The concept of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" is as wrong as it is old. Our legal system has progressed far beyond that earliest form of "legal" retribution, and nobody in their right mind would call for its return.
It breaks the encryption, enters the private intellectual property, and allows you to steal the data that you purchased but for some reason don't own. At least that's about as far as I can follow it.
The cost to send 1kg to the moon will decrease with constant traffic. Also, and more importantly, the moon is not devoid of desirable resources. There are probably no rocks or metals that would be worth returning to Earth, but it is believed that there is plentiful naturally occurring H3, which should be instrumental in the furthering of fusion energy research. If China could get their hands on that supply of H3, it would be more than worth it to bring it back down to Earth, and there is a nearly infinite power supply sitting there waiting for them to construct a moon base, along with the physical resources that can be mined from the moon itself. And don't forget the fact that the moon has a gravity 1/6 of that of the Earth, so launching missions from there to other parts of the solar system would by much easier than from here. Perhaps shuttle everything essential to the mission to the moon, construct the launch craft at the moon base, and launch without all the gravity. It would definitely be a major advantage, both strategically and financially.
Never let anyone tell you it isn't worth it to go to the moon.
We haven't really tried cooperation yet. We've tried "cooperation" as per the International Space Station, but that was not so much the world community cooperating together as it was the US making a space station and requesting that everyone else pony up some funds (which it turned out they didn't do). If we were to try cooperating with another country willing and able to pursue space travel, the results might be much better. It's worth giving it a shot.
They (the RIAA) would rather tell you to use a condom (DRM) when you do it (listen to music), rather than to try to tell you not to do it at all. I think I see a parallel...;)
The World War series by Harry Turtledove is pretty good. Actually the first book or two are good, and after that it goes south. It's an interesting concept (H.G. Wells thought of it), and Turtledove makes it kind of interesting.
If Ron Dittemore, holder of One of the Most Prestigious Leadership Jobs in the World really thinks the shuttle is unsafe or underfunded, then it's his job to resign.Actually, wouldn't it be his job to make the shuttle safer and/or collect more money for the program? Isn't the act of resigning not so much fulfilling his job as it is abandoning it?
Uh duh, did you ever think that anyone who didn't sit through a university program to get their degree would neglect to claim that they're better off for it? His point is that while the occasional self-taught programmer may be very good, they all claim excellence and the vast majority can't deliver said excellence.
Yup, that really would put our soldiers at risk in the event of a chemical attack...
Soldier's communication:...chemical attack in progress. Need help.
Enemy SIGINT operator who intercepts the transmission: Oh my god! They're getting attacked with chemical weapons! I feel like I didn't already know that...
Non US-based attacks constituted over half (51%) of all the events in the 4th quarter. This is indisputible evidence that if we want to stop piracy, hacking, and terrorism, the United States needs to subjugate all those other countries, here referred to as The Rest Of The World, and put them under our military command (like we're not doing to a country that will go nameless...
Unfortunately, that is exactly Apple's biggest problem: they're always about to release something newer and better, to the point where one would hesitate to purchase their current product. Although a company is in good shape if repeated excellent releases can be considered a problem...
I am not saying that the Soyuz cannot have a catastrophic failure, but I am saying that it doesn't have them nearly as often and that due to its simplicity it costs so much less. It's safer, simpler, and cheaper. My point is that maybe we should take a few tips from the Russians.
True, but the point is that since the Shuttle is so expensive that any problem becomes huge, whereas the cheap Soyuz cannot have as extreme a catastrophe.
Russia's Soyuz was the idea I had in mind when I posted. Strapped for cash, the Russian space program has had to find many ways to keep their systems as cheap as possible while at the same time competing with ours. The Soyuz saves them hundreds of millions of dollars, and it is a much safer system than our shuttle. Note that when the Soyuz has a problem it gets lost and they have to spend a few hours looking for it, whereas when the Shuttle has a problem it blows up.
We should probably take a hint from the miserly Russians in this regard.
As a matter of curiosity, how many non-shuttle launches does NASA execute every year? I know everyone else uses one use rockets to launch, but how many times does NASA do that?
Slashdot Mirror
I think he meant that he doesn't really have many insightful or funny posts, and he doesn't have 1 moderator point left. Just kidding.
Thank you. I always get the two confused, but in fact in my post I was quoting the article, which said H3. The point remains the same.
The concept of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" is as wrong as it is old. Our legal system has progressed far beyond that earliest form of "legal" retribution, and nobody in their right mind would call for its return.
I can buy Slim Jims at my local gas station.
