Are there places in the country where you can freeze to death if your car stops? yes. Are there places in the country where infants can die of heat stroke if your car stops? Yes. those places just don't happen to be in California/NY.
Actually they are in California. Have you ever been out towards Death Valley? Or perhaps up near Tahoe or Mt. Shasta? It's not California that's the problem. It's the folks from LA and the Bay Area that are the problem.;)
It wouldn't surprise me if Congress and the White House doesn't manage to repeat the same mistakes made almost 40 years ago.
I think that's why the Air Force wants control of this development project. As long as they can claim the system to be a weapons/national defense platform, they can pretty much tell the rest of the government to keep their hands off the design. This gives them the freedom to develop the booster for whatever mission profiles they want. Of course, that's assuming that the Air Force is funding this with money they already have, rather than asking Congress for more. If they are asking Congress for more money then, yes, the politicos will control this particular project as well.
Does not matter one bit if their risk assessment was wrong. Maybe I like to go out drinking and driving because my risk assessment says I will never hit a church van full of preschoolers, but when I do you had better bet I will be in deep shit.
Well that's a completely failed analogy and certainly highlights your misunderstanding of systems engineering in today's very complicated world. You see, you driving around drunk isn't that complicated of a system. It's simple really, if you've been drinking to the level that it impairs your ability to drive, there is a high chance you won't drive well. That's about all the risk modeling you need to tell you it's stupid. Luckily for us, systems that involve millions of components under high stress and pressures don't undergo such a simple analysis. I've worked on industrial level risk models (albeit for spacecraft, not for oil operations) and I can tell you right now that they do have a very necessary place in modern industry. And I can also tell you that decisions made upon such risk models, in fact, do rely upon such complex risk analysis. If you don't take the time to consider the rate of failure of each component, analyze it's potential failure modes, and build in appropriate redundancies, then you have absolutely no meaningful way to asses whether or not such complex systems will succeed or fail.
That said, while dozens, if not hundreds, of people are paid to develop and analyze such risk models, it is not unreasonable to say that something could have been overlooked. In fact, that's why risk models make claims like 97% reliability, rather than claims like 100% guarantee. As such, if the risk model was, unfortunately, flawed in various respects, as girlintraining noted, then you may not see that one perfect storm that caused this mess. It makes sense, therefore, to wait for all of the media fallout to clear up until facts can actually be analyzed to draw conclusions.
As for this:
You wait your couple years and see, BP will only pay but a tiny portion of these costs.
I often find that those who are so eager to partake in predictions of the future tend to have some cause or another that they are supporting. Wasn't there a story about Bill Gates recently that demonstrated that pretty well?
You know you've successfully made a point on Slashdot when your post gets modded up to +5 then back down to -1 within the first 30 minutes of it being up.
For what it's worth, I read through all the sources myself and they all are basically blogs that make bold claims to keeping some entity or another honest and partake heavily in hyperbole and insinuations. I had a site-by-site breakdown of the journalistic and informative failings of each citation listed, but Slashdot choked and my post slipped into the void (insert joke about backups here). I mean seriously, Anderson Cooper, Arianna Huffington? Yeah, posts made to their blogs don't have an axe to grind or anything. Excuse me while I go vomit due to the overwhelming stench of vengeful punditry.
Maybe it's a pipe-dream, but I like to envision Slashdot as a site where evidence is held to a higher standard than that.
Paid to shill? I'm curious how my income, that comes from aerospace industry, is being paid for by someone that wants me to shill for BP. Honestly, I want to see you try to tie that link somehow.
Oops, I just rechecked the UID, the OP is almost definitely a she....or a very lonely he in a very lonely world (his mom's basement). However, I think I'll go with the former.
Maybe this is just a semantic quibble but this part of your statement kind of left me curious:
Accidents are rarely accidents, someone fucked up.
