Yeah I think such bans are stupid. You miss out on tax/licensing revenue. Just like those stupid bans on smoking. They should just increase tax/license rates of places that allow smoking.
FWIW I'm a nonsmoker and I think those huge sugary drinks are rather bad for health. But there are plenty of dangerous and unhealthy stuff that people do. As long as they don't harm other people why ban it? Discourage the unhealthy stuff with education and taxes. Yes have bans for children but once you're legally an adult it should be up to you.
And sometimes people dying earlier is actually better for the economy. Especially if they pay extra taxes while they are still alive and are about as productive or only slightly less productive as those who aren't smokers/obese/alcoholics etc.
It's stupid for countries to worry about aging populations and yet ban so much unhealthy stuff.
So what if someone puts copyrighted material there, will the FBI seize the whole domain like they've done to other domains?
I wonder if you could pay for the maintenance of permanent P2P seeders of movies and songs located in a suitable country with friendly P2P laws. Laws change of course but if you hate the **AA it might be something to consider;).
I personally think honoring someone after they're dead is a waste of time. Visit people while they are still alive, not their gravestones. I'd rather people do nice stuff for me while I'm still alive. After I'm dead, don't waste time and resources on me, there are billions of other people still alive to do nice stuff to.
BUT the thing is, many of the other people who are still alive might like people to visit the graves of their beloved dead ones, etc. And so if I visit graves or attend memorial services, it's to make the living happier or at least less sad. It's doing nice stuff for them.
If it's just Red Bull footing the bill and not taxpayers, then it's up to them whether it's a waste or not. I think they definitely did get quite a lot of visibility from this project.
I think it's a pretty good experiment in video live streaming. The London Olympics probably was bigger . But from what I see this one's pretty big too.
Comparing a 50% chance of $0 or $1000 vs 100% chance of $500 it is rational to go for the $500. Because you assume you don't live forever, and you don't get infinite chances to make "free" money like that. Whereas if you got infinite goes at this, then sure they are about the same. For similar reasons it actually isn't that stupid for a poor unskilled and uneducated person to buy a lottery ticket if he wants to be a multimillionaire. Because his odds of becoming a multimillionaire in his lifetime by just working his way up, starting a successful business etc are also very low- in most countries social mobility is not that great. If he just wanted to be merely better off then he shouldn't waste his money on lottery tickets. Buying a lottery ticket makes even more sense if the jackpot has grown to a huge amount - in which case it can actually be considered an investment:).
For the other problem if you are risk averse you should not risk a 50% chance of losing $1000 when you can ensure your losses are limited to 500. So I find it interesting that the risk averse people are taking the chance.
You can often use the first address. And if you are willing to sacrifice some reachability to the next adjacent network you can also use the last address.
This assumes your ISP will forward packets to/fro the first and last "broadcast" address for you. Some do, some might not.
An IP address can _help_ positively identify a person. It can definitely negatively identify a person - if the public IP is different it wasn't you doing it (assuming you weren't using that public IP:) ).
If the download was made by the IP of your internet connection at that time, then it's evidence that something using your connection was doing the downloading. If they find other corroborating evidence that it's you - e.g. the downloaded file is on your computer, in your personal folders, shows up in your download history, the computer is not normally shared, there's no malware or remote control software, then it's likely to be downloaded by you.
But an IP sure isn't sufficient alone in itself. The **AA probably want it to be like a car license plate in certain countries - where if a camera takes a picture of a car breaking a traffic speed limit, that has the same plate as your car, looks like your car, then they expect you to either pay the (usually smaller) fine or identify the person responsible so that they can do it. Or challenge it in court and pay the full fine.
However in this case they want huge fines and the fines to go to them;).
Space travel is relatively safe compared to some of the shit jobs out there, particularly in places with lax safety records, like China.
One of the most dangerous jobs is President of the USA. About 10% have died due to job-related issues. And it does not appear that the job has become much safer over the years.
The colony will be in space, nitwit. Energy from the Sun. Materials from asteroids.
If we're not going to try doing stuff like that, we might as well shutdown NASA. What's the point of sending those Mars probes? Just so they can masturbate over the photos? Same goes for much of what NASA does.