It breaks the encryption, enters the private intellectual property, and allows you to steal the data that you purchased but for some reason don't own. At least that's about as far as I can follow it.
The cost to send 1kg to the moon will decrease with constant traffic. Also, and more importantly, the moon is not devoid of desirable resources. There are probably no rocks or metals that would be worth returning to Earth, but it is believed that there is plentiful naturally occurring H3, which should be instrumental in the furthering of fusion energy research. If China could get their hands on that supply of H3, it would be more than worth it to bring it back down to Earth, and there is a nearly infinite power supply sitting there waiting for them to construct a moon base, along with the physical resources that can be mined from the moon itself. And don't forget the fact that the moon has a gravity 1/6 of that of the Earth, so launching missions from there to other parts of the solar system would by much easier than from here. Perhaps shuttle everything essential to the mission to the moon, construct the launch craft at the moon base, and launch without all the gravity. It would definitely be a major advantage, both strategically and financially.
Never let anyone tell you it isn't worth it to go to the moon.
We haven't really tried cooperation yet. We've tried "cooperation" as per the International Space Station, but that was not so much the world community cooperating together as it was the US making a space station and requesting that everyone else pony up some funds (which it turned out they didn't do). If we were to try cooperating with another country willing and able to pursue space travel, the results might be much better. It's worth giving it a shot.
He did point out IBM. They are a large company that supports OSS, hates MS, and has little trouble financially.
Jeesh - what exactly does antitrust even mean in today's business climate?
... nothing. Bummer.
As long as the people in charge of our country got where they are thanks to funds gained from large companies
MSN Broadband accounts for AOL employees. :)
They (the RIAA) would rather tell you to use a condom (DRM) when you do it (listen to music), rather than to try to tell you not to do it at all. I think I see a parallel... ;)
The World War series by Harry Turtledove is pretty good. Actually the first book or two are good, and after that it goes south. It's an interesting concept (H.G. Wells thought of it), and Turtledove makes it kind of interesting.
Tune in.
You go 24 hours without your keyboards? Yeah. A lot of Slashdot will be following your advice...
If Ron Dittemore, holder of One of the Most Prestigious Leadership Jobs in the World really thinks the shuttle is unsafe or underfunded, then it's his job to resign.Actually, wouldn't it be his job to make the shuttle safer and/or collect more money for the program? Isn't the act of resigning not so much fulfilling his job as it is abandoning it?
Are you sure you didn't break when you were cruising kindergartends looking for virgins... and couldn't find any?? YO.
Uh duh, did you ever think that anyone who didn't sit through a university program to get their degree would neglect to claim that they're better off for it? His point is that while the occasional self-taught programmer may be very good, they all claim excellence and the vast majority can't deliver said excellence.
Yup, that really would put our soldiers at risk in the event of a chemical attack...
...chemical attack in progress. Need help.
Soldier's communication:
Enemy SIGINT operator who intercepts the transmission: Oh my god! They're getting attacked with chemical weapons! I feel like I didn't already know that...
Non US-based attacks constituted over half (51%) of all the events in the 4th quarter. This is indisputible evidence that if we want to stop piracy, hacking, and terrorism, the United States needs to subjugate all those other countries, here referred to as The Rest Of The World, and put them under our military command (like we're not doing to a country that will go nameless...
Oh, wait. Never mind.
Unfortunately, that is exactly Apple's biggest problem: they're always about to release something newer and better, to the point where one would hesitate to purchase their current product. Although a company is in good shape if repeated excellent releases can be considered a problem...
Expense and complexity often go hand in hand.
I am not saying that the Soyuz cannot have a catastrophic failure, but I am saying that it doesn't have them nearly as often and that due to its simplicity it costs so much less. It's safer, simpler, and cheaper. My point is that maybe we should take a few tips from the Russians.
True, but the point is that since the Shuttle is so expensive that any problem becomes huge, whereas the cheap Soyuz cannot have as extreme a catastrophe.
Russia's Soyuz was the idea I had in mind when I posted. Strapped for cash, the Russian space program has had to find many ways to keep their systems as cheap as possible while at the same time competing with ours. The Soyuz saves them hundreds of millions of dollars, and it is a much safer system than our shuttle. Note that when the Soyuz has a problem it gets lost and they have to spend a few hours looking for it, whereas when the Shuttle has a problem it blows up.
We should probably take a hint from the miserly Russians in this regard.
As a matter of curiosity, how many non-shuttle launches does NASA execute every year? I know everyone else uses one use rockets to launch, but how many times does NASA do that?
(still like the same age women as a matter of fact)
That's because young women are better looking than old women, no matter how old you are.