Judging by the PR page (third image from bottom), the GG can have your conventional lenses attached. But it looks like you can't wear regular glasses and Glass, so you'd need to get your Glass customised with your lenses. [Obligatory "Yo dawg..." taken as read.]
However, in some of the early demos, the display itself can be removed from its own frame and attached to any suitable pair of glasses, with the display sitting just in front of your normal lens. Ie, the included frame is just for people who don't wear glasses. So we may be in luck, we might be able to buy the display without the expensive custom frame. But it's interesting/creepy that in all current PR images (I mean all of them) none of the Glass users wear glasses.
the strain coming from the other eye having to focus somewhere in mid-air. That's unnatural and needs to be forced without a distinct object to look at.
I don't see this (no pun intended). It would be no harder to focus on than focusing on your hand held up in the air. (And it specifically avoids the problem Mann is talking about.)
And a percentage of pilot-candidates flunk out because they can never adapt to it. The rest have to be trained to it. Not something you want in a general consumer device.
That said, I don't see Mann's objection. His first display worked like the Apache system, with the same problems. Google Glass works differently to both.
"Since the beginning of the Obama presidency, radiation around the Earth has actually increased. So much for the Liberal Green Agenda from this Environmentalist-In-Chief. Can our planet survive four more years of this, or Is it finally time for Obama to go? You decide."
Not quite. You core the centre, fill it will water-ice, and re-seal it. When the heat from the molten rock reaches the centre, the ice turns into steam, and that is what blows the bubble. Then you introduce air (it already has water), spin for gravity, and build your settlement/colony.
That's not an issue, as others have said. The real issue is the stupidity of replicating the lowest density suburban housing in purely artificial structure. It makes no sense. Open suburbs develop when you have lots of low-cost flat land. In a space settlement you have to manufacture every square metre of land, and every cubic metre of sky. A real settlement would be much more like a high-rise Tokyo apartment block than a '70s LA outer suburb.
Even if they had the wealth to build so much volume-per-person, why the hell would they want to live in a structure where half the view from your crappy little back-yard is roofs of other people's crappy little houses. You'd built the housing into the side-walls, looking out over the open parkland which takes up the bulk of the open space. Businesses/factories/etc would be built into the floor underneath the park. Rapid transport would similarly be enclosed in the walls/floor, hidden from view.
In a lower wealth colony, things would be even more tightly packed in the walls and floor of the structure, with the main volume used for intensive farming and hydroculture.
[We can blame the illustrators, rather than O'Neill and co. Why would you choose to illustrate futuristic concepts if you had such little imagination?]
Agreed, "Take 'Yes' for an answer guys." This is one of the more positive results from a WH petition.
Even if the FCC doesn't act on cellphone unlocking, when the FCC Chairman is on record saying the "ban [on unlocking] raises competition concerns; it raises innovation concerns," that's got to be worth some points at next year's LoC DCMA-exemption hearings.
North and south are also defined by convention. Because we decided that that one was north, that became the rule for every other object in the universe.
(Actually we have two norths. Depending on which convention you use.)
As I said, this is not the kind of Mars mission you are picturing. It's a flyby. Once they launch they will have enough fuel for tiny course changes. The rest of the trip relies on gravity. The capsule will be going tens of kilometres per second when it passes Mars. Anything in Mars' orbit is unreachable. Anything on the surface is a thousand times more unreachable. The only orbit that matches theirs is the one they are on. So if you wanted to send extra supplies, you would have a second rocket launch the supply ship at the same time and into exactly the same orbit as the main mission.
The point of Tito's plan, the reason it sneaks under the line of possible, is because the 2018 window allows him to lift enough mass on a single launch for a free-return flyby around Mars. One launch of, say, the Falcon Heavy is being listed at $125m, but call it $150m by 2018.
The same mission profile would get you a Venus flyby mission, and probably a number of possible asteroid targets. But outside of the 2018 window, you will not get to Mars in one launch.
Likewise, to go into Mars orbit would mean two launches, maybe three, because you need enough fuel to enter and leave Mars orbit (plus extra hardware if you want to land on Phobos/Deimos.) If you want to land on Mars, you are going up another order of magnitude. Your mission profile means a dozen launches, plus entirely custom hardware. It's a classic NASA proposal.
