Umm, 1 H-Bomb would level the majority of the Metropolitan New York area. I'd love to see how much order is actually retained after such an incident. My guess is that martial law would be enacted if state or federal government still retains power, and that people involved with the incident would be immediately shot without trial. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that they'd be tortured viciously first. It'd all be legal too. Hell I'd be the first person up at bat if I could.
Limitation? Thats pretty lame. Where in society is there ever a defined line between right/wrong, good/bad, etc. Guns are bad, cars are bad, etc. I hate guns personally, but cars are very beneficial. Obviously some people feel the same way about guns. Now as for an H-Bomb? There does not exist a single sane and mentally proficient person on this planet who will contest that giving an H-Bomb to a nut would be beneficial.
If you use it, there will be no jail for you to go to. I sure as hell don't want to have another law stripping us of another right to life, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness.
Those liberties exist. What do not exist in this circumstance is the right to intimidate, threaten or harm in any way whatsoever. Life liberty and happiness fall short if your happiness is dependent on building something with the intent to harm.
I'm not saying that I feel virii source code should be banned, rather that I feel that the execution should be banned. Of course when you write destructive source code and distribute it to the world, you're basically giving your enemy the means to cause harm to your society.
Lets you code in Java that'll run on any platform, and you can make a.exe for windows as well. I believe it embeds the actual interpretor into the.exe itself (I could be wrong about this though). The version I use is a couple years old, so Sun may have gone ape-sh1t about how it makes those.exe's. Its definately worth looking into though, since you can have the power of Java without the limitations of installing JDK.
...and NASA being a govt agency and all wouldn't exactly mean that they could even have a value since they produce no profit. You could sell stock.. in which case it'd have no value. You might as well just write them a check, but then again, thats what you do when you pay your taxes. If you want to give additional money, I'm sure they'd be happy to accept Discover Card (tm)
I wouldn't say that valueing RedHat at $7.4B is exactly realistic or wise. In fact, if the market crashes, I'll be the first to point the finger at over valued companies like those listed. Just because some people believe ignorantly that those companies can turn a profit that will value to that amount, doesn't mean in any way that they will or ever could.
Actually, according to the article, Motorola had everything to do with the development and implementation of that system. So I guess you're just completely wrong. Of course you do go to Choate haha.
No offense, but I just had a PhD describe the problem to me last week at Lowell Obeservatory. When I said broadcasting, I meant the Iridium network, regardless of how satelite communication works.
Yes, it is radio telescopes, I should have been more descriptive, but I felt that it was farely obvious. Here's an article on it, and how Motorola doesn't give a flying fuck. Now go eat my shorts.
Astronomers are jumping for joy at the death of Iridium. Why? because it broadcasts signals at a critical wavelength interferes with ground-based telescopes. If I remember correctly, Iridium is in some type of geosynchronous orbit, so astronomers have to deal with "Iridium Bursts" or "stars"... I can't remember what exactly they call it. Its the equivalent to having your telescope up the street from a car dealership with 50M watts of electricity flowing through their flood lights. I say let Iridium die a quick painless death and let someone else design a more practical, less pollusive system of satelites.
Subject: NASA'S RESPONSE TO UPI'S MARCH 21 MARS POLAR LANDER STORY Content-Type: text Sender: owner-press-release@lists.hq.nasa.gov To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Peggy Wilhide Headquarters, Washington, DC March 22, 2000 (Phone: 202/ 358-1898)
Brian Welch Headquarters, Washington, DC (Phone: 202/ 358-1600)
Don Savage Headquarters, Washington, DC (Phone: 202/ 358-1547)
RELEASE: 00-43
NASA'S RESPONSE TO UPI'S MARCH 21 MARS POLAR LANDER STORY
James Oberg of UPI claims that NASA knew there was a problem with the Mars Polar Lander propulsion system prior to the Dec. 3 landing attempt and "withheld this conclusion from the public." NASA categorically denies this charge. Here's what NASA did and what NASA said:
* The Stephenson report, phase 1, was released to the public on November 10, 1999 during a press conference at NASA Headquarters.
* The report made 11 different references to technical issues or concerns involving the propulsion system and the Entry, Descent and Landing (EDL) sequence.
