"The open and free sharing of information regarding publicly elected officials, public government offices, and actions taken in the name of a country's citizenry by it's public: good.
The open and free sharing of information regarding private individuals, private individuals' habits, lifestyles, or time schedules, and private individuals' actions: bad."
Do you see the difference? The issue is not a binary, "Share all data, hide all data." The issue boils down to who we, as a country, want to be allowed privacy and who we, as a country, think shouldn't be allowed privacy. Individuals are granted the right to privacy via The Constitution. That's a pretty important legal document. There is no reason to assume that corporations, governments, activist groups, or other large social entities have those same rights. They are not individuals. They don't. It really is that simple.
Does that make sense to you yet? Or do you need me to try to be more explicit?
I'll switch over to satellite internet, or, hell, back to dial-up before I go through any retarded, "Copyright Awareness," program. I already have to sit through too much fucking compliance training at work. I'll gladly burn in Hell before I am tasked to sit through it at home.
Honestly, I have no idea what you are talking about. It seems about as straightforward as any other piece of software I've ever used. Hell, it's more straightforward than a good amount of software I've used.
As a Californian resident I would like to thank you for helping alleviate the burden of crappy California drivers in this state. In fact, we are probably going to run our politicians out of this state in your general direction pretty soon too. We don't have much use for them anymore. But we are keeping our oceans, mountains, and hot movie-star-wannabe bimbos and there's nothing you can do about it! =P
Personally I would rather they go faster, to speeds that no human could feasibly manage, than see them slow down. Of course, erecting fences along driverless roads would probably be ideal in that case.
I started using Ubuntu about 3 years ago with 8.04. At one point, I upgraded to 9.04. Now I am living comfortable on 10.04. Across those three years and three editions I have heard Ubuntu talk about changing it's primary display configuration engine (X/Xorg to Wayland), it's default browser (Firefox to Chrome), its network managment utility (I'll admit, this one needed fixing), and a host of other tweaks. Now Ubuntu wants to ditch Synaptic for the Ubuntu Software Center.
I get that software moves fast, and buggy software needs to be fixed and replaced with less-buggy software. But wholesale gutting of some of the fundamental portions of an OS (as seen from the user side) every 6 months to a year is a little extreme. What was wrong with Synaptic that it needs replacing? I like it. It seems pretty sraightforward and functional.I don't mean to gripe, but does Canonical really need to replace utilities that its users have gotten used to when the original utilities worked equally well (Pidjin to Empathy? etc.).
Yeah, yeah, I can just install all of the old legacy sofware that I like, but it just seems so odd to uproot basic default utilities so regularly.
Inhabitat: Just another rainbow-filled, sky-high promises fluff blog that completely fails to comment on how or why any particular technology it writes about could be, in any manner, applied to the real world.
Also, congratulations to the 11 year old for getting written about on the internet.
Gross. Why the hell should my country be policing the world? Why should my tax dollars go towards funding anything other than an investment in my own country. Let the other countries find the bad guys within their borders. I, for one, am sick and tired of funding the unofficial, undeclared world police.
As another commenter already pointed out further up the thread, Apple doesn't necessarily have to agree to anything. If the RIAA or some other similar entity files a suit requiring the iCloud data as part of a subpoena, Apple essentially has to play ball and turn over the data or break the law and try to stare down the U.S. court system.
Apple may have nothing but the best interest for their customers, but the music labels have demonstrated quite remarkably that they don't give a fuck about customer's rights, and they consider themselves and their business interests to be entitled to any and all data/property that they think they can use to prop up their business model. Simple as that.
Actually the engineers in place at the time decided that things were not OK for that particular flight and recommended that the mission be dealyed. It was the decision of a couple of managers that they had to fly anyways, for political reasons and such.
So please, don't go blaspheming the art of engineering due to shitty management practices.
Or they can express their true thoughts and just trust their family and friends to love them for who they are. If your friends can only accept you based on some mask you wear, what the fuck is the point of being friends with them? And family? Well, they're family. There's always going to be something for them to bitch about so it might as well be that last thing you posted on FB.
It is probably best that you don't assume anything involving the annual defense budget of the U.S. makes sense. Correct that basic assumption about economic policy in this country and you will start to understand why political decisions get made the way they do.