I'm not obsessed with space colonies, but if you're going to pay for something like NASA, what's the frigging point spending time and resources just to wank around "but in zero gravity"?
You can do research into similar surgical technologies without even bothering about zero gravity. And it'll cost less to do so.
Funding NASA is like starting to walk down a long journey and instead of proceeding further keep doing reruns of past exploits (moon, mars) albeit with "more advanced technology".
Anything you want to keep around requires maintenance, stupid. What makes you think the cable is going to deteriorate any faster than the ISS? Stupidity?
If my proposal is stupid, then the ISS and most of what the NASA is doing is even stupider. Might as well shut them down completely.
Of course I don't think that we would use the same sort of cables. That would be stupid.
I was talking about the principle of it. The OP's claim was we can't do artificial gravity because we need something strong to survive the "spinning". But we already have cables that can take a lot of weight when compared to their own weight. That's why we do not need a huge structure for artificial gravity, we just need cables and modules at each end, and have them circling each other with the cables stopping them from flying apart.
You're just too stupid to realize you're stupid. If you still don't get such obvious stuff, I'd have to be paid to keep explaining things to you.
I think I understand things pretty well enough. When you swing an object at the end of a tether the stress on the object at the end is in one direction relative to that object.
Imagine a bucket at the end of a string, you swing it round and round. Ignoring acceleration due to earth's gravity (stuff is in free fall) the perceived weight is always towards the bottom of the bucket.
Now have two buckets connected by tethers, and have them "orbit" each other with the tethers stopping them from flying apart. Design the buckets and "handles" accordingly (you would likely want a suspension and damper/shock absorber). If you start them moving not too quickly the stresses won't be that high. And at the steady state the stresses will be about 1g. There's plenty of other things needed, but they are not beyond our current technological capabilities. They are mainly engineering issues - we can build the prototypes. Stopping our immune systems, bone marrow etc from being messed up by long term weightlessness is not pure engineering - we do not have the knowledge and tech yet.
You will need artificial gravity if you are going to put humans in space long term. If we aren't going to put humans in space, we can get rid of much of NASA - we can still do research on advances in surgery etc, but we then don't even need to bother designing it for space or trying it in space (and thus wasting the kilobux per pound to do so).
Lastly if we aren't ever going have human space colonies, we are more likely to go extinct sooner as a species. Space colonies buy us a bit more time - insurance. With that added time we might figure more things out and delay our likely inevitable extinction even more. In the long run we are likely all dead, but if we pick our paths right we can have a longer run.
Almost anyone can survive weightlessness for a few days. If you're going to spend months in space lifeboat you're already dead, unless you can freeze yourself.
It's like doing research into not needing water in the long term. Sure we can do without water for a day or two. But why waste time researching into doing without water for months, when the better solution is just to supply potable water?
I know someone who some years ago started work in a Scandinavian company. He then started staying back late (everyone else left mostly on time).
After a few days the boss came to him and asked him: 1) Is there a problem with the project? Are there enough people and resources allocated for it? 2) Does he need extra training to do his job? 3) Is the job a good fit for him?
So he stopped staying late just for the sake of staying late;).
And as far I see if we can build spacecraft that can cope with 3g, we should be able to build a spinning "bucket"+cables+"counterweight" that can cope with 1g (from spinning) plus some tidal forces.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah I think such bans are stupid. You miss out on tax/licensing revenue. Just like those stupid bans on smoking. They should just increase tax/license rates of places that allow smoking.
FWIW I'm a nonsmoker and I think those huge sugary drinks are rather bad for health. But there are plenty of dangerous and unhealthy stuff that people do. As long as they don't harm other people why ban it? Discourage the unhealthy stuff with education and taxes. Yes have bans for children but once you're legally an adult it should be up to you.
And sometimes people dying earlier is actually better for the economy. Especially if they pay extra taxes while they are still alive and are about as productive or only slightly less productive as those who aren't smokers/obese/alcoholics etc.
It's stupid for countries to worry about aging populations and yet ban so much unhealthy stuff.