* This issue was specifically addressed in the press conference and in "MPL Observation No. 5" and other public recommendations of the Stephenson Phase 1 report. It was entitled, "Cold Firing of Thrusters," and dealt in detail with the catalyst bed issue cited by Mr. Oberg of UPI in his March 21 story, "NASA Knew Mars Polar Lander Doomed."
* Had UPI researched the public documents released on Nov. 10, which have been available online at the NASA Home Page, the reporter would have been able to conclude that NASA did indeed publicly address propulsion issues, and specifically, the propulsion system's "catalyst bed" temperature concern.
* Based on this review, NASA knew about the concerns with the propulsion system, NASA took corrective action, and NASA hid nothing from the public. We made our concerns known in early November.
* Several failure scenarios have been reported in the press over the last few weeks, including the lander legs microswitch issue. Outlets such as the Denver Post, Space Daily, and National Public Radio's "All Things Considered" have covered this angle. There is nothing new in the UPI report relating to this specific issue. The lander legs issue is among the failure modes we are studying.
* Both the Stephenson and Casani (John Casani, retired JPL flight programs head and also director of mission assurance) teams have conducted intensive reviews relating to Mars Polar Lander, and their teams have surfaced no evidence relating to thruster acceptance testing irregularities as alleged by UPI. In fact, members of the review teams are using words like "bunk," "complete nonsense," and "wacko," to describe their reactions to UPI's charge.
- end -
* * *
NASA press releases and other information are available automatically by sending an Internet electronic mail message to domo@hq.nasa.gov. In the body of the message (not the subject line) users should type the words "subscribe press-release" (no quotes). The system will reply with a confirmation via E-mail of each subscription. A second automatic message will include additional information on the service. NASA releases also are available via CompuServe using the command GO NASA. To unsubscribe from this mailing list, address an E-mail message to domo@hq.nasa.gov, leave the subject blank, and type only "unsubscribe press-release" (no quotes) in the body of the message.
Anyone know the difference between the way these two programs work? I think VMWare has a patent out on its method of executing two operating systems... anyone know what the details are for sure?
No, I think Linux needs a default installer across all configurations. A universal installation and windows management directive. One where the "Start" menu configuration has one location independent from distribution. Where the installation of files and such are done using one powerful yet simple program, like windows. Rpm handles this somewhat, but dependencies are a major issue of frustration. There needs to be a Linux standard of installation and management. I know people have been arguing this forever, whether to use tarball, rpm, binary, etc., but it still stands true. There needs to be a Linux standard that the distributions have to support. This goes for windows management configurations and such as well. my $0.02
By a friend mailto:(bp@nrw-online.de) I was brought on the idea it by Internet admits to give thereby also different POWER to USERS those Likewise by it like fast one has itself to amuse possibility its computer STILL wars can.
Honestly, what in God's name is he trying to tell us here?
We did get a lot of usage out of it, but remember, it did cost $1.5B also. An enormous amount of money considering Pathfinder was in the millions. Of course Pathfinder was a completely different mission in itself. I still think it was worth paying that much for Galileo. Of course they didn't use any cost-saving measures though.
I don't find that to be true at all. I buy CDs, although I've never really been a big cd buyer. Now that mp3's have come along, I'm actually buying more of them specificly so that I can rip them to my hard drive and use my computer as a juke box. Granted, many people use mp3's. Their usage however does not mean that they would actually _buy_ the cd for a certain song. All it means is that its increased the quantitiy of music at their disposal. Yes, the RIAA is losing some money. I'm extremely skeptical about that $1.4B estimate however. Its a bit hard to swallow.
Wow! That amazes me! I'm wondering how you're actually using the program! I had it crash 4 times in under an hour just surfing sites, so I stopped using it. I have respect for the Mozilla team, but they've got a long way to go from what I've seen by using the browser. I dunno, maybe they're all trivial fixes.
Well thats the thing, I'm assuming their method is more efficient than using solar power. With solar power, you lose most of the energy hitting the panels striaght off the bat.
What I'd like to see is cold fusion. If we can produce stable cold fusion, then our energy concerns will be set. Imagine this: - Using electrolosis, we produce an endless supply of hydrogen and oxygen - We irigate the Sahara desert using ocean water with minimal costs
At this point, we'd have very little reason to resort to fossil fuels. I've heard testiment of 5-10yrs before ignition, but I don't know how realistic it is.
