became the ISS.
It's unfortunate that once again a discussion on slashdot got dragged into the ideological quagmire. damn_registrars' post was inflammatory. But saying Reagan conceived the ISS is a stretch. Just like saying Al Gore invented the Internet. Of course Al Gore never claimed to invent the Internet and Reagan never claimed to have conceived the ISS.
Now if want to see an equal but opposite reaction, mention Al Gore in a summary.
corporate welfare. This does nothing to help the people. Nothing.
Does ever discussion have to immediately degrade to a bunch of ideologues screaming at each other? This site is supposedly "News for Nerds" and yet almost ever topic comes down to political mud slinging.
corporate welfare. This does nothing to help the people. Nothing.
It's part of the ongoing effort by humanity to understand the nature of the universe in which we live. I don't understand people that find no value it that.
As for helping people, I am all for it. The amount of money we spend on science and exploration is a drop in the bucket, it's not an either-or scenario.
At the beginning the dust storm was strong enough to tear apart antennas, tip over the MAV, and send objects flying through the air.
But at the end, the MAV could use a piece of fabric to cover open panels because the atmosphere is so thin there is very little aerodynamic forces on the craft. (As compared to a launch on earth).
If the thin atmosphere reduces wind forces At the end why didn't it in the beginning?
FWIW - I read an interview with Andy Weir a while ago and he stated outright that the sandstorm at the beginning was a plot device to strand Mark Watney and he knew that there really wasn't enough energy in Martian sandstorms to cause the damage described. He wanted a way to strand Watney that was not anyone's fault and to set up the scenario for the rest of the book.
Maybe there is a "market" for fan fiction beginnings that are exciting, interesting, and more scientifically accurate.
Do you know how hard it will be to build a railroad all they way across the continent? It'll be dangerous. People will die. Boilers are dangerous, the passangers will be taking their lives in there hands. No one will ever ride the thing. Trains will never be safe, it's pure folly.
1915
Do you know how hard it will be to make a heavier than air vehicle fly? And it will be small and cramped. And it will smell bad and break down and fall out of the sky. People will die. Airplanes will never be safe, it's pure folly.
2015
Do you know how hard it will be to transport equipment to Mars? To make a reliable life support system with sufficient backups to last long enough for the 2 year round trip? To make sustainable habitats? To develop in-situ resource utilization systems? People will die. Etc...
Why yes, we do know how hard it will be. But it's not impossible. And that's what makes it interesting. Luddites need not apply.
Wow, a veritable river of "something could be wrong" is modded "Informative."
Yes, it will be hard. Yes, it will take a long time. Yes, there will be setbacks. So what?
I don't understand why people get there panties in a bunch because someone else is willing to take risks to try to do something they are passionate about.
Overpopulation on earth will not be solved by colonizing Mars. You need to reduce Earth's population by a few billion to make a dent. Imagine the energy requirements to transport a billion or so people from Earth to Mars.
That ain't happening without Commonwealth Saga-esque wormholes. Which I think are a little unlikely.
I'm all for space exploration, but without new physics it's not going to solve the problems we have on Earth. We need to stop hoping to "get off this rock" and really focus on taking care of this rock. It's the only one we've got.
OP was not saying it would help reduce population, they were making the point that we have enough humans that a few could choose to go to Mars and we'd get on fine here. There are plenty of humans, we are not a scarce resource.
As to the argument to solve Earth's problems first, that's silly. There are over 7 billion humans on the planet, we can work on more that one thing at a time. And a few people leaving doesn't change the motivation or desire of those that are staying to take care of the environment. When a family moves out of an apartment building, do all the other families say "screw it, lets trash the place!"
I do no think it means what you think it means. In governmental terms, it means "give us unlimited money so that we don't have to prioritize among the thousands of special interests begging and scraping for more cash."
In any other context it means that you are seriously lacking resources and have cut things to the bone. For you or me, it means we get rid of cable TV, the gym membership, take cheaper vacations, don't buy a new car, live in a smaller place, don't eat and drink out as often, etc.
Governments have a much, much different approach: they begin by exacting revenge on the unwashed masses that dare not give them every dime...
There is no "governmental austerity." Anybody who brings it up is playing Orwellian word games with you, and should have filthy socks shoved in their mouths (and possibly other body orifices) until they stop.