So what if someone puts copyrighted material there, will the FBI seize the whole domain like they've done to other domains?
;).
I wonder if you could pay for the maintenance of permanent P2P seeders of movies and songs located in a suitable country with friendly P2P laws. Laws change of course but if you hate the **AA it might be something to consider
Yeah it's for those who are alive.
I personally think honoring someone after they're dead is a waste of time. Visit people while they are still alive, not their gravestones. I'd rather people do nice stuff for me while I'm still alive. After I'm dead, don't waste time and resources on me, there are billions of other people still alive to do nice stuff to.
BUT the thing is, many of the other people who are still alive might like people to visit the graves of their beloved dead ones, etc. And so if I visit graves or attend memorial services, it's to make the living happier or at least less sad. It's doing nice stuff for them.
If it's just Red Bull footing the bill and not taxpayers, then it's up to them whether it's a waste or not. I think they definitely did get quite a lot of visibility from this project.
I think it's a pretty good experiment in video live streaming. The London Olympics probably was bigger . But from what I see this one's pretty big too.
In the USA many cows eat chicken shit and feathers:
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct/31/business/fi-feed31
Comparing a 50% chance of $0 or $1000 vs 100% chance of $500 it is rational to go for the $500. Because you assume you don't live forever, and you don't get infinite chances to make "free" money like that. Whereas if you got infinite goes at this, then sure they are about the same. For similar reasons it actually isn't that stupid for a poor unskilled and uneducated person to buy a lottery ticket if he wants to be a multimillionaire. Because his odds of becoming a multimillionaire in his lifetime by just working his way up, starting a successful business etc are also very low- in most countries social mobility is not that great. If he just wanted to be merely better off then he shouldn't waste his money on lottery tickets. Buying a lottery ticket makes even more sense if the jackpot has grown to a huge amount - in which case it can actually be considered an investment :).
For the other problem if you are risk averse you should not risk a 50% chance of losing $1000 when you can ensure your losses are limited to 500. So I find it interesting that the risk averse people are taking the chance.
You can often use the first address. And if you are willing to sacrifice some reachability to the next adjacent network you can also use the last address.
This assumes your ISP will forward packets to/fro the first and last "broadcast" address for you. Some do, some might not.
An IP address can _help_ positively identify a person. :) ).
;).
It can definitely negatively identify a person - if the public IP is different it wasn't you doing it (assuming you weren't using that public IP
If the download was made by the IP of your internet connection at that time, then it's evidence that something using your connection was doing the downloading. If they find other corroborating evidence that it's you - e.g. the downloaded file is on your computer, in your personal folders, shows up in your download history, the computer is not normally shared, there's no malware or remote control software, then it's likely to be downloaded by you.
But an IP sure isn't sufficient alone in itself. The **AA probably want it to be like a car license plate in certain countries - where if a camera takes a picture of a car breaking a traffic speed limit, that has the same plate as your car, looks like your car, then they expect you to either pay the (usually smaller) fine or identify the person responsible so that they can do it. Or challenge it in court and pay the full fine.
However in this case they want huge fines and the fines to go to them
Who said it was to be in flight to another planet? Learn to read stupid.
If he's 40K in the hole it means he's way too keen on the paying thing.
Space travel is relatively safe compared to some of the shit jobs out there, particularly in places with lax safety records, like China.
One of the most dangerous jobs is President of the USA. About 10% have died due to job-related issues. And it does not appear that the job has become much safer over the years.
The colony will be in space, nitwit. Energy from the Sun. Materials from asteroids.
If we're not going to try doing stuff like that, we might as well shutdown NASA. What's the point of sending those Mars probes? Just so they can masturbate over the photos? Same goes for much of what NASA does.
I'm not obsessed with space colonies, but if you're going to pay for something like NASA, what's the frigging point spending time and resources just to wank around "but in zero gravity"?
You can do research into similar surgical technologies without even bothering about zero gravity. And it'll cost less to do so.
Funding NASA is like starting to walk down a long journey and instead of proceeding further keep doing reruns of past exploits (moon, mars) albeit with "more advanced technology".
