"...The problem is, I have a copy of Rock Band: Unplugged. This is a recent game, released when everyone knew the PSP Go was coming down the line. To continue to play it, I can either keep my old PSP around, or rebuy it. There is no way to verify my copy of the game and receive a download to use it on the PSP Go."
Game developers have the same thing for selected versions of retail games that have been released through Valve's Steam. I bought Doom3 retail and there's no way to verify and 'convert' it to my Steam account so I can ditch the physical media. I'd even pay a 'nominal fee' to migrate my retail games to Steam so I can put all of my games under one digital roof.
Some retail versions of games can be registered and linked to an account (https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=7480-WUSF-3601#which), but the list is very short. Specifically with Doom3 on Steam, id Software is now the publisher, where the retail version had Activision as the publisher. Strangely, Activision is also a publisher on Steam as well that has no interest in allowing it's retail legacy customers into the fold of Steam. If no other option were available through Steam, I'd be willing to pay to mail the retail game to Activision and have them verify the product on their side and grant me Steam credit towards the digital version. Activision could then be released to dispose of or resell my old retail version as they see fit.
Ubisoft and Red Storm's 'Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon' is another example. I've got the retail game, there is no product key.
More publishers should provide ways to convert their retail games over to the new digital distribution schemes that the publishers are embracing, or provide a legal market for buy-backs and enable consumers to convert or get credit for the purchase of the same retail game that's being sold on the digital distribution system the publishers are supporting and profiting from. The benefit to consumers would be seamless product updates and limited lifetime media-less reinstalls.
I'm not ashamed to admit that I use three different security programs to protect my XP pc that I got from Download.com: AVG Free, Zone Alarm Free and Advanced System Care Free.
I'm sure there's some overlap in functionality and there's more stuff running in the background precipitating the need to run a ram monitor to watchdog the whole mess, but the result is that nothing yet has gotten through so I guess it's doing it's job. Something that hasn't changed with the free products is that there is a lot of user-approving that is required. I guess those are the equivelant of 'nag screens' that are designed to wear people down and get them to upgrade to the paid version.
On the AV front what I find interesting is that several years back, I recall Microsoft including an antivirus program with it's OS (I want to say DOS 6 but it could have been Win3.1) that was displayed during the install screen slideshow. Even now, when I go into Security Manager in XP, it's very clear that MS has never filled this empty space with a proprietary product. Was a true proprietary AV in Windows product merged with OneCare? To not have seen an official MS retail (or free version!) of an AV product after all these years seems like a missed opportunity.
This reminds me of the epiphanic moment during the garage scene in Primer:
"I did not remove any of the bypass caps on the mainboard for the 3.3V rail and it seems like a few seconds are actually required for the internal logic to discharge appreciably (anything less and the system continues running just fine afterward.)"
Where else can a budget-minded enterprise leap a low-rung development hurdle of $100 for the Apple SDK and produce a game that, with the right market strategy can then propel that same company to generate more games that sell for what the developer asks for.
Low overhead and potentially high volume sales for a bargin priced game should usher in a new age of game development for this platform.
Point taken on my selection of STS missions showing DoD involvement with NASA. I believe I underscored that extensively because your initial comment was that "NASA doesn't do military". I may have hit the same nail repeatedly, but I'm hoping we can agree that NASA has a history of doing DoD dirty work.
With that issue clarified, I'd now like to draw your important attention to this:
"WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Department of Defense has signed off on NASA's plan to use major space shuttle components as the basis for separate vehicles that will launch the agency's new crew transport and 100-ton loads of Moon-bound cargo.
The U.S. Space Transportation Policy issued by the White House in January requires NASA to coordinate its future launch vehicle plans with the Pentagon and submit a joint recommendation to the president on the nation's next heavy-lift rocket."
My argument the entire time was a broad stroke of NASA involved in DoD work. I understand that the STS program is nearing termination.
Please read the conclusion of that article;
"The letter further noted that new commercially developed launchers, should they become available, will be allowed to compete for such missions.