How exactly does someone fucking up preclude it from being an accident? In fact, so far as I know, someone fucking up is pretty much inherent to the term, 'accident.' It's very rare that someone fucks up intentionally. It's very rare that accidents just spontaneously happen without someone dropping the ball somewhere along the way. To use a car analogy, even if a tire blowout causes an accident, that often is due to someone fucking up by not checking their tire pressure regularly, or someone disposing of hazardous materials (screws, nails, glass etc) on the road intentionally or unintentionally (improperly tightened bolt, improperly secured goods in a truck whatever). I don't think the OP was trying to say that nobody fucked up. I think the OP was trying to say that, yeah, somebody fucked up. It caused a legitimate accident, a bad one true, but an accident nonetheless, and we should hold that entity that fucked up responsible. The point he (or she?) was making was that BP is being held responsible. They are trying to fix the problem. They have been taking numerous steps since the accident to fix the problem. So far, those have not worked. So, rather than get frothing mad about it and scream, "OMG teh evul corporations!!!!!!!," maybe we should calm down a bit and let the people capable of solving the problem (i.e. those folks who have experience at drilling and operating heavy equipment in high-risk underwater environments [oil rig workers]) keep trying to solve the problem.
Frankly, that seems like a much more level-headed statement and assertion than claiming that, 'thousands of folks are screwed...' fishermen have no fish to sell, and ocean front property is now ruined.
Human society pretty much depends upon a lack of anonymity to function.
I would submit the internet, in all of its glorious, pre-facebook anonymity days, as evidence that society can, and does function with anonymity. The way I figure it, the internet really is a society in and of itself. The internet allows for exchange of goods and services, enables the communication of ideas, has its own slang and languages associated with it, and, demonstrably, had its own set of rules and laws that were followed even when it was young. Those factors, would suggest that it is, indeed, a society. Back when chat rooms were still popular and young, back when ebay was just getting off the ground, and back before everyone had a myspace/facebook page to identify themselves, anonymous and pseudo-anonymous folk would get together in chatrooms, forums, and on auction sites and partake in near anarchic social interactions. While many of those interactions were trollish, flamebaitish, and ridiculous, there were a large number that were positive, contributory, and, often, pleasant. If there hadn't been, then everyone would have gotten sick of the internet and stopped using it a long time ago. That obviously didn't happen. People stuck it out, figured out ways to improve existing services, and now we have the internet today. And believe it or not, it still has its unspoken rules of etiquette and such. For instance, typing in all caps is considered inappropriate. L337 speak is considered a sign of immaturity. And screwing someone out of a deal on e-bay could get you banned from that service entirely.
While you may argue that destroying anonymity is what enabled this evolution, I would argue that the society was founded on anonymity and worked well when it did exist. As such, making the claim that a society needs a lack of anonymity to function, in my opinion, is wrong. Perhaps limiting anonymity makes for a better society, but that is a subjective judgment that hinges on a person's interpretation of better.
Furthermore, if you want other examples of social interactions that function well with anonymity, take a look at the Victorian era Masquerade balls. Those functions, in fact, valued social interaction above all else, yet, they allowed for anonymity. There are other examples, like, say, the Secret Societies of the Ivy league schools that also allow for anonymous, social interaction but are successful. So I would claim that your assertion is demonstrably false.
That said, your first sentence with regards to anonymity being left out of the Constitution deliberately doesn't address my original point, or, at best, confirms it. The Constitution was written as an explicit agreement to what the federal government could and could not do. Thus, if anonymity was not mentioned, it was intended to be left as a right to the States and/or the people due to the very nature of the document itself. So if it was purposefully left out of the Constitution, then it was purposefully left as a right to the people or the States.
Well, you could group it under that damned annoying 1th amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
If anonymous criticism is considered a power, then it should be reserved to either the States or the people. As you so astutely pointed out, the power of anonymous criticism is not delegated anywhere in the Constitution and, thus, the federal government cannot claim ownership of it. Thus, it is left to the States or the people. I don't know what sort of precedence rulings exist that may determine whether it is for the States or the people, but technically the 10th probably does cover the power to anonymous free speech.
It's important to remember that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not documents that explicitly list available rights. Rather, they are documents that explicitly list the powers available to the federal level governments and all else is left to the lesser powers (States and people). While this is only a slight semantic difference, it is an enormous difference in terms of political philosophy and intent.
In 10 years or so we can have some nuclear plants built, but by then there will be far less need. Anyone that needs electricity to survive will have died off and the entire US food distribution system will have been reshaped - no refrigeration, no frozen food.
I'm confused by this statement. Are you asserting that in ten years time we will have developed technology sufficiently to be refrigeration independent or are you asserting that in ten years time modern society is going to meltdown and we are all going to be living off of salted beef, fresh veggies, and reading books by fire light? I'm not trying to be snarky. I am honestly uncertain as to what you are getting at. If it is the former, could you link me some materials that discuss the future development of non-frozen and non-refrigerated goods? I haven't ever heard this kind of revolution expressed before.