But if Tito can pull off the flyby, it demonstrates that any nation can order this hardware off the shelf. If the flyby costs Tito $1b, a Phobos mission might cost only $2-3b. That's what NASA spends in a year on the ISS. Orbiting the moon (Apollo 8) would be vastly easier than Tito's Mars flyby, a $150m FH launch and a relatively unmodified Dragon-crew capsule. You wouldn't even need the inflatable module or extra life-support. $250m per flight, well within the affordability of a small nation. A private moon landing would probably be close to the $1b (for the extra hardware), still within range and ambitions of a third of the developing countries on Earth. And what Tito does is show them that they can. They don't need to wait for NASA or ESA or Ruscosmos, they can take the lead.
About the same as the average cost of a Shuttle mission. 1/18th NASA's annual budget. 1/3rd of what they spend on ISS every year. Slightly more than 1/3rd of what they spend each year developing SLS in the hope that they will, perhaps, be able to fly a crew of 4 around the moon and back in 2021 after 15+ years of development.
We would learn nothing about Mars that couldn't be done with an unmanned orbiter. We would learn nothing about humans in space that we couldn't learn in Earth orbit.
We will learn that in 2018 you can buy, privately, enough hardware to fly to Mars.
Around the same time, there will be a company selling private space stations for less than some people spend on second homes. (Or on racing yachts. Or unstable private artificial islands.) Some billionaires gamble (ie, lose) more each year (for fun) than it will cost to orbit the moon, in a couple of years.
Tito will spend less than one third of one year's worth of the ISS budget. Or 1/70th of the estimated development cost of the SLS. Or about the same cost as a Shuttle mission (depending on what you count.)
To fly past Mars. Just because he feels like it.
Double the cost of this Mars flyby and you could put human boots on Phobos. That's well within the spending power of any modest developing nation. From hardware purchased privately and available to anyone. A basic lunar base for a couple of billion. A flyby of Jupiter for $3-5b.
The world changed, and the world's national space agencies are still playing with dead rats in the gutter pretending they have a space program.
There is a consensus that people attending computer security conferences should expect the focus to be on computer security,
Can you demonstrate that there was any kind of "consensus", outside of the mind of Valerie Aurora, that the talk was unwelcome. Her complaint seem entirely unilateral.
especially when the title of the talk isn't announced until a few hours before the talk.
You mean, a few hours before the same talk at the previous year's con? Ie, 12 months + a few hours to raise the issue with the presenter. It's Valerie Aurora's objections (and apparent threats against organisers) that were last minute, not the talk topic. Aurora waited until the audience was seated for the talk to begin.
But your comment reinforces that Aurora's complaint was not based on any information, but solely on a title with the word "sex" in it. Likewise from her Ada Initiative statement: "The precise meaning of the title is ambiguous, but to people familiar with the jargon, a reasonable interpretation of the title might include using drugs to exploit someone into having sex without consent (i.e., rape)."
Aurora assumed, without bothering to ask, that a woman (with training in sex education and experience in rape crisis counselling) was going to give an instructional talk on how to use drugs to rape women at the conference, and that the organisers were fine with that. To her that seemed a perfectly logical and "reasonable interpretation", so reasonable that she didn't need to talk to the presenter. Nor was contradictory information welcome, for bizarrely, as can be seen by her statement, she is still defending her actions, just as you apologists are still claiming that Violet Blue was the one in the wrong.
No. The only correct response by Valerie Aurora is "I made a mistake about something I care about and got angry, in my anger I hurt a good person, abused my position of trust in the organisation I founded, and harmed the community. I have thought long and hard about what I did wrong so I can hopefully do better next time. I apologise to Violet Blue and to the community...."
It isn't just a matter of not attending the talk if you don't like the subject. The talk itself turns the attendees' focus away from technical matters and onto sexual matters in an environment where women already have a difficult time being treated professionally rather than as sexual objects. And in a crowd of socially awkward men who already find it challenging to interact with women without having sex rubbed in their face.
You don't even see how bizarre and objectifying (of both sexes) that comment is. The way to change a culture is to talk about it.