I don't necessarily agree or disagree with the rest of your post, but please educate yourself about the space industry before commenting on it. I'm getting really tired of correcting ignorance on what is supposed to be a News for Nerds site. Thanks.
Ever played with those Lego Mindstorms robotics kits? With a little creativity and hacking of the appropriate hardware you can end up with weapons grade Legos pretty quickly. Never underestimate the power of a creatively designed controller system.
Anyone care to explain to me why this unsubstantiated, bigoted horseshit got modded up at all on/.?
Don't get me wrong, both the Chinese and United States societies have their woes, some in more places than others, but I am pretty sure that the majority of folk in both societies are trustworthy people just trying to get by. Many of our leaders, on both sides, might be dipshits, but labeling Americans (our proper title) and Chinese citizens in general as evil is nothing but pissy, whiney drivel.
We're better than this Slashdot. Stop encouraging the bitter, overly-hormonal 12 year old mentality.
It's a better alternative than making your own life miserable trying to fight the status quo when the status quo has become so deeply entrenched.
Well that's a shitty attitude. As a recently graduated engineer who takes pride in being one of the people that, "fixes shit," for a living, let me just say that having the mindset, "This problem is too big to fix, let's just move onto something different," is, in my humble opinion, about the most useless attitude for anyone in any given society to have. Take some damn pride in our society, no matter how crappy it is, and try to help fix things here. If we could put a man on the moon 60 years ago, I am pretty sure we have the potential to address whatever social issues are plaguing our country. We just have to take the time and put in the hard work to do so, not run away when the going gets tough.
Yeah, sure, excpet that it was just some "disposable capsule" that got us to the moon and back, perhaps the single most inspiring achievement any culture in the history of mankind has ever managed.
Symmetry is a pretty big deal when desiging moving bodies that will have 6 degrees of dynamic freedom through which to move. Space capsules: don't knock 'em until you study 'em.
If you're going to comment on the viability of space tourism you probably should familiarize yourself with the companies producing hardware that is intended for use in the industry. No, nobody is planning on hanging out on a launch vehicle for a week. Most folks are planning on trying their first zero-g experiment with their girlfriend on one of the space stations made by these guys:
And before you start ranting about, "Promises, promises...." you should know that Bigelow has multiple spacecraft (space-station modules) on orbit that they are testing, and they are planning on some on-orbit module-docking/mating tests in the next couple years.
And as for what to do in space, people are creative. I wouldn't underestimate their imagination. I figure a lot of the people who would be interested in orbiting the Earth for a week would also be interested in helping trained scientists perform some valuable experiments on those same space station modules. Furthermore, those folks are going to have to spend some time keeping fit, physically. They will spend a few hours working out on things like orbital treadmills and so on. Finally, I wouldn't underestimate the joy that can be had from sitting in an observation deck that looks out upon a truly majestic scene. Unless you're ADD, it's pretty easy to lose yourself in a nice ambiance. I've personally spent upwards of 6 hours staring at the same large tank in a public aquarium before. There's something very calming and Zen about it.
Seriously, start doing some research before ranting. You don't even appear to have a grasp of who some of the major players in the current commercial space market are. Nor do you seem to be very familiar with the projects that are being developed to address the same concerns that you are espousing.
Do you have any numbers to back up your assertion? I've read multiple blog posts, news releases, and analyst papers addressing the market for space tourism. Most of them tend to focus around the idea that once launch prices come down and launch frequency goes up, the cost of sustaining permanent living habitats in space drops dramatically. As an analyst in the launch vehicle industry, I can tell you that this assumption is derived from hard data. If you look at any space project, orbital or suborbital, the single largest cost item in the budget is, without fail, launch costs.
All of the work I've seen done by companies like SpaceX and Virgin Galactic, so far, seem to address this need in the launch industry (I realized Virgin is not doing orbital launches yet). The financial analysis produced by companies like SpaceX and Bigelow regarding the proposed price for launch and orbital habitation seems sound and, so far, neither myself nor most industry experts that I consult with on a daily basis have been able to find any flaws in their analysis.
So what it comes down to is that the new companies on the block are addressing a problem with spaceflight that has been present since the first space flight. If they can troubleshoot that problem successfully, then their analysis regarding the accessibility of space tourism to the public seems sound so far. I am more prone to trust that kind of work than the random reasonings of a Slashdot poster.