That's a fair enough assertion, however, if you are going to discuss Chernobyl in any relevant manner, you have to discuss the fact that, frankly, Chernobyl was a mismanaged screw-up in terms of safety practices and regulation. You have to talk about the inherent problems with the design of the Chernobyl reactor as well as the modern reactor designs and failsafes that prevent another disaster like Chernobyl from happening. You could even discuss how the disaster at Three Mile Island, in fact, shows just how superior one reactor design can be to another when it is compared to the failure of Chernobyl.
The problem is that when you start getting into these details, you start digging into technical information that makes quite a few layman's eyes gloss over. So rather than have an intelligent, level-headed conversation about nuclear power, they just put their fingers in their ears and say, "La La La Chernobyl proves nuclear power is evil." Of course, this is a symptomatic response of greater underlying problems in Western society, but that is a discussion for another time.
The point is, the parent is justified in making the assertion he made. Even if you want to talk about Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and the bombings in Japan from a level-headed, balanced point of view, you can't. Even if you bring up the WHO cancer statistics and discuss potential failure modes for current reactors, you get looked at like you are demented. Even if you talk about the problem of solid nuclear waste and the benefits and disadvantages of various disposal methods, you get ignored. When it comes down to it, as soon as the word nuclear is mentioned in a discussion of modern energy production, any rational engineering level analysis of nuclear energy is immediately ignored for zealotry and fear-mongering. That said, I would claim that the parent's assertion that you will be labeled an anti-environmental kook for no good reason is perfectly justified.
But you are also correct in that a balanced discussion of Chernobyl should, indeed, include discussion of the long term cancers caused by the waste. Unfortunately balanced discussions are far too taboo to have in public these days.
Okay, I am just going to put this out there. Is it at all possible for you to provide some reasoning or discussion as to what all of those horrible negative uses of the data are for? I am not saying you are wrong or that they don't exist, but logging onto the internet, typing in all caps, and then starting off your message with, "holy shit," will do nothing more than make folks' eyes glaze over with boredom. I mean, we are inundated everyday with news about how this next thing will give you cancer, how the Chinese are going to come kill us all, about how climate change is going to eat baby seals, and so on and so on ad infinitum. Ranting like a rabid lunatic about how dangerous something is is just going to make folk stop taking you seriously. If you calm down a bit, and explain your thoughts and fears in a well-mannered, well-developed, thought out response then people may take you seriously somewhere other than slashdot. As it stands now, unfortunately, you just come off like the fellas on the streets wearing the, "The End is Nigh! Repent!" signs.
Just some advice, learn from it or not as you see fit.
Oh wait, never mind, I see where they talk about the process in the article you describe. Sorry, Noscript screwed the formatting on the original article and I completely missed a section of it.
Well actually that's not how they did it. At least, that's not the only means they used for analyzing the problem. According to this article Voyager 2 has the ability to do a bit by bit transmission (see 3rd or 4th paragraph down) which is exactly what NASA commanded it do do. Once they had a bit by bit stream, they were simply looking to see which bit was flipped...or multiple bits maybe, I don't know.
However, they may also have done some bit-by-bit modeling in the manner you just described as well. If they did, however, I have never seen any information regarding it other than your post.
Congratulations. You have succeeded at browsing the internet for long enough to learn of some of the bad things that the US Government can do. You have also failed to bring up the scores of impressive successes that the US Government has managed (Apollo missions, federal relief to Haiti, post office system, funding of R&D for ARPANET which eventually became the internet, and let's not forget the American Bill of Rights, etc etc.). Now we could sit here and quibble about whether or not the good brought on by American government outweighs the bad, but that's just opinionated bullshitting. So how's about we partake in a different exercise?
You seem very aware that there is a lot wrong with the American government. Have you done anything to fix it other than posting very biased posts on the internet anonymously? Have you ever written a Senator or Representative voicing your concerns? Do you vote? Do you make campaign contributions?