Yes, thats quite true. However, thats the specific reason why we have the Constitution: to uphold certain ineliable rights. Thats why the supreme court knocked off the Computer Indecency Act. Thats specificly why you won't see censorship on the net. Maybe restrictions (like where you can look at porn, etc.), but you'll always be able to look at whatever you want from your home.
No matter how ridiculous something may be, it still should get its fair time. As long as there's a significant following. Thats what makes a democracy, a democracy.
...and why nothing anyone does is going to stop fundamentalists from bringing issues like this to America's ballots Whats wrong with a ballot? Thats why you vote, guy. So that you have control over your government.
I totally know about absorption and emission lines in spectra, and what they represent. I'm not attacking the physicists themselves as much as I am the actual publication on NYT website. If I had a nickel for everytime I noticed something that ws just blatently false in the media, I'd be rich as hell.
The issue is that half of/. jumps the gun talking about how cool this is, etc, even though we've seen no evidence, other than what that article itself says.
Based on that, I'd say there's no basis for it. The whole theory of WIMPs in general just seems a bit far fetched to begin with. Thats basicly all I'm saying. Everyone just feels the need to jump on my back when I say that I think its bs, because right now, I've read nothing that tells me otherwise.
I'm actually very interested in the whole topic itself. I'd like to see the unified theorem come to fruition. I'm just not going to let my hope talk me into believing something that as of this moment, has no evidence.
Thats pretty much my stance.
As for the absorption lines, gas isn't the only form of matter in the Universe;) It could be dead stars, or small rocks and dust, comets, planet-sized asteroids, etc. I agree with you that its fishy, but Physics, right now, at this moment suggests that its matter in its traditional form (atoms). Its scientificly unsound to say otherwise, especially when the NYT is attempting to report scientific break-throughs.
Thank you. Finally someone who sees it how it is. Everything they've stated is philosphical, with no evidence, just symptoms. They say they have something, but they haven't shown _anything_. Why would they wait for some convention to describe their technique, if they could dish it out _now_ and astonish the scientific community _today_. Makes me think they're looking for press.
I never said it wasn't possible, and I'm not accusing them of anything. What I'm saying is that I have an _extremely_ hard time believing anything _YET_. This is simply because they're showing us nothing.
PD apparently is the only one here who sees this as rhetoric. I'm yelling bullshit because we've _seen_ _nothing_. Yeah there are lots of amazing theories and ideas in the world. The rotational curve of galaxies being a result of WIMPs is one of them. I'd just say that they're due to gas and dust thats undectible because they've reached thermal equillibrium. The evidence atleast suggests that.
$50 says that the study is shoved in a drawer and forgotten.
Neutrinos have a mass of something like 1/1Bth of an electron. They've been detected in large pools of soft water. I'm just saying that I have a very difficult time believing that something with the mass of a nickel atom, can have less effect on the surrounding environment than a neutrino. Come on now, you have to admit, its pretty far fetched.
I think this is a perfect example of science trying to fit things into place with a theory. There's nothing wrong with that, as long as the theory doesn't account for something thats easily explainable by something else. This whole dark matter issue is explainable by unseen dust, and unseen matter. We don't need to theorize about weak particles the size of nickel that weakly flow through the Universe, because there's nothing that truely tells us this.
Now I'm not saying its not possible. I just have an overwhelming feeling that the paper will be released. Physicists everywhere will say its bullsh1t, and we'll never hear about it again... with which half of/. will believe that these particles actually do.
BTW, I have the fountain of youth. Its a combination of a couple off the counter drugs. I'll be releasing it in my paper Wednesday.
Check out this article about how the most widely accepted value for H0 was determined using Type Ia Supernovae.
Type Ia Supernovae are known to have a specific luminosity peak. From this you can determine its distance. From its spectral redshift, they determine its recessional velocity. Using this information, they determine that the Universe is between 12.5 and 15.6 Billion years old. It puts H0 at 64km/sec/mpc.
Slashdot Mirror
Umm, 1 H-Bomb would level the majority of the Metropolitan New York area. I'd love to see how much order is actually retained after such an incident. My guess is that martial law would be enacted if state or federal government still retains power, and that people involved with the incident would be immediately shot without trial. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that they'd be tortured viciously first. It'd all be legal too. Hell I'd be the first person up at bat if I could.