The talk was completely off-topic and couldn't possibly improve the environment of the conference.
The hacker culture has long been associated with sharing drug knowledge/safety and other aspects of counter-culture. (Or rather, much of the hacker culture grew out of the West Coast university counter-culture movements.) It's where I've found most of my information about drugs over the last 30 years. Spreading information openly in the face of official censorship. The nature of the information is almost irrelevant, whether it's lock picking, or breaking out of plastic security cuffs, or culture jamming, or safe drug use, all are welcome... were welcome.
Sounds like someone needs to give the Ada Initiative a "creeper card", for creating a hostile environment, making people uncomfortable around them, and harming the community.
But they cheated and jumped ahead. Herschel was discovered in 1960 (and possibly 1934). 1999 Hirayama and 2001 Einstein were discovered February/March 1973. They do that a lot, for example, Quaoar (big TNO) was given 50000 even though 49,999 and 50001 were discovered two years earlier.
(I was wrong about naming as well, asteroid candidates are also given a year-code designation, switching to sequential (-ish) numbering when their orbits are locked down. 1866 Sisyphus' was initially 1972 XA. Not confusing at all.)
I hope the IAU has the sense to name this moon after something that fits contextually.
You mean like gods or attendants associated with the underworld? Like Pluto? God of the underworld. Or Charon? Ferryman. Or Nix? Mother of Charon. Or Hydra? Okay, Hydra's a bit obscure. Apparently Hydra's lair was an entrance to the underworld used by Hercules.
Vulcan and Pluto are related (I mean biologically, as well as thematically. Or whatever deities have instead of biology.)
Slashdot Mirror
Judging by the PR page (third image from bottom), the GG can have your conventional lenses attached. But it looks like you can't wear regular glasses and Glass, so you'd need to get your Glass customised with your lenses. [Obligatory "Yo dawg..." taken as read.]
However, in some of the early demos, the display itself can be removed from its own frame and attached to any suitable pair of glasses, with the display sitting just in front of your normal lens. Ie, the included frame is just for people who don't wear glasses. So we may be in luck, we might be able to buy the display without the expensive custom frame. But it's interesting/creepy that in all current PR images (I mean all of them) none of the Glass users wear glasses.
the strain coming from the other eye having to focus somewhere in mid-air. That's unnatural and needs to be forced without a distinct object to look at.
I don't see this (no pun intended). It would be no harder to focus on than focusing on your hand held up in the air. (And it specifically avoids the problem Mann is talking about.)
And a percentage of pilot-candidates flunk out because they can never adapt to it. The rest have to be trained to it. Not something you want in a general consumer device.
That said, I don't see Mann's objection. His first display worked like the Apache system, with the same problems. Google Glass works differently to both.
Someone else needs to read up on Starfish Prime. We can and did influence these systems.
"Since the beginning of the Obama presidency, radiation around the Earth has actually increased. So much for the Liberal Green Agenda from this Environmentalist-In-Chief. Can our planet survive four more years of this, or Is it finally time for Obama to go? You decide."
That should be David Lee Roth, because the new ring is apparently not in the group any more.
Not quite. You core the centre, fill it will water-ice, and re-seal it. When the heat from the molten rock reaches the centre, the ice turns into steam, and that is what blows the bubble. Then you introduce air (it already has water), spin for gravity, and build your settlement/colony.
That's not an issue, as others have said. The real issue is the stupidity of replicating the lowest density suburban housing in purely artificial structure. It makes no sense. Open suburbs develop when you have lots of low-cost flat land. In a space settlement you have to manufacture every square metre of land, and every cubic metre of sky. A real settlement would be much more like a high-rise Tokyo apartment block than a '70s LA outer suburb.
Even if they had the wealth to build so much volume-per-person, why the hell would they want to live in a structure where half the view from your crappy little back-yard is roofs of other people's crappy little houses. You'd built the housing into the side-walls, looking out over the open parkland which takes up the bulk of the open space. Businesses/factories/etc would be built into the floor underneath the park. Rapid transport would similarly be enclosed in the walls/floor, hidden from view.