You are right that it's Orwellian, but wrong about how. This is not a tantrum against the masses, it's a tantrum against reality. The libraries in question are scientific libraries. Specifically libraries that contain environmental records related to pollution, biodiversity and climate. This is an attempt to continue the hamstringing of any science that shows the dark side of the so called free market. Intentional environmental ignorance is financial bliss for the oligarchy.
Let's make sure the right head rolls... This was a rookie mistake that no CEO should ever make. One NEVER tries a demo for the first time before an important audience. If the CEO isn't willing to do a dry run, then he should either get a product manager who has the time to do it or the board should get a new CEO.
How do you know he didn't do a dry run? He may have fumbled the the buy the milk line, he could have meant "remember the milk" which is an actual company and an actual app. But I bet he tried "Show me my most at-risk opportunities" before the demo and it worked. Or something really close worked and he choked.
Seriously, demos fail all the time for "obvious in hindsight" reasons. But we are not Merlin, so our hindsight comes after the fact. Besides gross incompetence on his part, which is of course possible. Maybe the acoustics of the environment confused the voice recognition. Or maybe someone else made a rookie mistake and rolled out an "upgrade" at a really inopportune time. All sorts of wonderful stuff can make a demo go wrong. I'm sure that when Bill Gates crashed Windows 98 live at Comdex it was not the first time he had plugged a USB device into a Windows 98 system.
Before any heads roll, maybe they should figure out what went wrong. And frankly to the OP, the whole "fire anyone that makes a mistake" attitude is pretty lame.
"That's stealing. It's no different than ripping music. It's no different than pirating movies."
How the heck is decreasing your bandwith by selectively not downloading ads the same as transcoding a music CD you own or copyright infringing a movie from https://kat.cr/ ?
Because the ads presumably pay for all the infrastructure. The publishers are mad because they need to pay for bandwidth and whatever staff it takes to generate content. The ad companies are made because they don't get their clicks. I feel for the publishers, I want quality content. The ad companies can go pound sand, they are middlemen that are part of a bad solution to a real problem (how to fund worthwhile, but largely "drive by," content.)
I have no idea how this will play out. Paywalls don't really work for the distributed reality we live in. No one is going to subscribe to every paper and blog. But ads suck when they try hard to get people's attention. Hopefully someone clever will find a better way.
We'll be hitching ride with the Russians for the next 20 years (trust me on that, the timeframe will be pushed back even further). Of course that assumes we're not at war with the Russians by that point.
Meanwhile; corporate, privately-funded access to space will be ahead of NASA... While it may take 30 more years, space-X or virgin galactic will have a re-usable SSTO craft by that time.
SLS/Orion's primary mission is deep space not LEO. But SLS/Orion tends to take money from Commercial Crew (which is the set of contracts for LEO human space flight.) SpaceX's Dragon/F9 and Boeing's Starliner/Atlas will be flying astronauts to ISS in 2017 (or 2018 if Congress keeps syphoning money from Commercial Crew to SLS).
The summary's original target of 2010 is a reflection on Slashdot, not NASA.
The projected, potential slip from 2021 to 2023 is to account for budget uncertainties.
The President (evil democrat at the moment) always proposes funding commercial crew (which gives competitive bids to private companies to solve the problem as they see fit) to return LEO launch capabilities ASAP.
A congressional committee (mix of evil democrats and slightly more evil republicans) always moves funding from commercial crew to SLS/Orion (deep space/exploration built with multiple contractors based in their congressional districts as a way to "spread the wealth.")
Too be fair, there are evil congressmen that support commercial crew and evil congressmen that oppose all spaceflight. But the evil congressmen with the most influence on the relevant committees currently prefer the wealth is spread to their own districts which sadly are not commercial space hotbeds.
Yes, I am biased, I like commercial crew and I like having more than one commercial crew provider because I think it leads to a more sustainable future in spaceflight. That said, I'm OK with big long range government programs in theory. Unfortunately it's virtually impossible to do sustained government projects (like put humans on Mars) because the people that fund those projects have to worry more about where the money is spent rather than the actual outcome of the project. And the person that chooses the project changes every 4 or 8 years and usually doesn't want to look like they support anything the last guy did. Meanwhile the guy(s) that decide where the money goes hang around forever, so the money goes to the same people, just for a moving target of a goal. Which is why we are going back to the Moon, no Mars, I mean capturing an asteroid but still giving lip service to Mars, but not really. Or something like that.
There's a lot of islamophobic stupidity in this country at the moment and it runs deep in all government institutions especially involving police or defense.