Maybe you do, maybe you don't. But more importantly, I ask you, do you have the backbone to stand behind your words? If so, why don't you put your name or a recognizable alias behind your rant? Why do you hide behind the AC label? Do you really think you are so important that US agents are going to come kick in your door for posting stuff like above? If that's not the reason, then I challenge you to put your name to your words so that everyone, the government employees included, can see who this man or woman is that decries the state of the U.S. Government. If your points are founded on valid criticism, then you should have the pride to stand behind them and defend them. If you are just on here trolling about how terrible the American government is, then why should anyone take any of your discussions seriously? Do you think wikipedia gives you authority? It doesn't. If a man or woman can't even stand behind their own arguments, neither I, nor many other folk, have any reason to respect the words you post online.
In summary, if the U.S. is so damn terrible, then buck up like the rest of us who see it and start working to make it a better place, with a better government. Posting to slashdot is not a viable means of achieving such a goal. If you are not interested in said goal, then you are just betraying yourself as an immature brat who can't cope with the fact that the world is an ugly place.
Just a hint to save you some time, you probably shouldn't bother responding to AC's very often. You're effort is probably better spent elsewhere as, you have clearly pointed out, the 'points' often made by anonymous cowards are laughable. That said, thanks for the posts you did make. They offer some very interesting thoughts.
Well you can always do minor course corrections with bang-bang thrusters. But you have to understand, just about every mode of travel (actually, I think literally every mode of travel), for a probe, deep space or otherwise, is just some sort of fancy orbit or another. Essentially, a gravity sling maneuver is just using a very particular orbit to gain velocity in the desired direction. Then, using an on board propulsion of some sort, you thrust either in the direction of the velocity vector, or opposite the velocity vector to gain the energy you need to insert into whatever orbit you want. This orbit can be a transfer orbit to a distant planet, or it can just put you in a different orbit around the sun like a comet. You adjust the attitude of your spacecraft throughout, before, and after such maneuvers using on board reaction wheels, smg's, bang bang thrusters, or some combination of those things. Really, navigation in space is nothing more than jumping from one orbit around one object to some other orbit around some other object. This is a very simplified explanation, but hopefully it sheds some light on what you are asking about.
Well, no: if "those in power" are not protecting those who are less powerful -- making sure that they are as protected by the rule of law as everyone else -- then the rule of law is not being followed. That is the rule of men, rather than the rule of law.
Well that was kind of my point. The only thing that makes the rule of law work is the good will of those in power. That said, there is nothing inherent about the rule of law that protects anyone. The burden of protection of the society still falls upon those in power. All I am trying to get at is that the rule of law is a great theory and, when followed, is just. However, there is nothing inherent to it that keeps a society that is following the rule of law, from breaking down into a society that follows the rule of men. It may seem like a semantic quibble, but I thought it was an interesting observation.
The context here is something like what the FCC did: going around the law, outside of the law, violating the law. You, to my mind, expressed approval of this, so long as it's for a good reason. This is hatred of the rule of law.
Regarding this, it was not my intention to express approval of what the FCC did. I was more just interested in the language you were using and speaking from a general point of view. Like I said, the whole thing was off topic on my part so I can understand why you would make the assumption that I was speaking in the context of the FCC case, but that was not my intention. That said, I was simply looking to get a feel for your thoughts regarding some of the things we discussed. So, thank you for your time and the dialogue. It was quite an interesting read for me.
I carry my keys around on a carabiner clipped to my right, rear belt loop. I've been doing this since I started carrying keys twelve years ago. As I walked around, I can hear them jingle to remind me that they haven't fallen off/gotten lost. If I put on a pair of pants, and forget to clip them on, it feels odd as the weight is missing from that side of my body and I immediately start patting my sides to figure out what's missing. They give me something to fiddle with while I sit at the computer. They have earned me some pretty entertaining nicknames. Most importantly, I can whip them out and unlock something in half a second. Personally, the carabiner works delightfully for me as I got used to the jingling a long time ago. Although, I will caution you that getting into cars with nice seats can be dangerous if you sit down hard. Sharp keys will destroy the upholstery.
Also, when I want to take them off, I keep them in the same spot next to my bed every night, without fail. Habits can be good sometimes.
Slashdot Mirror
W. Edwards Deming was a fan of this idea.
I have no idea who that is, but his opinion must be important because he represents his first name as an initial.
Are there places in the country where you can freeze to death if your car stops? yes. Are there places in the country where infants can die of heat stroke if your car stops? Yes. those places just don't happen to be in California/NY.
