It's a good thing they didn't have KPN as their cell provider (dutch company, so obviously not a chance), because I regularly get messages hours after they've been sent even with both phones in range of a cell tower and no other connectivity issues that I'm aware of.
Nowhere did I mention russian media. I said 'speaks russian', since all the parties involved speak russian I would expect primary sources to be in russian.
They did it because they are under the illusion that the US will support them in this, similar illusions have been held by lots of countries that thought they were in the US's good graces.
Like all of them though, they're sadly mistaken, the US will maybe make some noise and send some cash but that is probably as far as it will go. And that's a good thing too, because really to start WWIII for real over a pipeline would seem a little excessive. (that's what this is all about anyway, the Ossetians are just pawns on a chessboard so large they can not even see the edges).
simple question, the guy claims he speaks russian, has friends locally, so he's going to be a ton better informed than your average./er, what is *your* claim to authority ?
It would seem to me that someone with an ear on the ground is better informed than someone that simply reads the filtered and processed media, which can't help but always paint russia as the boogey man, even if there is no apparent reason to do so. In this particular case it seems that all the hype paints russia as the aggressor, whereas all the more informed sources paint georgia as the aggressor.
The small fact that the US has been quietly (Or not so quietly) bankrolling georgia's resistance to the russians is mostly ignored by US media (but it's all over the news in Europe).
except that me saying you could have stolen my stuff is not much of an offence at all. And that's the level at which the current cases are being waged, there literally is NO PROOF of infringement in the traditional sense (I have proof because I have a copy that you have distributed to some third party that had no business having it).
That's the whole problem with these cases. At a minimum there should be two parties to a transaction, not one potential and a party that already had the rights.
that's most likely because even though the people in western europe know in their hearts the soviet empire fell apart it still registers as a soviet internal affair because that's been the situation for so long.
Imagine the USA imploding and texas declaring war on one of it's neighbouring states. There would not be much condemnation then either, it would be seen as one us state waging war on another, even though the larger entity no longer exists.
let me try again, sorry, it's late and I'm tired:)
The RIAA is claiming far more then the actual damage for copying a single song (this has happened many times), imagine the owner of a car being able to claim damages 10 fold or 100 fold to the value of the item stolen or damaged.
Then there's the fact they seem to be able to do so on the *possibility* of infringement, without being held to any substantial burden of proof that an infringement actually took place.
I can't even come up with a good real world analogy to that, but it's clearly bogus.
The only way I can see this end is when the RIAA or whatever agency is the one to go after infringement is able to prove conclusively:
"That two people that have not had prior contact infringed" (otherwise it's covered under various blank media levies)
Technically that's a pretty tall hurdle to cross (it can really only be proven by knowing a lot about the parties and by sniffing the traffic), if they get away with establishing a lesser standard then all kinds of parties with claims as superficial as the RIAA's will suddenly think they have a case and may be able to use the RIAA's cases as precedent.
With the riaa being able to claim actual damages for each song that got provably copied between two people that did not have an existing prior relationship (because then their regular levies apply). That's a pretty tall hurdle.
Anything less than that and the consequences will be more than you could possibly imagine.
they're in the business of flying airplanes. Where I get the rest of my services is up to me.
Also, if they'd just do a cost+30 model or something like that where all seats cost the same (instead of selling some for up to 50% more or less on the same flight, same service) then sites like these wouldn't be given such a huge hole to step in to.
one of the biggest challenges in go is that even the best players can not tell you how they formulate their strategy, I once read a book on go given to me by a friend, it had a paragraph in it that went something like this:
"The master go player came to visit and played a few games against local strong go players, at some point he was idle for a bit, having won his game and he was looking in on a game by two others, when asked for his advice on the next move (with the consent of both players) he suggested they give their best move first. The first move would have been fairly obvious, player #2 suggested a slightly less obvious move, the masters suggestion was inexplicable and apparently totally unrelated to the game that was being played."
Of the first 25 launches of protons 14 were failures, the fact that over the first three launches they got a bit lucky does not detract from the simple fact that like SpaceX proton had strings of failures.
Sure, it was the 60's, but that does not matter, they had the power of a whole nation behind them and if the cost in absolute dollars was less then in dollars corrected for inflation it was actually substantially more.
Do not berate SpaceX for trying something new for a change, otherwise we'd get stuck in a rut pretty quickly. Rocketry (and aviation in general) are extremely conservative, I very much welcome the attitude that dares to open up the design phase so that we can finally get rid of some of that 60's tech.
every new rocket will have its failures, count on it.
Just like every piece of software will have bugs. No matter how rigorous your testing and analysis, it's simply a function of the number of parts that go in to a system. Whether an issue will be catastrophic or not depends as much on the field as on that particular issue, and in rocketry the failures tend to be spectacular.