Yes, it is not easy to overcome millions of years of evolution which selected for greater pattern recognition, allowing our species to survive over others with inferior pattern recognition skills.
Actually we have horrible hyper-sensitve pattern recognition. That may keep us safe, but it also has us seeing faces in toast, believing in ghosts, and generally imagining that there is a tiger behind every bush and boogieman under every bed.
In a way, I am an Islamophobe. In general, I don't like religion. I really don't like holy texts that are inflexible and ever promote violence. Even if there are flowery versus, once there is a rule to shun, maim, stone, or behead someone - I am not a fan of that text. So all the Abrahamic religions are less than awesome in my book.
That said, people have this crazy ability to interpret these texts and cherry pick from them. So while I'm a bit of an Islamaphobe, I am not a Muslimaphobe. At least not any more than I am a Christianaphobe or a Hebrewaphobe.
So, believe it or not, you can dislike religion but not assume that all religious people are evil, stupid or insane. Though honestly, why anyone bothers with religion is a complete mystery to me.
Feminization would be a serious improvement. It's not a coincidence that every person in this story that did a stupid racist thing is male.
By lumping all men together you are doing nothing to make the world a better place. Blanket statements about gender and race are the problem, not the solution.
And of course, as pointed out elsewhere, you are wrong. A female teacher turned him in. But that is irrelevant.
I'd rather the gender boxes disappear altogether and people become free to set their own path in life, whatever their gender.
20 years ago, that position would have been considered feminist. Today, it's likely to get you yelled at as a white cishet shitlord.
The internet is full of men and women of every race that are scared and angry. They are going to lash out. I know I've done it.
The fact that some people go overboard does not mean there is not a problem. It just means that humans are tribal and tend to split into "us and them" when they are angry and afraid. In some ways the fact that women feel the right to be an "us" is a sign of progress.
It helps not to pretend to know what it's like to be something we are not. Don't assume that something you have experienced is common, nor that something you have not is not. That's simple conformation bias.
Look into why professional orchestras have people audition behind a screen. Look into the offers made to Ph.D applicants based on the name on the resume. Same resume, different name, men get offered more money. They get rated higher. Bias is real and we are all guilty of it. And to get back on the topic of this article, bias against race and religion is real too. (And I say this as a person that is not fond of any religion. But I have to acknowledge there is prejudice if I'm going to be intellectually honest. And I have to try to sort through my own prejudice if I want to live in a more just world.)
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe someone can explain why the doors don't just open in a way that takes up minimal horizontal space all the time? Parking garages with low ceilings?
Exactly. Maybe there is a solution that minimizes both height and width, but they went for an active system that adjusts to the environment. If I had to guess, it's probably also trying to minimize power requirements. But that is just a guess.
Selling cars that cost as much as a small house is all well and good if your target market is 1%ers and boomers, but if you want to sell to the mass market you need something that's priced for a generation that will probably never be able to afford to own a home.
Tesla's business model is explicitly to use the experience and funds generated by high end models to create less expensive models. Elon musk has repeated this over and over. Here is a blog post from 2006. Why is this so hard for people to understand? Where else is Tesla suppose to get the money and experience to create the car? Tesla is using the money of 1%ers (as you say) to fund development of cars for the 50%ers and people bitch about it like it's a bad thing.
So what's the gripe? They aren't proceeding fast enough? They are proceeding as fast as they can. They want to sell a shit ton of cars, do you think they are sandbagging? I get so sick of the "cut off your nose to spite your face" envy and jealousy.
If you think it's easy to make an inexpensive but compelling electric car from scratch, then start a freaking car company and do it. Or join GM, Ford, or some other company and help them to it.
about the world, you are not a good scientist," except when talking about global warming, because that science is settled.
I'll feed the Troll. Not knowing everything is not the same as not knowing anything.
Can I point out that the NSA is only doing what the current administration tells them to do and that it is President Obama that has not pardoned him and is pushing for his arrest?
Yes, the executive branch and congress are complicit in this. How does that make it any "better?" Also, this started a long time ago. In case some nitwit wants to turn this into an Obama sucks rant. He does suck in this regard. And so did Bush. And no doubt Clinton. And every blowhard that's a serious contender for president on both sides of the aisle. And the vast majority of congress.
Honestly, I think you have it backwards. The president and congress do what the NSA tells them. Not in a crazy conspiracy way. Just in the simple, "you don't want to risk an attack on your watch, do you?" sort of way.
