Except that in the US we do not have a lot of censorship. Look at Glenn Beck for example. Whether or not we agree with him is not the point. The point is that he can say what he does under the 1st amendment without fear of being arrested, at least currently. I personally believe that the "mainstream" media in the US does a horrible job of reporting facts, and instead mostly editorializes, but to suggest that the censorship in the US is in anyway comparable to that in China is laughable. The very fact that websites like breitbart, deudgereport and the huffington post exist, whether or not you like what is posted therein, should tell you something about the freedoms we enjoy in the US as compared to China, Iran, North Korea, etc...
I use Facebook because a number of my friends do, but I did not use real information when signing up. My birthday, address, etc are not correct. My birthday is close, the city is different as is the zip code. Birth date and zip code are 2 of the primary ways credit card companies use to verify you when calling in (plus your SSN, which I give to no one). FB does not need this information and I do not provide it to anyone I don't have to. It's not paranoia, it's prudence.
I understand the mechanism - it's very straightforward. This is the quote: "It incorporates within its tiny frame a polymer sheet that is folded for launch to be unfurled once in space."
Maybe I'm not getting it, but it seems to me that the article says that the device is unfurled once the satellite reaches orbit, so it starts to decay the orbit immediately? This also seems incompatible with this statement: "The team is also hoping that CubeSail can act as a propulsion system, using 'solar sailing' to help satellites keep their orbits more efficiently."
Seems like a good idea, but I'd think you'd deploy it remotely once the satellite reached end of life?
Bingo. That or a major upheaval like the complete collapse of the financial system. All it's going to take are a couple of US debt auctions where China decides not to buy more debt and the whole thing could come crashing down. People are such sheep. Just because something of that magnitude hasn't happened in 50 or 100 years does not mean it cannot happen again.
And they need to know if I have a mortgage on my house why, exactly? They need to know the exact birth dates, rather than just asking age? Fuck'em. BTW my response would be identical in 1980, and 1990 too. The government in this country has abused their powers for too long, and I'm not playing along on principal.
Not sure why this is modded funny. It's true. And so would the CIA, Homeland Security, most police departments, the current president, the prior president, etc. In other words, just about anybody in a position of authority in any government wants this, not to mention corporations, unions and Mrs. Kravitz across the street...
Apple doesn't care what a tiny minority of geeks thinks. If they did the iPad would have 2 cameras, 4 media card slots, 5 usb ports, 2 removable batteries, a combo OLED / eInk screen and would run Linux. And it would cost under $300.
An Olympic pool is 2500 cubic meters: 50x25x2.
All the gold ever mined is estimated at 10 billion troy ounces, which has a volume of roughly 25m cubed, or 15,625 cubic meters, or 6.25 Olympic pools. If you assume that the storage containers are about 1 meter in height, you'd need an area of 2,500 square meters, or about half the size of a football (American or otherwise) field. Even if you assume that you need 100% additional space for walkways, containment, etc, the area is only 4 times that of the pool, which is hardly multiple orders of magnitude larger.
You point aside, health insurance is NOT like auto insurance. Firstly, you are only required to have liability insurance to cover the other person, not yourself. Secondly, I can choose to avoid the whole mess by not driving a car. The only ways that the two are alike are that they are insurance, and now they are both mandatory.
Perhaps I emphasized government too much. I hold society to blame, not just the idiots in government, but the idiots that put them there. Even if 99.99% of people think it should be illegal to utter a specific slur, it should not be illegal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
excluding "true" child porn
Why? No really, you were doing an intellectual exercise there, and I agree totally, but an exception like that is exactly what has eroded freedoms everywhere. Looking at "real snuff" should be excluded as well, don't you think? Looking at necrophilia (I'm close to vomiting now, but hey, this is an exercise)? Looking at someone killing cats for fun? Looking at gay sex? At sex? At women with open hair?
No, true child porn is, I think harmful in a real and profound way to a child. Snuff is obviously harmful to the person being killed, therefore it and it's derivatives should be illegal.
Necrophilia? sure, it's not hurting anyone.
Killing cats/dogs for fun? This is a gray area, and the one that poses a problem. I would argue that any domestic creature should have at least the right to a painless death at the hands of a person, and that society has a responsibility to punish the torture (not killing) of animals.
Gay sex? fine, sex? fine. open hair? I assume that is a reference to a Muslim without a head scarf? If the woman doesn't want to wear it she shouldn't have to. I have little tolerance for the way some societies treat women, but I do not feel it is the place of one country to police another.
Personally, I think that erring on the side of not legislating to be the best course - the goal is to try to get along as best as possible, not coddle everyone to death.