NASA and the Pentagon, according to the letter, have agreed to complete a joint cost benefit analysis in the coming months of phasing out Boeing's Delta 2 rocket in favor of the EELV. Although the Air Force has largely moved on to the EELV, the smaller Delta 2 remains NASA's workhorse for launching medium-sized science satellites and interplanetary probes.
Also according to the letter, the Pentagon will consider using NASA's proposed heavy-lift launcher for any future military missions that might require such a powerful rocket. But it is unlikely, the letter says, that the Pentagon would endorse a shuttle-derived vehicle as an EELV back-up "due to the significant risk, reliability, and cost of modifications required to [Defense Department] satellites and infrastructure.""
Okay, so not only is the DoD in bed with NASA, as they have been, but they are drawing plans to use more NASA hardware and infrastructure to do what they do best - put things in orbit and beyond. Given, I spent all of 3 minutes searching Yahoo! with "nasa department of defense space missions", so I could probably generate more current fodder if I needed to. Just trying to bring my definition of "now" in line with yours;)
My original post, now some 5+ posts back, was an initiative to reposition NASA as an administrator of space operations, both civilian and military, and return military operations to their respective branches. Procedurally it would managed by Joint Chiefs of Staff (and what does the military use for a space vehicle anyway except rockets) with Congressional oversight, and turn civilian space operations over to the highest domestic corporate bidders. NASA keeps it tenantship in manned fixed orbit platforms like the ISS and ueses its decades-long library of experience to mentor and manage the fledgling commercial space industry.
As I speak, I still need clarification on whether or not NASA is still playing space monkey to DoD tasking, because if what I read above (from August 2005) is still valid, it appears that they are.
Another such mission was STS-44, in which "the mission was dedicated to the Department of Defense. The unclassified payload included a Defense Support Program (DSP) satellite and attached Inertial Upper Stage (IUS), deployed on flight day one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-44#Mission_highlights
Yet another such mission was STS-39, which "was a dedicated Department of Defense mission. Unclassified payload included Air Force Program-675 (AFP675); Infrared Background Signature Survey (IBSS) with Critical Ionization Velocity (CIV), Chemical Release Observation (CRO) and Shuttle Pallet Satellite-II (SPAS-II) experiments; and Space Test Payload-1 (STP-1). Classified payload consisted of Multi-Purpose Release Canister (MPEC). Also on board was Radiation Monitoring Equipment III (RME III) and Cloud Logic to Optimize Use of Defense Systems-IA (CLOUDS-I)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-39#Mission_highlights
In all there are at least 10 such missions where NASA conducted operations on behalf of the DoD. Again, I'm not saying there was or is a detachment of active or reserve military astronauts on standby ready to fly into orbit. However, if the DoD is paying NASA to perform classified operations, then NASA is working for the military and performing military-funded manned space work. It might not be the entire mission (in some cases it was), but it's clear to me that NASA and the DoD have gainfully worked together in the recent past and may be continuing to do so now or in the future.
I guess it all comes down to semantics. You say DoD doesn't do manned space missions, I say they do. They pay for them!
If the bill is paid for by DoD, the payload and/or tasking is classified, but the crew and launch vehicle are all NASA, then what is it? It's NASA doing military!! NASA was (at that time) in the best position to execute a manned US space mission. How can you confirm that DoD employed NASA to conduct several missions which had classified segments up to and including satellite retrieval, and say that "NASA doesn't do military".
I for one never believed for one minute that the AF, Army or Navy had trained astronauts on active or reserve duty on standby that were tasked to conduct actual space missions. I believe the DoD generated orders for and secured funding to employ NASA to conduct and accomplish specific military-related tasks.
Also, please show some references for the US military's own manned space program.