Limitation? Thats pretty lame. Where in society is there ever a defined line between right/wrong, good/bad, etc. Guns are bad, cars are bad, etc. I hate guns personally, but cars are very beneficial. Obviously some people feel the same way about guns. Now as for an H-Bomb? There does not exist a single sane and mentally proficient person on this planet who will contest that giving an H-Bomb to a nut would be beneficial.
If you use it, there will be no jail for you to go to.
I sure as hell don't want to have another law stripping us of another right to life, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness.
Those liberties exist. What do not exist in this circumstance is the right to intimidate, threaten or harm in any way whatsoever. Life liberty and happiness fall short if your happiness is dependent on building something with the intent to harm.
I'm not saying that I feel virii source code should be banned, rather that I feel that the execution should be banned. Of course when you write destructive source code and distribute it to the world, you're basically giving your enemy the means to cause harm to your society.
Lets you code in Java that'll run on any platform, and you can make a .exe for windows as well. I believe it embeds the actual interpretor into the .exe itself (I could be wrong about this though). The version I use is a couple years old, so Sun may have gone ape-sh1t about how it makes those .exe's. Its definately worth looking into though, since you can have the power of Java without the limitations of installing JDK.
...and NASA being a govt agency and all wouldn't exactly mean that they could even have a value since they produce no profit. You could sell stock.. in which case it'd have no value. You might as well just write them a check, but then again, thats what you do when you pay your taxes. If you want to give additional money, I'm sure they'd be happy to accept Discover Card (tm)
I wouldn't say that valueing RedHat at $7.4B is exactly realistic or wise. In fact, if the market crashes, I'll be the first to point the finger at over valued companies like those listed. Just because some people believe ignorantly that those companies can turn a profit that will value to that amount, doesn't mean in any way that they will or ever could.
Actually, according to the article, Motorola had everything to do with the development and implementation of that system. So I guess you're just completely wrong. Of course you do go to Choate haha.
No offense, but I just had a PhD describe the problem to me last week at Lowell Obeservatory. When I said broadcasting, I meant the Iridium network, regardless of how satelite communication works.
Yes, it is radio telescopes, I should have been more descriptive, but I felt that it was farely obvious.
Here's an article on it, and how Motorola doesn't give a flying fuck. Now go eat my shorts.
Astronomers are jumping for joy at the death of Iridium. Why? because it broadcasts signals at a critical wavelength interferes with ground-based telescopes. If I remember correctly, Iridium is in some type of geosynchronous orbit, so astronomers have to deal with "Iridium Bursts" or "stars"... I can't remember what exactly they call it. Its the equivalent to having your telescope up the street from a car dealership with 50M watts of electricity flowing through their flood lights. I say let Iridium die a quick painless death and let someone else design a more practical, less pollusive system of satelites.
My $0.02
Here's NASA's official press release.
Subject: NASA'S RESPONSE TO UPI'S MARCH 21 MARS POLAR LANDER STORY
Content-Type: text
Sender: owner-press-release@lists.hq.nasa.gov
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Peggy Wilhide
Headquarters, Washington, DC March 22, 2000
(Phone: 202/ 358-1898)
Brian Welch
Headquarters, Washington, DC
(Phone: 202/ 358-1600)
Don Savage
Headquarters, Washington, DC
(Phone: 202/ 358-1547)
RELEASE: 00-43
NASA'S RESPONSE TO UPI'S MARCH 21 MARS POLAR LANDER STORY
James Oberg of UPI claims that NASA knew there was a problem
with the Mars Polar Lander propulsion system prior to the Dec. 3
landing attempt and "withheld this conclusion from the public."
NASA categorically denies this charge. Here's what NASA did and
what NASA said:
* The Stephenson report, phase 1, was released to the public on
November 10, 1999 during a press conference at NASA Headquarters.
* The report made 11 different references to technical issues or
concerns involving the propulsion system and the Entry, Descent
and Landing (EDL) sequence.
* This issue was specifically addressed in the press conference
and in "MPL Observation No. 5" and other public recommendations of
the Stephenson Phase 1 report. It was entitled, "Cold Firing of
Thrusters," and dealt in detail with the catalyst bed issue cited
by Mr. Oberg of UPI in his March 21 story, "NASA Knew Mars Polar
Lander Doomed."