And I do wish people would understand that tolerance means just that. To tolerate. It does not mean embrace, or like. If I were a racist, I may not like the like that a black (or a white) guy moved in next to me, but I should tolerate it.
There are plenty of hypotheses from both sides but neither can be proven. It is not logical to assert the existence of God, nor is it logical to assert his non-existence. Logic, unfortunately plays no part in religious belief. In my experience faith is generally incompatible with logic.
Logical as in we have both significant correlation regarding video games and violence and we have used the scientific method to prove causation. Hitler may have been able to see a very little correlation between Jews and whatever social issues he thought there were, but there was no scientifically proven causation, hence his position was not supported by facts, hence it was illogical.
It doesn't matter is someone thinks they are logical, and it doesn't matter if their logic is internally consistent if the hypothesis on which that logic is built is false.
I agree completely, and I've been thinking on this for a while. For example, (not to pick an inflammatory topic, but it's the first one that came to mind) is it right to call a black person a nigger? No, it's not, and I don't. Does that mean that use of the word should be legislated? Absolutely not. I do, and should, have the right to be an anti-social asshole and use whatever slurs I want. It doesn't mean that the behavior is socially acceptable, and it doesn't make it "right", but we've long ago crossed the line where the government has been legislating morality and it needs to be halted and rolled back. It is extremely prevalent in all cultures and it is both frightening and sad. From legislating the morality of marriage, to the publishing of porn, suicide, "illicit" drugs, what kind of video games I can purchase - a government has no business legislating anything that does not directly harm others, and "hurt feelings" or a different kind of high do not qualify as direct harm. I should be able to smoke pot just as I can drink tequila. I should be able to look at any porn (excluding "true" child porn) that I want. I should be able to choose any partner I want - I don't think the state should be involved in marriage at all.
I do not think a future where everyone is protected from every possible harm, insult, self inflicted damage is a good future.
Slashdot Mirror
It's MSNBC, you were expecting something different?
Except that in the US we do not have a lot of censorship. Look at Glenn Beck for example. Whether or not we agree with him is not the point. The point is that he can say what he does under the 1st amendment without fear of being arrested, at least currently. I personally believe that the "mainstream" media in the US does a horrible job of reporting facts, and instead mostly editorializes, but to suggest that the censorship in the US is in anyway comparable to that in China is laughable. The very fact that websites like breitbart, deudgereport and the huffington post exist, whether or not you like what is posted therein, should tell you something about the freedoms we enjoy in the US as compared to China, Iran, North Korea, etc...
I use Facebook because a number of my friends do, but I did not use real information when signing up. My birthday, address, etc are not correct. My birthday is close, the city is different as is the zip code. Birth date and zip code are 2 of the primary ways credit card companies use to verify you when calling in (plus your SSN, which I give to no one). FB does not need this information and I do not provide it to anyone I don't have to. It's not paranoia, it's prudence.
I understand the mechanism - it's very straightforward. This is the quote: "It incorporates within its tiny frame a polymer sheet that is folded for launch to be unfurled once in space."
My bad for taking the article at face value. I think the New Scientist article is better: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18705-nanosatellite-sets-sail-to-tackle-space-junk.html It even tell you how big the sail is...
Maybe I'm not getting it, but it seems to me that the article says that the device is unfurled once the satellite reaches orbit, so it starts to decay the orbit immediately? This also seems incompatible with this statement: "The team is also hoping that CubeSail can act as a propulsion system, using 'solar sailing' to help satellites keep their orbits more efficiently."
Seems like a good idea, but I'd think you'd deploy it remotely once the satellite reached end of life?
Ditto. Added with thanks.
Bingo. That or a major upheaval like the complete collapse of the financial system. All it's going to take are a couple of US debt auctions where China decides not to buy more debt and the whole thing could come crashing down. People are such sheep. Just because something of that magnitude hasn't happened in 50 or 100 years does not mean it cannot happen again.
And they need to know if I have a mortgage on my house why, exactly? They need to know the exact birth dates, rather than just asking age? Fuck'em. BTW my response would be identical in 1980, and 1990 too. The government in this country has abused their powers for too long, and I'm not playing along on principal.
Because we're completely enlightened and nothing bad will ever happen again.
And I suggest that you do the same.
Not sure why this is modded funny. It's true. And so would the CIA, Homeland Security, most police departments, the current president, the prior president, etc. In other words, just about anybody in a position of authority in any government wants this, not to mention corporations, unions and Mrs. Kravitz across the street...