Nothing is stopping the Russian government from providing him with travel documents, if it were so inclined.
You seem really confused about why he is in Russia. Russia is not detaining him, they are simply not honoring the US request to extradite Snowden for prosecution. Russia was not Snowden's destination, it's just where he was when the US cancelled his passport. So he doesn't have a passport, no other country has the will to offer him political asylum. So he's stuck. Russia is no doubt doing this simply to thumb its noise at the US. Snowden understands that and I'm absolutely sees the irony in it.
He's right that we need rounded people as programmers - but we are more likely to get them if the possibility of being a programmer is accessible to a wider range of people than at present. That's the virtue of this approach; it opens the prospect of programming as a career to a wider range beyond us geeks and nerds! On the other hand it may make us unemployable as ordinary people nick our jobs...
I'd much prefer that that the limited time available to educate children be spent on topics that will help them make better decisions. Teaching children about cognitive biases and basic logic would benefit them and society way more than teaching them to program.
no it doesn't. it proves it should not go at all.
Sounds like a boring future to me.
But I think it would take an awful lot of launches to get the fuel production up and running on the moon. And you'd need to design a new, hopefully reusable, moon launched vehicle/fuel depot.
I think the real problem is how expensive the SLS will be to launch, not the number of launches. Build a truly reusable vehicle, orbit the fuel depots around Earth. Send ISRU equipment to Mars (with lots of backups) and produce the fuel for the return trip. Then the cost of launching large payloads is reduced and there is no need to build a Moon base.
I'm asking, not arguing, because I don't know. Is there any consensus answer to the question: What is the greatest accomplishment of the International Space Station? Right now all I know is that from time to time I can point my finger to the sky, at a rapidly moving spot of light and say, "Yup, there it is."
Well, for one thing, a shit ton of research on the effects of micro gravity on humans and how to mitigate them. Which is pretty important for a nation with aspirations of prolonged human space flight.
But it you really want to know, the NASA website has all sorts of information on the goals of the ISS and all the research that is planned or already occurred: International Space Station.
It's entertaining to watch all the shitlibs froth at the mouth and lose their minds merely because Ronald Reagan was mentioned for any reason. You're still pissed your side lost the Cold War, aren't you?
Reagan supported the development of "Space Station Freedom," but as happens with all post Apollo space programs, it ran into cost overruns, various conflicts of interests (science, DoD, etc...) and never really got fully funded. The project eventually got merged with other space station projects, scaled down, and with the addition of the Russian Space Agency became the ISS.
It's unfortunate that once again a discussion on slashdot got dragged into the ideological quagmire. damn_registrars' post was inflammatory. But saying Reagan conceived the ISS is a stretch. Just like saying Al Gore invented the Internet. Of course Al Gore never claimed to invent the Internet and Reagan never claimed to have conceived the ISS.
Now if want to see an equal but opposite reaction, mention Al Gore in a summary.
corporate welfare. This does nothing to help the people. Nothing.
Does ever discussion have to immediately degrade to a bunch of ideologues screaming at each other? This site is supposedly "News for Nerds" and yet almost ever topic comes down to political mud slinging.
corporate welfare. This does nothing to help the people. Nothing.
It's part of the ongoing effort by humanity to understand the nature of the universe in which we live. I don't understand people that find no value it that.
As for helping people, I am all for it. The amount of money we spend on science and exploration is a drop in the bucket, it's not an either-or scenario.
Quit reading now if you don't want spoilers....
At the beginning the dust storm was strong enough to tear apart antennas, tip over the MAV, and send objects flying through the air.
But at the end, the MAV could use a piece of fabric to cover open panels because the atmosphere is so thin there is very little aerodynamic forces on the craft. (As compared to a launch on earth).
If the thin atmosphere reduces wind forces At the end why didn't it in the beginning?
FWIW - I read an interview with Andy Weir a while ago and he stated outright that the sandstorm at the beginning was a plot device to strand Mark Watney and he knew that there really wasn't enough energy in Martian sandstorms to cause the damage described. He wanted a way to strand Watney that was not anyone's fault and to set up the scenario for the rest of the book.
Maybe there is a "market" for fan fiction beginnings that are exciting, interesting, and more scientifically accurate.
1815
Do you know how hard it will be to build a railroad all they way across the continent? It'll be dangerous. People will die. Boilers are dangerous, the passangers will be taking their lives in there hands. No one will ever ride the thing. Trains will never be safe, it's pure folly.