Actually they are in California. Have you ever been out towards Death Valley? Or perhaps up near Tahoe or Mt. Shasta? It's not California that's the problem. It's the folks from LA and the Bay Area that are the problem. ;)
Deal. And if you're right, the beer's on me. I hope you like California though, cuz the only place I intend to travel for beer is Germany. ;)
It wouldn't surprise me if Congress and the White House doesn't manage to repeat the same mistakes made almost 40 years ago.
I think that's why the Air Force wants control of this development project. As long as they can claim the system to be a weapons/national defense platform, they can pretty much tell the rest of the government to keep their hands off the design. This gives them the freedom to develop the booster for whatever mission profiles they want. Of course, that's assuming that the Air Force is funding this with money they already have, rather than asking Congress for more. If they are asking Congress for more money then, yes, the politicos will control this particular project as well.
Does not matter one bit if their risk assessment was wrong. Maybe I like to go out drinking and driving because my risk assessment says I will never hit a church van full of preschoolers, but when I do you had better bet I will be in deep shit.
Well that's a completely failed analogy and certainly highlights your misunderstanding of systems engineering in today's very complicated world. You see, you driving around drunk isn't that complicated of a system. It's simple really, if you've been drinking to the level that it impairs your ability to drive, there is a high chance you won't drive well. That's about all the risk modeling you need to tell you it's stupid. Luckily for us, systems that involve millions of components under high stress and pressures don't undergo such a simple analysis. I've worked on industrial level risk models (albeit for spacecraft, not for oil operations) and I can tell you right now that they do have a very necessary place in modern industry. And I can also tell you that decisions made upon such risk models, in fact, do rely upon such complex risk analysis. If you don't take the time to consider the rate of failure of each component, analyze it's potential failure modes, and build in appropriate redundancies, then you have absolutely no meaningful way to asses whether or not such complex systems will succeed or fail.
That said, while dozens, if not hundreds, of people are paid to develop and analyze such risk models, it is not unreasonable to say that something could have been overlooked. In fact, that's why risk models make claims like 97% reliability, rather than claims like 100% guarantee. As such, if the risk model was, unfortunately, flawed in various respects, as girlintraining noted, then you may not see that one perfect storm that caused this mess. It makes sense, therefore, to wait for all of the media fallout to clear up until facts can actually be analyzed to draw conclusions.
As for this:
You wait your couple years and see, BP will only pay but a tiny portion of these costs.
I often find that those who are so eager to partake in predictions of the future tend to have some cause or another that they are supporting. Wasn't there a story about Bill Gates recently that demonstrated that pretty well?
You know you've successfully made a point on Slashdot when your post gets modded up to +5 then back down to -1 within the first 30 minutes of it being up.
For what it's worth, I read through all the sources myself and they all are basically blogs that make bold claims to keeping some entity or another honest and partake heavily in hyperbole and insinuations. I had a site-by-site breakdown of the journalistic and informative failings of each citation listed, but Slashdot choked and my post slipped into the void (insert joke about backups here). I mean seriously, Anderson Cooper, Arianna Huffington? Yeah, posts made to their blogs don't have an axe to grind or anything. Excuse me while I go vomit due to the overwhelming stench of vengeful punditry.
Maybe it's a pipe-dream, but I like to envision Slashdot as a site where evidence is held to a higher standard than that.
Ah well.
Paid to shill? I'm curious how my income, that comes from aerospace industry, is being paid for by someone that wants me to shill for BP. Honestly, I want to see you try to tie that link somehow.
The point he (or she?)
Oops, I just rechecked the UID, the OP is almost definitely a she....or a very lonely he in a very lonely world (his mom's basement). However, I think I'll go with the former.
Accidents are rarely accidents, someone fucked up.
How exactly does someone fucking up preclude it from being an accident? In fact, so far as I know, someone fucking up is pretty much inherent to the term, 'accident.' It's very rare that someone fucks up intentionally. It's very rare that accidents just spontaneously happen without someone dropping the ball somewhere along the way. To use a car analogy, even if a tire blowout causes an accident, that often is due to someone fucking up by not checking their tire pressure regularly, or someone disposing of hazardous materials (screws, nails, glass etc) on the road intentionally or unintentionally (improperly tightened bolt, improperly secured goods in a truck whatever). I don't think the OP was trying to say that nobody fucked up. I think the OP was trying to say that, yeah, somebody fucked up. It caused a legitimate accident, a bad one true, but an accident nonetheless, and we should hold that entity that fucked up responsible. The point he (or she?) was making was that BP is being held responsible. They are trying to fix the problem. They have been taking numerous steps since the accident to fix the problem. So far, those have not worked. So, rather than get frothing mad about it and scream, "OMG teh evul corporations!!!!!!!," maybe we should calm down a bit and let the people capable of solving the problem (i.e. those folks who have experience at drilling and operating heavy equipment in high-risk underwater environments [oil rig workers]) keep trying to solve the problem.