In a lower wealth colony, things would be even more tightly packed in the walls and floor of the structure, with the main volume used for intensive farming and hydroculture.
[We can blame the illustrators, rather than O'Neill and co. Why would you choose to illustrate futuristic concepts if you had such little imagination?]
Why not an Alderson Disk?
Agreed, "Take 'Yes' for an answer guys." This is one of the more positive results from a WH petition.
Even if the FCC doesn't act on cellphone unlocking, when the FCC Chairman is on record saying the "ban [on unlocking] raises competition concerns; it raises innovation concerns," that's got to be worth some points at next year's LoC DCMA-exemption hearings.
North and south are also defined by convention. Because we decided that that one was north, that became the rule for every other object in the universe.
(Actually we have two norths. Depending on which convention you use.)
It's exactly as well defined (by the great circle joining Greenwich to the International Date Line). It's just that nobody wants to use it that way.
As I said, this is not the kind of Mars mission you are picturing. It's a flyby. Once they launch they will have enough fuel for tiny course changes. The rest of the trip relies on gravity. The capsule will be going tens of kilometres per second when it passes Mars. Anything in Mars' orbit is unreachable. Anything on the surface is a thousand times more unreachable. The only orbit that matches theirs is the one they are on. So if you wanted to send extra supplies, you would have a second rocket launch the supply ship at the same time and into exactly the same orbit as the main mission.
Space station? Lander? Zero g construction? Did you ever read the proposal?
The point of Tito's plan, the reason it sneaks under the line of possible, is because the 2018 window allows him to lift enough mass on a single launch for a free-return flyby around Mars. One launch of, say, the Falcon Heavy is being listed at $125m, but call it $150m by 2018.
The same mission profile would get you a Venus flyby mission, and probably a number of possible asteroid targets. But outside of the 2018 window, you will not get to Mars in one launch.
Likewise, to go into Mars orbit would mean two launches, maybe three, because you need enough fuel to enter and leave Mars orbit (plus extra hardware if you want to land on Phobos/Deimos.) If you want to land on Mars, you are going up another order of magnitude. Your mission profile means a dozen launches, plus entirely custom hardware. It's a classic NASA proposal.
But if Tito can pull off the flyby, it demonstrates that any nation can order this hardware off the shelf. If the flyby costs Tito $1b, a Phobos mission might cost only $2-3b. That's what NASA spends in a year on the ISS. Orbiting the moon (Apollo 8) would be vastly easier than Tito's Mars flyby, a $150m FH launch and a relatively unmodified Dragon-crew capsule. You wouldn't even need the inflatable module or extra life-support. $250m per flight, well within the affordability of a small nation. A private moon landing would probably be close to the $1b (for the extra hardware), still within range and ambitions of a third of the developing countries on Earth. And what Tito does is show them that they can. They don't need to wait for NASA or ESA or Ruscosmos, they can take the lead.
(i.e. launching supplies ahead of time etc.)
There's no orbit where supplies launched ahead of this flight can be reached by it. It's not the sort of mission you are thinking of.
and however much money
Around a billion.
About the same as the average cost of a Shuttle mission. 1/18th NASA's annual budget. 1/3rd of what they spend on ISS every year. Slightly more than 1/3rd of what they spend each year developing SLS in the hope that they will, perhaps, be able to fly a crew of 4 around the moon and back in 2021 after 15+ years of development.
We would learn nothing about Mars that couldn't be done with an unmanned orbiter. We would learn nothing about humans in space that we couldn't learn in Earth orbit.
We will learn that in 2018 you can buy, privately, enough hardware to fly to Mars.
Around the same time, there will be a company selling private space stations for less than some people spend on second homes. (Or on racing yachts. Or unstable private artificial islands.) Some billionaires gamble (ie, lose) more each year (for fun) than it will cost to orbit the moon, in a couple of years.
Tito will spend less than one third of one year's worth of the ISS budget. Or 1/70th of the estimated development cost of the SLS. Or about the same cost as a Shuttle mission (depending on what you count.)
To fly past Mars. Just because he feels like it.
Double the cost of this Mars flyby and you could put human boots on Phobos. That's well within the spending power of any modest developing nation. From hardware purchased privately and available to anyone. A basic lunar base for a couple of billion. A flyby of Jupiter for $3-5b.