* Had UPI researched the public documents released on Nov. 10,
which have been available online at the NASA Home Page, the
reporter would have been able to conclude that NASA did indeed
publicly address propulsion issues, and specifically, the
propulsion system's "catalyst bed" temperature concern.
* Based on this review, NASA knew about the concerns with the
propulsion system, NASA took corrective action, and NASA hid
nothing from the public. We made our concerns known in early
November.
* Several failure scenarios have been reported in the press over
the last few weeks, including the lander legs microswitch issue.
Outlets such as the Denver Post, Space Daily, and National Public
Radio's "All Things Considered" have covered this angle. There is
nothing new in the UPI report relating to this specific issue.
The lander legs issue is among the failure modes we are studying.
* Both the Stephenson and Casani (John Casani, retired JPL
flight programs head and also director of mission assurance) teams
have conducted intensive reviews relating to Mars Polar Lander,
and their teams have surfaced no evidence relating to thruster
acceptance testing irregularities as alleged by UPI. In fact,
members of the review teams are using words like "bunk," "complete
nonsense," and "wacko," to describe their reactions to UPI's
charge.
- end -
* * *
NASA press releases and other information are available automatically
by sending an Internet electronic mail message to domo@hq.nasa.gov.
In the body of the message (not the subject line) users should type
the words "subscribe press-release" (no quotes). The system will
reply with a confirmation via E-mail of each subscription. A second
automatic message will include additional information on the service.
NASA releases also are available via CompuServe using the command
GO NASA. To unsubscribe from this mailing list, address an E-mail
message to domo@hq.nasa.gov, leave the subject blank, and type only
"unsubscribe press-release" (no quotes) in the body of the message.
Anyone know the difference between the way these two programs work? I think VMWare has a patent out on its method of executing two operating systems... anyone know what the details are for sure?
No, I think Linux needs a default installer across all configurations. A universal installation and windows management directive. One where the "Start" menu configuration has one location independent from distribution. Where the installation of files and such are done using one powerful yet simple program, like windows. Rpm handles this somewhat, but dependencies are a major issue of frustration. There needs to be a Linux standard of installation and management. I know people have been arguing this forever, whether to use tarball, rpm, binary, etc., but it still stands true. There needs to be a Linux standard that the distributions have to support. This goes for windows management configurations and such as well.
my $0.02
By a friend mailto:(bp@nrw-online.de) I was brought on the idea
it by Internet admits to give thereby also different POWER to USERS those
Likewise by it like fast one has itself to amuse possibility its computer STILL
wars can.
Honestly, what in God's name is he trying to tell us here?
Other than that though, groovey discovery.
We did get a lot of usage out of it, but remember, it did cost $1.5B also. An enormous amount of money considering Pathfinder was in the millions.
Of course Pathfinder was a completely different mission in itself. I still think it was worth paying that much for Galileo. Of course they didn't use any cost-saving measures though.
I don't find that to be true at all. I buy CDs, although I've never really been a big cd buyer. Now that mp3's have come along, I'm actually buying more of them specificly so that I can rip them to my hard drive and use my computer as a juke box. Granted, many people use mp3's. Their usage however does not mean that they would actually _buy_ the cd for a certain song. All it means is that its increased the quantitiy of music at their disposal. Yes, the RIAA is losing some money. I'm extremely skeptical about that $1.4B estimate however. Its a bit hard to swallow.
Wow! That amazes me! I'm wondering how you're actually using the program! I had it crash 4 times in under an hour just surfing sites, so I stopped using it. I have respect for the Mozilla team, but they've got a long way to go from what I've seen by using the browser. I dunno, maybe they're all trivial fixes.
Well thats the thing, I'm assuming their method is more efficient than using solar power. With solar power, you lose most of the energy hitting the panels striaght off the bat.
What I'd like to see is cold fusion. If we can produce stable cold fusion, then our energy concerns will be set. Imagine this:
- Using electrolosis, we produce an endless supply of hydrogen and oxygen
- We irigate the Sahara desert using ocean water with minimal costs
At this point, we'd have very little reason to resort to fossil fuels. I've heard testiment of 5-10yrs before ignition, but I don't know how realistic it is.