Frankly, that seems like a much more level-headed statement and assertion than claiming that, 'thousands of folks are screwed...' fishermen have no fish to sell, and ocean front property is now ruined.
That's just my two cents though.
We are not, by nature, moral creatures. Morality is something that must be imposed, either from within or without.
Current evidence suggests you are entirely wrong. Apparently, we are born with some form of innate morality. Or, at the very least, we have a tendency towards altruism and fairness.
With regards to this:
Human society pretty much depends upon a lack of anonymity to function.
I would submit the internet, in all of its glorious, pre-facebook anonymity days, as evidence that society can, and does function with anonymity. The way I figure it, the internet really is a society in and of itself. The internet allows for exchange of goods and services, enables the communication of ideas, has its own slang and languages associated with it, and, demonstrably, had its own set of rules and laws that were followed even when it was young. Those factors, would suggest that it is, indeed, a society. Back when chat rooms were still popular and young, back when ebay was just getting off the ground, and back before everyone had a myspace/facebook page to identify themselves, anonymous and pseudo-anonymous folk would get together in chatrooms, forums, and on auction sites and partake in near anarchic social interactions. While many of those interactions were trollish, flamebaitish, and ridiculous, there were a large number that were positive, contributory, and, often, pleasant. If there hadn't been, then everyone would have gotten sick of the internet and stopped using it a long time ago. That obviously didn't happen. People stuck it out, figured out ways to improve existing services, and now we have the internet today. And believe it or not, it still has its unspoken rules of etiquette and such. For instance, typing in all caps is considered inappropriate. L337 speak is considered a sign of immaturity. And screwing someone out of a deal on e-bay could get you banned from that service entirely.
While you may argue that destroying anonymity is what enabled this evolution, I would argue that the society was founded on anonymity and worked well when it did exist. As such, making the claim that a society needs a lack of anonymity to function, in my opinion, is wrong. Perhaps limiting anonymity makes for a better society, but that is a subjective judgment that hinges on a person's interpretation of better.
Furthermore, if you want other examples of social interactions that function well with anonymity, take a look at the Victorian era Masquerade balls. Those functions, in fact, valued social interaction above all else, yet, they allowed for anonymity. There are other examples, like, say, the Secret Societies of the Ivy league schools that also allow for anonymous, social interaction but are successful. So I would claim that your assertion is demonstrably false.
That said, your first sentence with regards to anonymity being left out of the Constitution deliberately doesn't address my original point, or, at best, confirms it. The Constitution was written as an explicit agreement to what the federal government could and could not do. Thus, if anonymity was not mentioned, it was intended to be left as a right to the States and/or the people due to the very nature of the document itself. So if it was purposefully left out of the Constitution, then it was purposefully left as a right to the people or the States.
My coworkers and I agree that you get the daily Slashdot, "WTF? *facepalm* award," for that little gem of an irrelevant rant.
Missed a typo: 10th amendment, not 1th. Sorry for that.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
If anonymous criticism is considered a power, then it should be reserved to either the States or the people. As you so astutely pointed out, the power of anonymous criticism is not delegated anywhere in the Constitution and, thus, the federal government cannot claim ownership of it. Thus, it is left to the States or the people. I don't know what sort of precedence rulings exist that may determine whether it is for the States or the people, but technically the 10th probably does cover the power to anonymous free speech.
It's important to remember that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not documents that explicitly list available rights. Rather, they are documents that explicitly list the powers available to the federal level governments and all else is left to the lesser powers (States and people). While this is only a slight semantic difference, it is an enormous difference in terms of political philosophy and intent.
In 10 years or so we can have some nuclear plants built, but by then there will be far less need. Anyone that needs electricity to survive will have died off and the entire US food distribution system will have been reshaped - no refrigeration, no frozen food.