US Air Force Space Command - much of their ballistic mission capability was transferred to AF Global Strike Command. The USAFSC's space mission is defined as:
"Spacelift operations at the East and West Coast launch bases provide services, facilities and range safety control for the conduct of DOD, NASA and commercial launches. Through the command and control of all DOD satellites, satellite operators provide force-multiplying effects -- continuous global coverage, low vulnerability and autonomous operations. Satellites provide essential in-theater secure communications, weather and navigational data for ground, air and fleet operations and threat warning. Ground-based radar and Defense Support Program satellites monitor ballistic missile launches around the world to guard against a surprise missile attack on North America. Space surveillance radars provide vital information on the location of satellites and space debris for the nation and the world." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Force_Space_Command#Space_capabilities
Are you suggesting that the AF has a manned space program? With the exception of former AF pilots that migrated to NASA to fly the shuttle, I'd love to read what you've got.
NASA has been in the manned military business for years. One of the stipulations (aka limitations) that the Pentagon placed on the Space Transportation System program was for the Space Shuttle to have low-earth orbit capability for satellite retrieval. Why would the Pentagon want to retrieve satellites or impose such a directive on the 'civilian' STS program, knowing it would sentence that vehicle to a vehicle lifespan shortening harsher environment with a narrower band of non-military applications? Much of the 80's was dedicated to such a requirement. Tell me what really happened on STS-53 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-53, it was the 10th and final DoD mission, which is still classified.
Part of the promotion, a large chunk, of the STS program was it's civilian applications with a quick-launch turnaround time and projected lower cost due to reusable parts.
Come now, to say that NASA "doesn't do any manned military space" is completely wrong. A federally funded, executive-branch accountable, Congressionally oversighted organization like NASA has been servicing the DoD for years. Since much of it is classified and was presumably piggybacked on overt legitimate scientific missions, the real question in this new age of budgetary accountability becomes, how can we depend on NASA to focus on it's core mission when there is an executive level, military mandated override that may or may not be what the general civilian population wants to foot the bill for?
Is the STS program in it's final days? Thankfully yes. Please don't spread the disinformation that NASA doesn't do military, the DoD kept them gainfully employed for many good years.
I think that NASA should be stripped down and restructured. All manned missions and support operations with a military application should be converted to their respective military counterparts, the whole thing headed up by Joint Chiefs of Staff. From Wikipedia, "their primary responsibility is to ensure the personnel readiness, policy, planning and training of their respective military services for the combatant commanders to utilize." The President and Secretary of Defense can tap the manned space capability of the respective military branches, and the JCS maintains training, policy and readiness. Oversight for military applications already has a process, which would remain in place.
NASA would be reduced or redesignated from it's current role to that of managing and conducing operations for unmanned space missions such as deep space probes and telescopes, establishing rules, standards and accident reviews for commercial space activities just like the FAA. NASA would also continue to provide tenantship to fixed orbital platforms such as the ISS, in conjunction with other participating nations. Every manned application is auctioned off to civilian corporations that meet specific minimal requirements. NASA would become the space analogy of the FAA, allowing a vacuum to exist allowing other responsible and qualified fair trade entities to step in and compete for the best possible road to commercial space business.
I remember hearing a comment back after the 9/11 attacks that the FBI database couldn't be searched like Google provides it's search queries. From that standpoint of modernization and capability, I say cheers to the FBI for making such a rebound (smells like Carnivore) 8 years later. Interestingly, or rather unsurprisingly, "The FBI declined to comment on the program."
Now on to the AI accusations.
"That could change if the FBI gets it hands on the data sources on its 2008 wish list. That list includes airline manifests sent to the Department of Homeland Security, the national Social Security number database, and the Postal Serviceâ(TM)s change-of-address database. There are also 24 additional databases the FBI is seeking, but those names were blacked out in the released data."
The results of such a query aren't too far off from that of a true prototype AI, which in it's operationally completed state would provide the best prediction bang for the buck there ever was in the history of mankind. And how best to employ that fledgling AI but in law enforcement pursuit of known terrorist criminals.
Where were they, what did they do and where are they now?
Thanks for the product recommendation. As you can tell, I'm not exactly operating on the bleeding edge of technology and that price range fits in nicely with my budget.
With their proprietary CUDA and Firestream technologies, I would think Nvidia and AMD/ATI resepctively would be able to make a daughter card that could add or increase GPU capability on their existing respective hardware, or open up 3rd party licensing to build this market segment.