I'm sure all your multi-stage rocket designs flew picture perfect the first time out:)
there is a reason why soviet tech is cheap, it's old and it's development has been paid for in the past (no comment on how it was paid for).
So, any new development will be 'more costly' at face than old tech, but over time those costs should come down significantly. What is more surprising is that the difference between the old tech and the new one is as small as it is.
In spaceflight you're on a very long trajectory (pun intended) where lots of stuff has to be tested, alone and in combination. The only way to be 100% sure that everything works is to do an all-or-nothing launch, which due to its very nature is a public event. Trouble is to be expected when you combine that large a number of components. ALL space programs have had their failures, there is absolutely no reason to expect commercial space flight to be an exception.
What you can expect is a slow decrease of these failures as more and more of the failure modes of the equipment are revealing themselves under different circumstances. This is even true for regular commercial aircraft today, and it is one of the major reasons for accident investigations.
SpaceX has just had a mishap that would have been hard to test for on the pad (I'm not knowledgeable enough in the field to comment on the exact differences between testing on the pad and a launch, but I suspect there are still numerous differences, caused by atmospheric pressure, the effects of acceleration etc). This failure, when dealt with is not going to cause another launch to go bad, the real question is how many more such issues are lurking under the grass. It would be nice to know if this failure would have been preventable, 1.5 seconds doesn't sound like much but during the critical period of separation it's like an eternity.
And I fully expect them to be a major player in the future of commercial space travel.
They've done some absolutely amazing things in the last couple of years on a budget that makes all the governments combined look pretty silly. They remind me of Reid Malenfant and his outfit (only a bit more realistic), and I don't think any issues that crop up during this test stage are going to slow them down for long.
Maybe the 21st century will see some serious space exploration after all, instead of all those 'feel good' missions. $/kg to orbit is the only significant number for the next two decades or so, once there is enough construction capability up there to start hauling stuff inbound it should get interesting indeed.
the reason the merchant prefers debit is because it is a fixed per payment charge for them, but credit card payments are a fraction of the amount charged.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a good thing they didn't have KPN as their cell provider (dutch company, so obviously not a chance), because I regularly get messages hours after they've been sent even with both phones in range of a cell tower and no other connectivity issues that I'm aware of.
you were wondering about the 'british' media... the 'b' in bbc stands for british.
A rain event ??? Well, I hope I can get tickets to that :)
(GCRIP).
Nowhere did I mention russian media. I said 'speaks russian', since all the parties involved speak russian I would expect primary sources to be in russian.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bbc
They did it because they are under the illusion that the US will support them in this, similar illusions have been held by lots of countries that thought they were in the US's good graces.
Like all of them though, they're sadly mistaken, the US will maybe make some noise and send some cash but that is probably as far as it will go. And that's a good thing too, because really to start WWIII for real over a pipeline would seem a little excessive. (that's what this is all about anyway, the Ossetians are just pawns on a chessboard so large they can not even see the edges).
simple question, the guy claims he speaks russian, has friends locally, so he's going to be a ton better informed than your average ./er, what is *your* claim to authority ?
It would seem to me that someone with an ear on the ground is better informed than someone that simply reads the filtered and processed media, which can't help but always paint russia as the boogey man, even if there is no apparent reason to do so. In this particular case it seems that all the hype paints russia as the aggressor, whereas all the more informed sources paint georgia as the aggressor.
The small fact that the US has been quietly (Or not so quietly) bankrolling georgia's resistance to the russians is mostly ignored by US media (but it's all over the news in Europe).
except that me saying you could have stolen my stuff is not much of an offence at all. And that's the level at which the current cases are being waged, there literally is NO PROOF of infringement in the traditional sense (I have proof because I have a copy that you have distributed to some third party that had no business having it).
That's the whole problem with these cases. At a minimum there should be two parties to a transaction, not one potential and a party that already had the rights.
that's most likely because even though the people in western europe know in their hearts the soviet empire fell apart it still registers as a soviet internal affair because that's been the situation for so long.
Imagine the USA imploding and texas declaring war on one of it's neighbouring states. There would not be much condemnation then either, it would be seen as one us state waging war on another, even though the larger entity no longer exists.
more power to the necrophiliacs in this world...
Now I understand where all those references to WWIII are coming from, the Russians are invading Georgia :)
let me try again, sorry, it's late and I'm tired :)
The RIAA is claiming far more then the actual damage for copying a single song (this has happened many times), imagine the owner of a car being able to claim damages 10 fold or 100 fold to the value of the item stolen or damaged.
Then there's the fact they seem to be able to do so on the *possibility* of infringement, without being held to any substantial burden of proof that an infringement actually took place.