Apple doesn't care what a tiny minority of geeks thinks. If they did the iPad would have 2 cameras, 4 media card slots, 5 usb ports, 2 removable batteries, a combo OLED / eInk screen and would run Linux. And it would cost under $300.
How else will the robots be able to get to the stuff?
An Olympic pool is 2500 cubic meters: 50x25x2. All the gold ever mined is estimated at 10 billion troy ounces, which has a volume of roughly 25m cubed, or 15,625 cubic meters, or 6.25 Olympic pools. If you assume that the storage containers are about 1 meter in height, you'd need an area of 2,500 square meters, or about half the size of a football (American or otherwise) field. Even if you assume that you need 100% additional space for walkways, containment, etc, the area is only 4 times that of the pool, which is hardly multiple orders of magnitude larger.
I offer you my back yard to construct a power plant, and while I'm at it, wireless providers please feel free to put a cell tower back there too.
is what you make with it after you cut it down.
Google is your friend: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5950442.ece
You point aside, health insurance is NOT like auto insurance. Firstly, you are only required to have liability insurance to cover the other person, not yourself. Secondly, I can choose to avoid the whole mess by not driving a car. The only ways that the two are alike are that they are insurance, and now they are both mandatory.
Please move along
Perhaps I emphasized government too much. I hold society to blame, not just the idiots in government, but the idiots that put them there. Even if 99.99% of people think it should be illegal to utter a specific slur, it should not be illegal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
excluding "true" child porn
Why? No really, you were doing an intellectual exercise there, and I agree totally, but an exception like that is exactly what has eroded freedoms everywhere. Looking at "real snuff" should be excluded as well, don't you think? Looking at necrophilia (I'm close to vomiting now, but hey, this is an exercise)? Looking at someone killing cats for fun? Looking at gay sex? At sex? At women with open hair?
No, true child porn is, I think harmful in a real and profound way to a child. Snuff is obviously harmful to the person being killed, therefore it and it's derivatives should be illegal.
Necrophilia? sure, it's not hurting anyone.
Killing cats/dogs for fun? This is a gray area, and the one that poses a problem. I would argue that any domestic creature should have at least the right to a painless death at the hands of a person, and that society has a responsibility to punish the torture (not killing) of animals.
Gay sex? fine, sex? fine. open hair? I assume that is a reference to a Muslim without a head scarf? If the woman doesn't want to wear it she shouldn't have to. I have little tolerance for the way some societies treat women, but I do not feel it is the place of one country to police another.
Personally, I think that erring on the side of not legislating to be the best course - the goal is to try to get along as best as possible, not coddle everyone to death.
And I do wish people would understand that tolerance means just that. To tolerate. It does not mean embrace, or like. If I were a racist, I may not like the like that a black (or a white) guy moved in next to me, but I should tolerate it.
There are plenty of hypotheses from both sides but neither can be proven. It is not logical to assert the existence of God, nor is it logical to assert his non-existence. Logic, unfortunately plays no part in religious belief. In my experience faith is generally incompatible with logic.
Logical as in we have both significant correlation regarding video games and violence and we have used the scientific method to prove causation. Hitler may have been able to see a very little correlation between Jews and whatever social issues he thought there were, but there was no scientifically proven causation, hence his position was not supported by facts, hence it was illogical.
It doesn't matter is someone thinks they are logical, and it doesn't matter if their logic is internally consistent if the hypothesis on which that logic is built is false.
I agree completely, and I've been thinking on this for a while. For example, (not to pick an inflammatory topic, but it's the first one that came to mind) is it right to call a black person a nigger? No, it's not, and I don't. Does that mean that use of the word should be legislated? Absolutely not. I do, and should, have the right to be an anti-social asshole and use whatever slurs I want. It doesn't mean that the behavior is socially acceptable, and it doesn't make it "right", but we've long ago crossed the line where the government has been legislating morality and it needs to be halted and rolled back. It is extremely prevalent in all cultures and it is both frightening and sad. From legislating the morality of marriage, to the publishing of porn, suicide, "illicit" drugs, what kind of video games I can purchase - a government has no business legislating anything that does not directly harm others, and "hurt feelings" or a different kind of high do not qualify as direct harm. I should be able to smoke pot just as I can drink tequila. I should be able to look at any porn (excluding "true" child porn) that I want. I should be able to choose any partner I want - I don't think the state should be involved in marriage at all.
I do not think a future where everyone is protected from every possible harm, insult, self inflicted damage is a good future.
Which is why I'm somewhat disappointed. I've always thought the Swiss above all else as rational and logical.
That would be a niggardly response, don't you think? Why should posts that offend some be deleted? Selfish in the extreme IMO.