My ATI X1300 handles far more BOINC than it does games, and I have no real reason to upgrade right now. But if there was an add-on that ATI or an approved 3rd party manufacturer developed that was reasonably priced, I wouldn't hesitate to add functionality.
I seem to remember a similar concept years ago with the Intel 386 SX architecture where you could purchase an optional math co-processor to plug in next to it.
I'm forcasting a new breed of information anonymizer service...
Picture a warehouse with row after row of computer workstations goiing back as far as the eye can see, stacked floor to ceiling. The occupants are half-assembled mannequins, disjointedly operating input devices by way of random herky-jerky animated mechanical motion.
In the future, the only way to defeat the government machines designed to watch for illegal human behavior is by creating machines to filter through imprecise mechanical motion the actions of humans wishing to avoid such detection.
I think it's safe to say the majority of a film's gross revenue generally comes from box office sales. Occasionally there will be a film that preforms poorly while it's in theaters and achieves a level of gross revenue that would have not been possible without DVD sales. With that said, Rotten Tomatoes offers an interesting resource - the Approved Tomatometer Critics - reviews from accredited media outlet and online film societies that produce aggregate scores. Further, you can dig deeper and see why a film generated a particular Tomatometer rating. There's a delicate balance between a film's budget, it's overall reaction at the box office, when it was released, and how much it generated in gross revenue.
I'll go back to my critical analysis to underscore why RT is an essential component of this critical review:
- Punisher: War Zone cost US$35mil, was released in December, generated a RT Tomatometer score of 26%, and failed to generate box office revenue equal to it's budget. By most measures (you can read the reviews on RT to find out why), it was a box office failure.
- X-Men cost US$75mil, was released in July, generated a RT Tomatometer score of 80%, and generated US$296. By most measures (again you can read the reviews on RT to find out why), it was a box office success.
Two different films, the box office failure had Arad/Lee on production while the box office success didn't, two different release seasons, two different Tomatometer scores. Literally, these Marvel films are nearly polar opposites. The only thing they had in common for these purposes was they had budgets of US$100mil or less and of course they were a production by Marvel Entertainment.
The Rotten Tomatoes Tomatometer provides data and reviews by a consistant panel of diverse critics that provide aggregate ratings and detailed insight into why a film does poorly or well at the box office.
I have eliminated most of my commentary to present this analysis of Marvel motion pictures released since 2000. I mark that time period as the beginning of Marvel Entertainment's ability to bring characters and stories to life in a way they were never capable of before.
I'm not doubting or disqualifying other states of mind, but let's hear a round of cheer for the one that most people percieve - wakeful thought and cognizant awareness; the idea of self and the myriad of directions it takes us in.
Chances are, you've pondered the notion at one time or another, 'I wonder if anyone else is thinking this right now', or 'I wonder how many other people have thought what I'm thinking'. What a supreme notion, to be able to have recursive thoughts where we can examine our own thoughts and compare them to the thoughts of others. Suddenly we're not thinking about the object anymore, we're thinking about thinking about the object and pondering if others have done the same thing.
Hurray for the executive control system of the mind!
I'm curious, DARPA, IBM and Lucent were working on proprietary holographic storage medium solutions. HDSS exerpt (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDSS):
"During CES 2006, a workable holographic drive was tested and stored 300 GB of memory compared to blu-ray's 100 GB. It has been announced that hologram disks will be a post-blu-ray storage device."
I'm just curious since IBM was one of the groups working on this technology if there have been any advances that apply to the main article.
"Unique to holographic data storage is the ability to perform essentially immediate data searches through huge digital libraries by simply illuminating the media with all of the stored information (a holograph) with a pattern of the requested information."