You really need to read up on your definitions:
Democracy
Republic
Just because the US is a republic does not mean its not a democracy. Claiming that the US is not a democracy is simply wrong. Sorry.
Yes, thats quite true. However, thats the specific reason why we have the Constitution: to uphold certain ineliable rights. Thats why the supreme court knocked off the Computer Indecency Act. Thats specificly why you won't see censorship on the net. Maybe restrictions (like where you can look at porn, etc.), but you'll always be able to look at whatever you want from your home.
No matter how ridiculous something may be, it still should get its fair time. As long as there's a significant following. Thats what makes a democracy, a democracy.
...and why nothing anyone does is going to stop fundamentalists from bringing issues like this to America's ballots Whats wrong with a ballot? Thats why you vote, guy. So that you have control over your government.
I totally know about absorption and emission lines in spectra, and what they represent. I'm not attacking the physicists themselves as much as I am the actual publication on NYT website. If I had a nickel for everytime I noticed something that ws just blatently false in the media, I'd be rich as hell.
/. jumps the gun talking about how cool this is, etc, even though we've seen no evidence, other than what that article itself says.
;) It could be dead stars, or small rocks and dust, comets, planet-sized asteroids, etc. I agree with you that its fishy, but Physics, right now, at this moment suggests that its matter in its traditional form (atoms). Its scientificly unsound to say otherwise, especially when the NYT is attempting to report scientific break-throughs.
The issue is that half of
Based on that, I'd say there's no basis for it. The whole theory of WIMPs in general just seems a bit far fetched to begin with. Thats basicly all I'm saying. Everyone just feels the need to jump on my back when I say that I think its bs, because right now, I've read nothing that tells me otherwise.
I'm actually very interested in the whole topic itself. I'd like to see the unified theorem come to fruition. I'm just not going to let my hope talk me into believing something that as of this moment, has no evidence.
Thats pretty much my stance.
As for the absorption lines, gas isn't the only form of matter in the Universe
Thank you. Finally someone who sees it how it is. Everything they've stated is philosphical, with no evidence, just symptoms. They say they have something, but they haven't shown _anything_. Why would they wait for some convention to describe their technique, if they could dish it out _now_ and astonish the scientific community _today_. Makes me think they're looking for press.
I never said it wasn't possible, and I'm not accusing them of anything. What I'm saying is that I have an _extremely_ hard time believing anything _YET_. This is simply because they're showing us nothing.
PD apparently is the only one here who sees this as rhetoric. I'm yelling bullshit because we've _seen_ _nothing_. Yeah there are lots of amazing theories and ideas in the world. The rotational curve of galaxies being a result of WIMPs is one of them. I'd just say that they're due to gas and dust thats undectible because they've reached thermal equillibrium. The evidence atleast suggests that.
$50 says that the study is shoved in a drawer and forgotten.
Neutrinos have a mass of something like 1/1Bth of an electron. They've been detected in large pools of soft water. I'm just saying that I have a very difficult time believing that something with the mass of a nickel atom, can have less effect on the surrounding environment than a neutrino. Come on now, you have to admit, its pretty far fetched.
/. will believe that these particles actually do.
;)
I think this is a perfect example of science trying to fit things into place with a theory. There's nothing wrong with that, as long as the theory doesn't account for something thats easily explainable by something else. This whole dark matter issue is explainable by unseen dust, and unseen matter. We don't need to theorize about weak particles the size of nickel that weakly flow through the Universe, because there's nothing that truely tells us this.
Now I'm not saying its not possible. I just have an overwhelming feeling that the paper will be released. Physicists everywhere will say its bullsh1t, and we'll never hear about it again... with which half of
BTW, I have the fountain of youth. Its a combination of a couple off the counter drugs. I'll be releasing it in my paper Wednesday.
Thats my case
Check out this article about how the most widely accepted value for H0 was determined using Type Ia Supernovae.
Type Ia Supernovae are known to have a specific luminosity peak. From this you can determine its distance. From its spectral redshift, they determine its recessional velocity. Using this information, they determine that the Universe is between 12.5 and 15.6 Billion years old. It puts H0 at 64km/sec/mpc.
The Supernova used for this paper was SN1998bu.