The world changed, and the world's national space agencies are still playing with dead rats in the gutter pretending they have a space program.
There is a consensus that people attending computer security conferences should expect the focus to be on computer security,
Can you demonstrate that there was any kind of "consensus", outside of the mind of Valerie Aurora, that the talk was unwelcome. Her complaint seem entirely unilateral.
especially when the title of the talk isn't announced until a few hours before the talk.
You mean, a few hours before the same talk at the previous year's con? Ie, 12 months + a few hours to raise the issue with the presenter. It's Valerie Aurora's objections (and apparent threats against organisers) that were last minute, not the talk topic. Aurora waited until the audience was seated for the talk to begin.
But your comment reinforces that Aurora's complaint was not based on any information, but solely on a title with the word "sex" in it. Likewise from her Ada Initiative statement: "The precise meaning of the title is ambiguous, but to people familiar with the jargon, a reasonable interpretation of the title might include using drugs to exploit someone into having sex without consent (i.e., rape)."
Aurora assumed, without bothering to ask, that a woman (with training in sex education and experience in rape crisis counselling) was going to give an instructional talk on how to use drugs to rape women at the conference, and that the organisers were fine with that. To her that seemed a perfectly logical and "reasonable interpretation", so reasonable that she didn't need to talk to the presenter. Nor was contradictory information welcome, for bizarrely, as can be seen by her statement, she is still defending her actions, just as you apologists are still claiming that Violet Blue was the one in the wrong.
No. The only correct response by Valerie Aurora is "I made a mistake about something I care about and got angry, in my anger I hurt a good person, abused my position of trust in the organisation I founded, and harmed the community. I have thought long and hard about what I did wrong so I can hopefully do better next time. I apologise to Violet Blue and to the community...."
It isn't just a matter of not attending the talk if you don't like the subject. The talk itself turns the attendees' focus away from technical matters and onto sexual matters in an environment where women already have a difficult time being treated professionally rather than as sexual objects. And in a crowd of socially awkward men who already find it challenging to interact with women without having sex rubbed in their face.
You don't even see how bizarre and objectifying (of both sexes) that comment is. The way to change a culture is to talk about it.
The talk was completely off-topic and couldn't possibly improve the environment of the conference.
The hacker culture has long been associated with sharing drug knowledge/safety and other aspects of counter-culture. (Or rather, much of the hacker culture grew out of the West Coast university counter-culture movements.) It's where I've found most of my information about drugs over the last 30 years. Spreading information openly in the face of official censorship. The nature of the information is almost irrelevant, whether it's lock picking, or breaking out of plastic security cuffs, or culture jamming, or safe drug use, all are welcome... were welcome.
Sounds like someone needs to give the Ada Initiative a "creeper card", for creating a hostile environment, making people uncomfortable around them, and harming the community.
2000 Herschel
But they cheated and jumped ahead. Herschel was discovered in 1960 (and possibly 1934). 1999 Hirayama and 2001 Einstein were discovered February/March 1973. They do that a lot, for example, Quaoar (big TNO) was given 50000 even though 49,999 and 50001 were discovered two years earlier.
(I was wrong about naming as well, asteroid candidates are also given a year-code designation, switching to sequential (-ish) numbering when their orbits are locked down. 1866 Sisyphus' was initially 1972 XA. Not confusing at all.)
You're thinking comets, like C/2013 A1. Asteroids are numbered in order of discovery. Ceres was 1st, Pallas was 2nd. This one was 1866th.
So you never want him to close his eyes? Never want him to fall asleep?
They did the same thing with the shuttle Enterprise. A drop-test glider that never flew in space. Well done boys.
I hope the IAU has the sense to name this moon after something that fits contextually.
You mean like gods or attendants associated with the underworld? Like Pluto? God of the underworld. Or Charon? Ferryman. Or Nix? Mother of Charon. Or Hydra? Okay, Hydra's a bit obscure. Apparently Hydra's lair was an entrance to the underworld used by Hercules.
Vulcan and Pluto are related (I mean biologically, as well as thematically. Or whatever deities have instead of biology.)