1915
Do you know how hard it will be to make a heavier than air vehicle fly? And it will be small and cramped. And it will smell bad and break down and fall out of the sky. People will die. Airplanes will never be safe, it's pure folly.
2015
Do you know how hard it will be to transport equipment to Mars? To make a reliable life support system with sufficient backups to last long enough for the 2 year round trip? To make sustainable habitats? To develop in-situ resource utilization systems? People will die. Etc...
Why yes, we do know how hard it will be. But it's not impossible. And that's what makes it interesting. Luddites need not apply.
Wow, a veritable river of "something could be wrong" is modded "Informative."
Yes, it will be hard. Yes, it will take a long time. Yes, there will be setbacks. So what?
I don't understand why people get there panties in a bunch because someone else is willing to take risks to try to do something they are passionate about.
Overpopulation on earth will not be solved by colonizing Mars. You need to reduce Earth's population by a few billion to make a dent. Imagine the energy requirements to transport a billion or so people from Earth to Mars.
That ain't happening without Commonwealth Saga-esque wormholes. Which I think are a little unlikely.
I'm all for space exploration, but without new physics it's not going to solve the problems we have on Earth. We need to stop hoping to "get off this rock" and really focus on taking care of this rock. It's the only one we've got.
OP was not saying it would help reduce population, they were making the point that we have enough humans that a few could choose to go to Mars and we'd get on fine here. There are plenty of humans, we are not a scarce resource.
As to the argument to solve Earth's problems first, that's silly. There are over 7 billion humans on the planet, we can work on more that one thing at a time. And a few people leaving doesn't change the motivation or desire of those that are staying to take care of the environment. When a family moves out of an apartment building, do all the other families say "screw it, lets trash the place!"
You are out of luck. The new kids (the new generation of developers) thinks convenience is more important than security or stability.
Same as it always was.
I do no think it means what you think it means. In governmental terms, it means "give us unlimited money so that we don't have to prioritize among the thousands of special interests begging and scraping for more cash."
In any other context it means that you are seriously lacking resources and have cut things to the bone. For you or me, it means we get rid of cable TV, the gym membership, take cheaper vacations, don't buy a new car, live in a smaller place, don't eat and drink out as often, etc.
Governments have a much, much different approach: they begin by exacting revenge on the unwashed masses that dare not give them every dime ...
There is no "governmental austerity." Anybody who brings it up is playing Orwellian word games with you, and should have filthy socks shoved in their mouths (and possibly other body orifices) until they stop.
You are right that it's Orwellian, but wrong about how. This is not a tantrum against the masses, it's a tantrum against reality. The libraries in question are scientific libraries. Specifically libraries that contain environmental records related to pollution, biodiversity and climate. This is an attempt to continue the hamstringing of any science that shows the dark side of the so called free market. Intentional environmental ignorance is financial bliss for the oligarchy.
Let's make sure the right head rolls... This was a rookie mistake that no CEO should ever make. One NEVER tries a demo for the first time before an important audience. If the CEO isn't willing to do a dry run, then he should either get a product manager who has the time to do it or the board should get a new CEO.
How do you know he didn't do a dry run? He may have fumbled the the buy the milk line, he could have meant "remember the milk" which is an actual company and an actual app. But I bet he tried "Show me my most at-risk opportunities" before the demo and it worked. Or something really close worked and he choked.
Seriously, demos fail all the time for "obvious in hindsight" reasons. But we are not Merlin, so our hindsight comes after the fact. Besides gross incompetence on his part, which is of course possible. Maybe the acoustics of the environment confused the voice recognition. Or maybe someone else made a rookie mistake and rolled out an "upgrade" at a really inopportune time. All sorts of wonderful stuff can make a demo go wrong. I'm sure that when Bill Gates crashed Windows 98 live at Comdex it was not the first time he had plugged a USB device into a Windows 98 system.
Before any heads roll, maybe they should figure out what went wrong. And frankly to the OP, the whole "fire anyone that makes a mistake" attitude is pretty lame.
"That's stealing. It's no different than ripping music. It's no different than pirating movies."
How the heck is decreasing your bandwith by selectively not downloading ads the same as transcoding a music CD you own or copyright infringing a movie from https://kat.cr/ ?