Anything you want to keep around requires maintenance, stupid. What makes you think the cable is going to deteriorate any faster than the ISS? Stupidity?
If my proposal is stupid, then the ISS and most of what the NASA is doing is even stupider. Might as well shut them down completely.
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armin_Meiwes
You should stop smoking and stick to your prescription. I never said anything about colonizing Mars being a good idea.
As for preserving the species. I'm not obsessed with it, it just is a better goal than most of NASA's wanking.
Space crane to maintain long cables in space?! LOL, you're stupid.
Cables pitted by debris, you'd need spares for the ISS for those same reasons too. Does that mean it can't be built? LOL, stupid.
The solutions to all the problems you mentioned would be obvious if you weren't so stupid and ignorant.
Of course I don't think that we would use the same sort of cables. That would be stupid.
I was talking about the principle of it. The OP's claim was we can't do artificial gravity because we need something strong to survive the "spinning". But we already have cables that can take a lot of weight when compared to their own weight. That's why we do not need a huge structure for artificial gravity, we just need cables and modules at each end, and have them circling each other with the cables stopping them from flying apart.
You're just too stupid to realize you're stupid. If you still don't get such obvious stuff, I'd have to be paid to keep explaining things to you.
I think I understand things pretty well enough. When you swing an object at the end of a tether the stress on the object at the end is in one direction relative to that object.
Imagine a bucket at the end of a string, you swing it round and round. Ignoring acceleration due to earth's gravity (stuff is in free fall) the perceived weight is always towards the bottom of the bucket.
Now have two buckets connected by tethers, and have them "orbit" each other with the tethers stopping them from flying apart. Design the buckets and "handles" accordingly (you would likely want a suspension and damper/shock absorber). If you start them moving not too quickly the stresses won't be that high. And at the steady state the stresses will be about 1g. There's plenty of other things needed, but they are not beyond our current technological capabilities. They are mainly engineering issues - we can build the prototypes. Stopping our immune systems, bone marrow etc from being messed up by long term weightlessness is not pure engineering - we do not have the knowledge and tech yet.
You will need artificial gravity if you are going to put humans in space long term. If we aren't going to put humans in space, we can get rid of much of NASA - we can still do research on advances in surgery etc, but we then don't even need to bother designing it for space or trying it in space (and thus wasting the kilobux per pound to do so).
Lastly if we aren't ever going have human space colonies, we are more likely to go extinct sooner as a species. Space colonies buy us a bit more time - insurance. With that added time we might figure more things out and delay our likely inevitable extinction even more. In the long run we are likely all dead, but if we pick our paths right we can have a longer run.
And you think the space station and tether won't be maintained and inspected? You're real genius rocket scientist eh?
The modules still survived the g forces and vibrations during the launch. Which are multiples higher than the one g that you'll have during rotation.
If you think I meant putting the golden gate bridge into space you're complete idiot.
Otherwise you're still stupid.
Almost anyone can survive weightlessness for a few days. If you're going to spend months in space lifeboat you're already dead, unless you can freeze yourself.
It's like doing research into not needing water in the long term. Sure we can do without water for a day or two. But why waste time researching into doing without water for months, when the better solution is just to supply potable water?
I know someone who some years ago started work in a Scandinavian company. He then started staying back late (everyone else left mostly on time).
;).
After a few days the boss came to him and asked him:
1) Is there a problem with the project? Are there enough people and resources allocated for it?
2) Does he need extra training to do his job?
3) Is the job a good fit for him?
So he stopped staying late just for the sake of staying late
Whatever it is, doing research into finding and solving those problems sure seems more worthwhile than the near "dead end" research they're doing.
There are many things depending on gravity: http://www.space.com/4302-stresses-immune-organs.html
Just too much trouble trying to live long term without it.
And as far I see if we can build spacecraft that can cope with 3g, we should be able to build a spinning "bucket"+cables+"counterweight" that can cope with 1g (from spinning) plus some tidal forces.
Who said anything about building a large centrifuge?
I said tethers and counterweights. Put a module on one end of a few strong cables and a counterweight on the other. And then set it spinning.
You can get your supplies from the asteroids. There are some with lots of water. Some with lots of ore.