I can't even come up with a good real world analogy to that, but it's clearly bogus.
The only way I can see this end is when the RIAA or whatever agency is the one to go after infringement is able to prove conclusively:
"That two people that have not had prior contact infringed" (otherwise it's covered under various blank media levies)
Technically that's a pretty tall hurdle to cross (it can really only be proven by knowing a lot about the parties and by sniffing the traffic), if they get away with establishing a lesser standard then all kinds of parties with claims as superficial as the RIAA's will suddenly think they have a case and may be able to use the RIAA's cases as precedent.
Better now ?
j.
With the riaa being able to claim actual damages for each song that got provably copied between two people that did not have an existing prior relationship (because then their regular levies apply). That's a pretty tall hurdle.
Anything less than that and the consequences will be more than you could possibly imagine.
they're in the business of flying airplanes. Where I get the rest of my services is up to me.
Also, if they'd just do a cost+30 model or something like that where all seats cost the same (instead of selling some for up to 50% more or less on the same flight, same service) then sites like these wouldn't be given such a huge hole to step in to.
The airlines create these situations themselves.
one of the biggest challenges in go is that even the best players can not tell you how they formulate their strategy, I once read a book on go given to me by a friend, it had a paragraph in it that went something like this:
"The master go player came to visit and played a few games against local strong go players, at some point he was idle for a bit, having won his game and he was looking in on a game by two others, when asked for his advice on the next move (with the consent of both players) he suggested they give their best move first. The first move would have been fairly obvious, player #2 suggested a slightly less obvious move, the masters suggestion was inexplicable and apparently totally unrelated to the game that was being played."
So much for logic modelling...
Of the first 25 launches of protons 14 were failures, the fact that over the first three launches they got a bit lucky does not detract from the simple fact that like SpaceX proton had strings of failures.
Sure, it was the 60's, but that does not matter, they had the power of a whole nation behind them and if the cost in absolute dollars was less then in dollars corrected for inflation it was actually substantially more.
Do not berate SpaceX for trying something new for a change, otherwise we'd get stuck in a rut pretty quickly. Rocketry (and aviation in general) are extremely conservative, I very much welcome the attitude that dares to open up the design phase so that we can finally get rid of some of that 60's tech.
every new rocket will have its failures, count on it.
Just like every piece of software will have bugs. No matter how rigorous your testing and analysis, it's simply a function of the number of parts that go in to a system. Whether an issue will be catastrophic or not depends as much on the field as on that particular issue, and in rocketry the failures tend to be spectacular.
it's mostly because of tariffs, not because of the unions.
I'm sure all your multi-stage rocket designs flew picture perfect the first time out :)
there is a reason why soviet tech is cheap, it's old and it's development has been paid for in the past (no comment on how it was paid for).
So, any new development will be 'more costly' at face than old tech, but over time those costs should come down significantly. What is more surprising is that the difference between the old tech and the new one is as small as it is.
In spaceflight you're on a very long trajectory (pun intended) where lots of stuff has to be tested, alone and in combination. The only way to be 100% sure that everything works is to do an all-or-nothing launch, which due to its very nature is a public event. Trouble is to be expected when you combine that large a number of components. ALL space programs have had their failures, there is absolutely no reason to expect commercial space flight to be an exception.
What you can expect is a slow decrease of these failures as more and more of the failure modes of the equipment are revealing themselves under different circumstances. This is even true for regular commercial aircraft today, and it is one of the major reasons for accident investigations.
SpaceX has just had a mishap that would have been hard to test for on the pad (I'm not knowledgeable enough in the field to comment on the exact differences between testing on the pad and a launch, but I suspect there are still numerous differences, caused by atmospheric pressure, the effects of acceleration etc). This failure, when dealt with is not going to cause another launch to go bad, the real question is how many more such issues are lurking under the grass. It would be nice to know if this failure would have been preventable, 1.5 seconds doesn't sound like much but during the critical period of separation it's like an eternity.
And I fully expect them to be a major player in the future of commercial space travel.
They've done some absolutely amazing things in the last couple of years on a budget that makes all the governments combined look pretty silly. They remind me of Reid Malenfant and his outfit (only a bit more realistic), and I don't think any issues that crop up during this test stage are going to slow them down for long.
Maybe the 21st century will see some serious space exploration after all, instead of all those 'feel good' missions. $/kg to orbit is the only significant number for the next two decades or so, once there is enough construction capability up there to start hauling stuff inbound it should get interesting indeed.
very interesting ! that sounds like something that should be studied more widely
hm... /me proposes something like a log(uid) modifier
I think my 'bizarre' indicator just maxed out...
the reason the merchant prefers debit is because it is a fixed per payment charge for them, but credit card payments are a fraction of the amount charged.