Because the ads presumably pay for all the infrastructure. The publishers are mad because they need to pay for bandwidth and whatever staff it takes to generate content. The ad companies are made because they don't get their clicks. I feel for the publishers, I want quality content. The ad companies can go pound sand, they are middlemen that are part of a bad solution to a real problem (how to fund worthwhile, but largely "drive by," content.)
I have no idea how this will play out. Paywalls don't really work for the distributed reality we live in. No one is going to subscribe to every paper and blog. But ads suck when they try hard to get people's attention. Hopefully someone clever will find a better way.
The ISS will de-orbit by the time Orion flies.
We'll be hitching ride with the Russians for the next 20 years (trust me on that, the timeframe will be pushed back even further). Of course that assumes we're not at war with the Russians by that point.
Meanwhile; corporate, privately-funded access to space will be ahead of NASA... While it may take 30 more years, space-X or virgin galactic will have a re-usable SSTO craft by that time.
SLS/Orion's primary mission is deep space not LEO. But SLS/Orion tends to take money from Commercial Crew (which is the set of contracts for LEO human space flight.) SpaceX's Dragon/F9 and Boeing's Starliner/Atlas will be flying astronauts to ISS in 2017 (or 2018 if Congress keeps syphoning money from Commercial Crew to SLS).
Yes, I am biased, I like commercial crew and I like having more than one commercial crew provider because I think it leads to a more sustainable future in spaceflight. That said, I'm OK with big long range government programs in theory. Unfortunately it's virtually impossible to do sustained government projects (like put humans on Mars) because the people that fund those projects have to worry more about where the money is spent rather than the actual outcome of the project. And the person that chooses the project changes every 4 or 8 years and usually doesn't want to look like they support anything the last guy did. Meanwhile the guy(s) that decide where the money goes hang around forever, so the money goes to the same people, just for a moving target of a goal. Which is why we are going back to the Moon, no Mars, I mean capturing an asteroid but still giving lip service to Mars, but not really. Or something like that.
There's a lot of islamophobic stupidity in this country at the moment and it runs deep in all government institutions especially involving police or defense.
Yes, it is not easy to overcome millions of years of evolution which selected for greater pattern recognition, allowing our species to survive over others with inferior pattern recognition skills.
Actually we have horrible hyper-sensitve pattern recognition. That may keep us safe, but it also has us seeing faces in toast, believing in ghosts, and generally imagining that there is a tiger behind every bush and boogieman under every bed.
In a way, I am an Islamophobe. In general, I don't like religion. I really don't like holy texts that are inflexible and ever promote violence. Even if there are flowery versus, once there is a rule to shun, maim, stone, or behead someone - I am not a fan of that text. So all the Abrahamic religions are less than awesome in my book.
That said, people have this crazy ability to interpret these texts and cherry pick from them. So while I'm a bit of an Islamaphobe, I am not a Muslimaphobe. At least not any more than I am a Christianaphobe or a Hebrewaphobe.
So, believe it or not, you can dislike religion but not assume that all religious people are evil, stupid or insane. Though honestly, why anyone bothers with religion is a complete mystery to me.
In other, other words. You're both wrong.
Feminization would be a serious improvement. It's not a coincidence that every person in this story that did a stupid racist thing is male.
By lumping all men together you are doing nothing to make the world a better place. Blanket statements about gender and race are the problem, not the solution.
And of course, as pointed out elsewhere, you are wrong. A female teacher turned him in. But that is irrelevant.
I'd rather the gender boxes disappear altogether and people become free to set their own path in life, whatever their gender.
20 years ago, that position would have been considered feminist. Today, it's likely to get you yelled at as a white cishet shitlord.
The internet is full of men and women of every race that are scared and angry. They are going to lash out. I know I've done it.
The fact that some people go overboard does not mean there is not a problem. It just means that humans are tribal and tend to split into "us and them" when they are angry and afraid. In some ways the fact that women feel the right to be an "us" is a sign of progress.
It helps not to pretend to know what it's like to be something we are not. Don't assume that something you have experienced is common, nor that something you have not is not. That's simple conformation bias.
Look into why professional orchestras have people audition behind a screen. Look into the offers made to Ph.D applicants based on the name on the resume. Same resume, different name, men get offered more money. They get rated higher. Bias is real and we are all guilty of it. And to get back on the topic of this article, bias against race and religion is real too. (And I say this as a person that is not fond of any religion. But I have to acknowledge there is prejudice if I'm going to be intellectually honest. And I have to try to sort through my own prejudice if I want to live in a more just world.)