Now, if you have some numbers and scenario analysis to back up your assertion that space tourism costs will remain high, either because launch costs cannot be brought down or for some other reason, please link to them so that I can learn something today. Otherwise, I'd like to leave you with the suggestion that you actually do some Googling and research before you make claims like those made above, because a lot of intelligent, skilled people have addressed your concerns with hard cost numbers, and most of that information is publicly available on the Internet (though some of the more interesting stuff is locked away in the Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets behind a paywall).
Never expect California legislators to write a law that makes sense. They specialize in writing laws that don't actually solve a problem, but make all of their constituents feel like the problem has been solved. We, as a state, have mastered this useless feel-good legal scheme to a fine art over the past few decades.
I should note, however, that we do, unlike some other states, at least make an attempt to develop a legal framework that addresses modern moral and ethical questions, even if it is a flawed framework in the end.
Unfortunately Congress is about as powerless today, as the Roman Senate was under the caesars.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha!
Oh man, that's a good one. That must be why Congress is actively ramming technical rocket designs down NASA's (read, top world organization of rocket scientists) throat with little to no regard about what actual engineers and scientists have to say about the design. That must be why Congress has been bobbling around various bits and pieces of corrupt corporation backing copyright legislation (what's it called this time around, COICA?). That must be why Congress cast the deciding vote on whether or not we (the U.S.) should go to war in Iraq. Best yet, that must be why Congress recently voted on the extension of the "Fuck Your Civil Liberties," errrr, I mean "PATRIOT Act" recently.
Yup, those poor powerless Congress-critters, whatever will they do?
Don't fucking kid yourself. Congress isn't powerless. It's simply a bought and sold organization that whores itself out to the highest bidder. You're right in one thing, Congressional members don't represent shit-all of their constituencies interests. But Congress is far from powerless. It's simply another tumor killing the country that the United States of America could have been in the 21st century.
Slashdot Mirror
Repeat after me:
"The open and free sharing of information regarding publicly elected officials, public government offices, and actions taken in the name of a country's citizenry by it's public: good.
The open and free sharing of information regarding private individuals, private individuals' habits, lifestyles, or time schedules, and private individuals' actions: bad."
Do you see the difference? The issue is not a binary, "Share all data, hide all data." The issue boils down to who we, as a country, want to be allowed privacy and who we, as a country, think shouldn't be allowed privacy. Individuals are granted the right to privacy via The Constitution. That's a pretty important legal document. There is no reason to assume that corporations, governments, activist groups, or other large social entities have those same rights. They are not individuals. They don't. It really is that simple.
Does that make sense to you yet? Or do you need me to try to be more explicit?
I'll switch over to satellite internet, or, hell, back to dial-up before I go through any retarded, "Copyright Awareness," program. I already have to sit through too much fucking compliance training at work. I'll gladly burn in Hell before I am tasked to sit through it at home.
Honestly, I have no idea what you are talking about. It seems about as straightforward as any other piece of software I've ever used. Hell, it's more straightforward than a good amount of software I've used.
As a Californian resident I would like to thank you for helping alleviate the burden of crappy California drivers in this state. In fact, we are probably going to run our politicians out of this state in your general direction pretty soon too. We don't have much use for them anymore. But we are keeping our oceans, mountains, and hot movie-star-wannabe bimbos and there's nothing you can do about it! =P
Personally I would rather they go faster, to speeds that no human could feasibly manage, than see them slow down. Of course, erecting fences along driverless roads would probably be ideal in that case.
I started using Ubuntu about 3 years ago with 8.04. At one point, I upgraded to 9.04. Now I am living comfortable on 10.04. Across those three years and three editions I have heard Ubuntu talk about changing it's primary display configuration engine (X/Xorg to Wayland), it's default browser (Firefox to Chrome), its network managment utility (I'll admit, this one needed fixing), and a host of other tweaks. Now Ubuntu wants to ditch Synaptic for the Ubuntu Software Center.
I get that software moves fast, and buggy software needs to be fixed and replaced with less-buggy software. But wholesale gutting of some of the fundamental portions of an OS (as seen from the user side) every 6 months to a year is a little extreme. What was wrong with Synaptic that it needs replacing? I like it. It seems pretty sraightforward and functional.I don't mean to gripe, but does Canonical really need to replace utilities that its users have gotten used to when the original utilities worked equally well (Pidjin to Empathy? etc.).