Resale is currently one advantage of the retail product manufacturer that is probably on the way out if MS has anything to do with it. Take any application that requires the activation key to be linked with a user name and a password, or explicitly forbids the resale of the software to a third party, and you have a product that can only be sold to one person.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitations_on_exclusive_rights:_Computer_programs "This one change by congress has resulted in the odd situation where software makers claim that purchasers do not own the software but rather only license it. The courts have split on whether or not the claim in the software agreement that a purchaser does not own the software is enforceable and thus require an additional license to use the software."
Further, "The law allows any copies that are created for the above purposes to be transferred when the software is sold, only along with the copy made to prepare them. Adaptations made can not be transferred without permission from the copyright holder."
Which is why any self-respecting software distributer wants to close that 'archival copy' loophole and require each instance of the software to perform an authentication with a unique CD Key.
A good example of the implementation is Valve and Steam. Here is a company that does digital downloads of the same retail product with the same limitation, they all have to authenticate each time the software is run.
And where that trails off and the gray area begins, go back to that same rules and regulations compendium and glean appropriate behavior and confidentiality employee agreements to remind people what is acceptable and what is not.
It's a rare situation that has employees actively working and conducting business in various locations and stages of production where they are exempt from the rules and regulations that govern safety, access and distribution of proprietary information, asset security and liability. When in doubt, employees are encouraged to seek out their immediate supervisor or manager and share case-by case situations that fall outside of established guidelines.
While this puts more burdin on the rules to list what is appropriate and what isn't, the "employee handbook" can become a living document that grows as procedures change and situations require ammended courses of action.
I'd also suggest incorporating a a policy revision or review process, where the common employee can affect change through communication to an individual or department that can highlight a policy or procedure that is incomplete or inaccurate.
In the end, the Company is seen as less infallible and more adaptive, the management that executive or owners rely on to get things done are better empowered to merge effort with Company expectations.
Scientists have a wealth of number crunching power at their collective fingertips to pull from to get results, people are already doing it for free with projects like Boinc. Create a business model where participants can be paid credits in aggregate for time spent working on projects. The requirements are tighter, the controls are tighter, the projects are more focused and accredited or approved by educational institutions, with oversight. Corporate sponsors are brought to the table and can provide projects to work on, providing a modest budget to pull from. To encourage more participation by new scientists, any scientist with a minimum level of education can launch their own project, there's an approved toolset to use to help get the project started, and to encourage anonymous participants to help crunch the project and get results, the participants earn "credits" that can be loaded onto a credit card and spent at approved locations for real world items.
Sound familiar, right? We already see this type of activity with Boinc and separately with reloadable credit cards like Netspend. In an overpopulated sea of distributed computing volunteers, let's start paying these thankless people for their scientific contributions and encourage more scientists to get involved and solve problems.
Slashdot Mirror
From page 2 of the article:
"...The problem is, I have a copy of Rock Band: Unplugged. This is a recent game, released when everyone knew the PSP Go was coming down the line. To continue to play it, I can either keep my old PSP around, or rebuy it. There is no way to verify my copy of the game and receive a download to use it on the PSP Go."
Game developers have the same thing for selected versions of retail games that have been released through Valve's Steam. I bought Doom3 retail and there's no way to verify and 'convert' it to my Steam account so I can ditch the physical media. I'd even pay a 'nominal fee' to migrate my retail games to Steam so I can put all of my games under one digital roof.
Some retail versions of games can be registered and linked to an account (https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=7480-WUSF-3601#which), but the list is very short. Specifically with Doom3 on Steam, id Software is now the publisher, where the retail version had Activision as the publisher. Strangely, Activision is also a publisher on Steam as well that has no interest in allowing it's retail legacy customers into the fold of Steam. If no other option were available through Steam, I'd be willing to pay to mail the retail game to Activision and have them verify the product on their side and grant me Steam credit towards the digital version. Activision could then be released to dispose of or resell my old retail version as they see fit.
Ubisoft and Red Storm's 'Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon' is another example. I've got the retail game, there is no product key.
More publishers should provide ways to convert their retail games over to the new digital distribution schemes that the publishers are embracing, or provide a legal market for buy-backs and enable consumers to convert or get credit for the purchase of the same retail game that's being sold on the digital distribution system the publishers are supporting and profiting from. The benefit to consumers would be seamless product updates and limited lifetime media-less reinstalls.