I'm confused by this statement. Are you asserting that in ten years time we will have developed technology sufficiently to be refrigeration independent or are you asserting that in ten years time modern society is going to meltdown and we are all going to be living off of salted beef, fresh veggies, and reading books by fire light? I'm not trying to be snarky. I am honestly uncertain as to what you are getting at. If it is the former, could you link me some materials that discuss the future development of non-frozen and non-refrigerated goods? I haven't ever heard this kind of revolution expressed before.
That's a fair enough assertion, however, if you are going to discuss Chernobyl in any relevant manner, you have to discuss the fact that, frankly, Chernobyl was a mismanaged screw-up in terms of safety practices and regulation. You have to talk about the inherent problems with the design of the Chernobyl reactor as well as the modern reactor designs and failsafes that prevent another disaster like Chernobyl from happening. You could even discuss how the disaster at Three Mile Island, in fact, shows just how superior one reactor design can be to another when it is compared to the failure of Chernobyl.
The problem is that when you start getting into these details, you start digging into technical information that makes quite a few layman's eyes gloss over. So rather than have an intelligent, level-headed conversation about nuclear power, they just put their fingers in their ears and say, "La La La Chernobyl proves nuclear power is evil." Of course, this is a symptomatic response of greater underlying problems in Western society, but that is a discussion for another time.
The point is, the parent is justified in making the assertion he made. Even if you want to talk about Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and the bombings in Japan from a level-headed, balanced point of view, you can't. Even if you bring up the WHO cancer statistics and discuss potential failure modes for current reactors, you get looked at like you are demented. Even if you talk about the problem of solid nuclear waste and the benefits and disadvantages of various disposal methods, you get ignored. When it comes down to it, as soon as the word nuclear is mentioned in a discussion of modern energy production, any rational engineering level analysis of nuclear energy is immediately ignored for zealotry and fear-mongering. That said, I would claim that the parent's assertion that you will be labeled an anti-environmental kook for no good reason is perfectly justified.
But you are also correct in that a balanced discussion of Chernobyl should, indeed, include discussion of the long term cancers caused by the waste. Unfortunately balanced discussions are far too taboo to have in public these days.
Okay, I am just going to put this out there. Is it at all possible for you to provide some reasoning or discussion as to what all of those horrible negative uses of the data are for? I am not saying you are wrong or that they don't exist, but logging onto the internet, typing in all caps, and then starting off your message with, "holy shit," will do nothing more than make folks' eyes glaze over with boredom. I mean, we are inundated everyday with news about how this next thing will give you cancer, how the Chinese are going to come kill us all, about how climate change is going to eat baby seals, and so on and so on ad infinitum. Ranting like a rabid lunatic about how dangerous something is is just going to make folk stop taking you seriously. If you calm down a bit, and explain your thoughts and fears in a well-mannered, well-developed, thought out response then people may take you seriously somewhere other than slashdot. As it stands now, unfortunately, you just come off like the fellas on the streets wearing the, "The End is Nigh! Repent!" signs.
Just some advice, learn from it or not as you see fit.
Oh wait, never mind, I see where they talk about the process in the article you describe. Sorry, Noscript screwed the formatting on the original article and I completely missed a section of it.
Well actually that's not how they did it. At least, that's not the only means they used for analyzing the problem. According to this article Voyager 2 has the ability to do a bit by bit transmission (see 3rd or 4th paragraph down) which is exactly what NASA commanded it do do. Once they had a bit by bit stream, they were simply looking to see which bit was flipped...or multiple bits maybe, I don't know.
However, they may also have done some bit-by-bit modeling in the manner you just described as well. If they did, however, I have never seen any information regarding it other than your post.
Congratulations. You have succeeded at browsing the internet for long enough to learn of some of the bad things that the US Government can do. You have also failed to bring up the scores of impressive successes that the US Government has managed (Apollo missions, federal relief to Haiti, post office system, funding of R&D for ARPANET which eventually became the internet, and let's not forget the American Bill of Rights, etc etc.). Now we could sit here and quibble about whether or not the good brought on by American government outweighs the bad, but that's just opinionated bullshitting. So how's about we partake in a different exercise?
You seem very aware that there is a lot wrong with the American government. Have you done anything to fix it other than posting very biased posts on the internet anonymously? Have you ever written a Senator or Representative voicing your concerns? Do you vote? Do you make campaign contributions?