Yeah, yeah, I can just install all of the old legacy sofware that I like, but it just seems so odd to uproot basic default utilities so regularly.
Inhabitat: Just another rainbow-filled, sky-high promises fluff blog that completely fails to comment on how or why any particular technology it writes about could be, in any manner, applied to the real world.
Also, congratulations to the 11 year old for getting written about on the internet.
Gross. Why the hell should my country be policing the world? Why should my tax dollars go towards funding anything other than an investment in my own country. Let the other countries find the bad guys within their borders. I, for one, am sick and tired of funding the unofficial, undeclared world police.
As another commenter already pointed out further up the thread, Apple doesn't necessarily have to agree to anything. If the RIAA or some other similar entity files a suit requiring the iCloud data as part of a subpoena, Apple essentially has to play ball and turn over the data or break the law and try to stare down the U.S. court system.
Apple may have nothing but the best interest for their customers, but the music labels have demonstrated quite remarkably that they don't give a fuck about customer's rights, and they consider themselves and their business interests to be entitled to any and all data/property that they think they can use to prop up their business model. Simple as that.
Actually the engineers in place at the time decided that things were not OK for that particular flight and recommended that the mission be dealyed. It was the decision of a couple of managers that they had to fly anyways, for political reasons and such.
So please, don't go blaspheming the art of engineering due to shitty management practices.
Or they can express their true thoughts and just trust their family and friends to love them for who they are. If your friends can only accept you based on some mask you wear, what the fuck is the point of being friends with them? And family? Well, they're family. There's always going to be something for them to bitch about so it might as well be that last thing you posted on FB.
Maybe the pro-nuclear zealots just think higher of humanity's general potential than you do.
I might be okay with that had it been modded funny instead of insightful.
It is probably best that you don't assume anything involving the annual defense budget of the U.S. makes sense. Correct that basic assumption about economic policy in this country and you will start to understand why political decisions get made the way they do.
Yeah! It's not like NASA has any current missions that are providing valuable science to our society at all. It's nothing but a worthless jobs program!
I don't necessarily agree or disagree with the rest of your post, but please educate yourself about the space industry before commenting on it. I'm getting really tired of correcting ignorance on what is supposed to be a News for Nerds site. Thanks.
Ever played with those Lego Mindstorms robotics kits? With a little creativity and hacking of the appropriate hardware you can end up with weapons grade Legos pretty quickly. Never underestimate the power of a creatively designed controller system.
Anyone care to explain to me why this unsubstantiated, bigoted horseshit got modded up at all on /.?
Don't get me wrong, both the Chinese and United States societies have their woes, some in more places than others, but I am pretty sure that the majority of folk in both societies are trustworthy people just trying to get by. Many of our leaders, on both sides, might be dipshits, but labeling Americans (our proper title) and Chinese citizens in general as evil is nothing but pissy, whiney drivel.
We're better than this Slashdot. Stop encouraging the bitter, overly-hormonal 12 year old mentality.
That needs to be on a T-shirt.
It's a better alternative than making your own life miserable trying to fight the status quo when the status quo has become so deeply entrenched.
Well that's a shitty attitude. As a recently graduated engineer who takes pride in being one of the people that, "fixes shit," for a living, let me just say that having the mindset, "This problem is too big to fix, let's just move onto something different," is, in my humble opinion, about the most useless attitude for anyone in any given society to have. Take some damn pride in our society, no matter how crappy it is, and try to help fix things here. If we could put a man on the moon 60 years ago, I am pretty sure we have the potential to address whatever social issues are plaguing our country. We just have to take the time and put in the hard work to do so, not run away when the going gets tough.
How many kids do you know that play with balls at 10,000 feet of altitude? Or did you even bother to read the summary?
Yeah, sure, excpet that it was just some "disposable capsule" that got us to the moon and back, perhaps the single most inspiring achievement any culture in the history of mankind has ever managed.
Symmetry is a pretty big deal when desiging moving bodies that will have 6 degrees of dynamic freedom through which to move. Space capsules: don't knock 'em until you study 'em.