Maybe you do, maybe you don't. But more importantly, I ask you, do you have the backbone to stand behind your words? If so, why don't you put your name or a recognizable alias behind your rant? Why do you hide behind the AC label? Do you really think you are so important that US agents are going to come kick in your door for posting stuff like above? If that's not the reason, then I challenge you to put your name to your words so that everyone, the government employees included, can see who this man or woman is that decries the state of the U.S. Government. If your points are founded on valid criticism, then you should have the pride to stand behind them and defend them. If you are just on here trolling about how terrible the American government is, then why should anyone take any of your discussions seriously? Do you think wikipedia gives you authority? It doesn't. If a man or woman can't even stand behind their own arguments, neither I, nor many other folk, have any reason to respect the words you post online.
In summary, if the U.S. is so damn terrible, then buck up like the rest of us who see it and start working to make it a better place, with a better government. Posting to slashdot is not a viable means of achieving such a goal. If you are not interested in said goal, then you are just betraying yourself as an immature brat who can't cope with the fact that the world is an ugly place.
Just a hint to save you some time, you probably shouldn't bother responding to AC's very often. You're effort is probably better spent elsewhere as, you have clearly pointed out, the 'points' often made by anonymous cowards are laughable. That said, thanks for the posts you did make. They offer some very interesting thoughts.
Well you can always do minor course corrections with bang-bang thrusters. But you have to understand, just about every mode of travel (actually, I think literally every mode of travel), for a probe, deep space or otherwise, is just some sort of fancy orbit or another. Essentially, a gravity sling maneuver is just using a very particular orbit to gain velocity in the desired direction. Then, using an on board propulsion of some sort, you thrust either in the direction of the velocity vector, or opposite the velocity vector to gain the energy you need to insert into whatever orbit you want. This orbit can be a transfer orbit to a distant planet, or it can just put you in a different orbit around the sun like a comet. You adjust the attitude of your spacecraft throughout, before, and after such maneuvers using on board reaction wheels, smg's, bang bang thrusters, or some combination of those things. Really, navigation in space is nothing more than jumping from one orbit around one object to some other orbit around some other object. This is a very simplified explanation, but hopefully it sheds some light on what you are asking about.
Nevermind, I linked to the wrong drug. Ignore that last post, it's not relevant.
Find a way to make HGH affordable and you'll be pretty close to that anti-aging pill.
Well, no: if "those in power" are not protecting those who are less powerful -- making sure that they are as protected by the rule of law as everyone else -- then the rule of law is not being followed. That is the rule of men, rather than the rule of law.
Well that was kind of my point. The only thing that makes the rule of law work is the good will of those in power. That said, there is nothing inherent about the rule of law that protects anyone. The burden of protection of the society still falls upon those in power. All I am trying to get at is that the rule of law is a great theory and, when followed, is just. However, there is nothing inherent to it that keeps a society that is following the rule of law, from breaking down into a society that follows the rule of men. It may seem like a semantic quibble, but I thought it was an interesting observation.
The context here is something like what the FCC did: going around the law, outside of the law, violating the law. You, to my mind, expressed approval of this, so long as it's for a good reason. This is hatred of the rule of law.
Regarding this, it was not my intention to express approval of what the FCC did. I was more just interested in the language you were using and speaking from a general point of view. Like I said, the whole thing was off topic on my part so I can understand why you would make the assumption that I was speaking in the context of the FCC case, but that was not my intention. That said, I was simply looking to get a feel for your thoughts regarding some of the things we discussed. So, thank you for your time and the dialogue. It was quite an interesting read for me.
I carry my keys around on a carabiner clipped to my right, rear belt loop. I've been doing this since I started carrying keys twelve years ago. As I walked around, I can hear them jingle to remind me that they haven't fallen off/gotten lost. If I put on a pair of pants, and forget to clip them on, it feels odd as the weight is missing from that side of my body and I immediately start patting my sides to figure out what's missing. They give me something to fiddle with while I sit at the computer. They have earned me some pretty entertaining nicknames. Most importantly, I can whip them out and unlock something in half a second. Personally, the carabiner works delightfully for me as I got used to the jingling a long time ago. Although, I will caution you that getting into cars with nice seats can be dangerous if you sit down hard. Sharp keys will destroy the upholstery.
Also, when I want to take them off, I keep them in the same spot next to my bed every night, without fail. Habits can be good sometimes.