If you're going to comment on the viability of space tourism you probably should familiarize yourself with the companies producing hardware that is intended for use in the industry. No, nobody is planning on hanging out on a launch vehicle for a week. Most folks are planning on trying their first zero-g experiment with their girlfriend on one of the space stations made by these guys:
Bigelow Aerospace
And before you start ranting about, "Promises, promises...." you should know that Bigelow has multiple spacecraft (space-station modules) on orbit that they are testing, and they are planning on some on-orbit module-docking/mating tests in the next couple years.
And as for what to do in space, people are creative. I wouldn't underestimate their imagination. I figure a lot of the people who would be interested in orbiting the Earth for a week would also be interested in helping trained scientists perform some valuable experiments on those same space station modules. Furthermore, those folks are going to have to spend some time keeping fit, physically. They will spend a few hours working out on things like orbital treadmills and so on. Finally, I wouldn't underestimate the joy that can be had from sitting in an observation deck that looks out upon a truly majestic scene. Unless you're ADD, it's pretty easy to lose yourself in a nice ambiance. I've personally spent upwards of 6 hours staring at the same large tank in a public aquarium before. There's something very calming and Zen about it.
Seriously, start doing some research before ranting. You don't even appear to have a grasp of who some of the major players in the current commercial space market are. Nor do you seem to be very familiar with the projects that are being developed to address the same concerns that you are espousing.
Do you have any numbers to back up your assertion? I've read multiple blog posts, news releases, and analyst papers addressing the market for space tourism. Most of them tend to focus around the idea that once launch prices come down and launch frequency goes up, the cost of sustaining permanent living habitats in space drops dramatically. As an analyst in the launch vehicle industry, I can tell you that this assumption is derived from hard data. If you look at any space project, orbital or suborbital, the single largest cost item in the budget is, without fail, launch costs.
All of the work I've seen done by companies like SpaceX and Virgin Galactic, so far, seem to address this need in the launch industry (I realized Virgin is not doing orbital launches yet). The financial analysis produced by companies like SpaceX and Bigelow regarding the proposed price for launch and orbital habitation seems sound and, so far, neither myself nor most industry experts that I consult with on a daily basis have been able to find any flaws in their analysis.
So what it comes down to is that the new companies on the block are addressing a problem with spaceflight that has been present since the first space flight. If they can troubleshoot that problem successfully, then their analysis regarding the accessibility of space tourism to the public seems sound so far. I am more prone to trust that kind of work than the random reasonings of a Slashdot poster.
Now, if you have some numbers and scenario analysis to back up your assertion that space tourism costs will remain high, either because launch costs cannot be brought down or for some other reason, please link to them so that I can learn something today. Otherwise, I'd like to leave you with the suggestion that you actually do some Googling and research before you make claims like those made above, because a lot of intelligent, skilled people have addressed your concerns with hard cost numbers, and most of that information is publicly available on the Internet (though some of the more interesting stuff is locked away in the Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets behind a paywall).
Never expect California legislators to write a law that makes sense. They specialize in writing laws that don't actually solve a problem, but make all of their constituents feel like the problem has been solved. We, as a state, have mastered this useless feel-good legal scheme to a fine art over the past few decades.
I should note, however, that we do, unlike some other states, at least make an attempt to develop a legal framework that addresses modern moral and ethical questions, even if it is a flawed framework in the end.
Unfortunately Congress is about as powerless today, as the Roman Senate was under the caesars.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha!
Oh man, that's a good one. That must be why Congress is actively ramming technical rocket designs down NASA's (read, top world organization of rocket scientists) throat with little to no regard about what actual engineers and scientists have to say about the design. That must be why Congress has been bobbling around various bits and pieces of corrupt corporation backing copyright legislation (what's it called this time around, COICA?). That must be why Congress cast the deciding vote on whether or not we (the U.S.) should go to war in Iraq. Best yet, that must be why Congress recently voted on the extension of the "Fuck Your Civil Liberties," errrr, I mean "PATRIOT Act" recently.
Yup, those poor powerless Congress-critters, whatever will they do?
Don't fucking kid yourself. Congress isn't powerless. It's simply a bought and sold organization that whores itself out to the highest bidder. You're right in one thing, Congressional members don't represent shit-all of their constituencies interests. But Congress is far from powerless. It's simply another tumor killing the country that the United States of America could have been in the 21st century.