I'm not ashamed to admit that I use three different security programs to protect my XP pc that I got from Download.com: AVG Free, Zone Alarm Free and Advanced System Care Free.
I'm sure there's some overlap in functionality and there's more stuff running in the background precipitating the need to run a ram monitor to watchdog the whole mess, but the result is that nothing yet has gotten through so I guess it's doing it's job. Something that hasn't changed with the free products is that there is a lot of user-approving that is required. I guess those are the equivelant of 'nag screens' that are designed to wear people down and get them to upgrade to the paid version.
On the AV front what I find interesting is that several years back, I recall Microsoft including an antivirus program with it's OS (I want to say DOS 6 but it could have been Win3.1) that was displayed during the install screen slideshow. Even now, when I go into Security Manager in XP, it's very clear that MS has never filled this empty space with a proprietary product. Was a true proprietary AV in Windows product merged with OneCare? To not have seen an official MS retail (or free version!) of an AV product after all these years seems like a missed opportunity.
This reminds me of the epiphanic moment during the garage scene in Primer:
"I did not remove any of the bypass caps on the mainboard for the 3.3V rail and it seems like a few seconds are actually required for the internal logic to discharge appreciably (anything less and the system continues running just fine afterward.)"
Why a few seconds, why not an exact time?
Where else can a budget-minded enterprise leap a low-rung development hurdle of $100 for the Apple SDK and produce a game that, with the right market strategy can then propel that same company to generate more games that sell for what the developer asks for.
Low overhead and potentially high volume sales for a bargin priced game should usher in a new age of game development for this platform.
Point taken on my selection of STS missions showing DoD involvement with NASA. I believe I underscored that extensively because your initial comment was that "NASA doesn't do military". I may have hit the same nail repeatedly, but I'm hoping we can agree that NASA has a history of doing DoD dirty work.
With that issue clarified, I'd now like to draw your important attention to this:
http://www.space.com/news/050810_dod_launcher.html
"WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Department of Defense has signed off on NASA's plan to use major space shuttle components as the basis for separate vehicles that will launch the agency's new crew transport and 100-ton loads of Moon-bound cargo.
The U.S. Space Transportation Policy issued by the White House in January requires NASA to coordinate its future launch vehicle plans with the Pentagon and submit a joint recommendation to the president on the nation's next heavy-lift rocket."
My argument the entire time was a broad stroke of NASA involved in DoD work. I understand that the STS program is nearing termination.
Please read the conclusion of that article;
"The letter further noted that new commercially developed launchers, should they become available, will be allowed to compete for such missions.
NASA and the Pentagon, according to the letter, have agreed to complete a joint cost benefit analysis in the coming months of phasing out Boeing's Delta 2 rocket in favor of the EELV. Although the Air Force has largely moved on to the EELV, the smaller Delta 2 remains NASA's workhorse for launching medium-sized science satellites and interplanetary probes.
Also according to the letter, the Pentagon will consider using NASA's proposed heavy-lift launcher for any future military missions that might require such a powerful rocket. But it is unlikely, the letter says, that the Pentagon would endorse a shuttle-derived vehicle as an EELV back-up "due to the significant risk, reliability, and cost of modifications required to [Defense Department] satellites and infrastructure.""
Okay, so not only is the DoD in bed with NASA, as they have been, but they are drawing plans to use more NASA hardware and infrastructure to do what they do best - put things in orbit and beyond. Given, I spent all of 3 minutes searching Yahoo! with "nasa department of defense space missions", so I could probably generate more current fodder if I needed to. Just trying to bring my definition of "now" in line with yours ;)
My original post, now some 5+ posts back, was an initiative to reposition NASA as an administrator of space operations, both civilian and military, and return military operations to their respective branches. Procedurally it would managed by Joint Chiefs of Staff (and what does the military use for a space vehicle anyway except rockets) with Congressional oversight, and turn civilian space operations over to the highest domestic corporate bidders. NASA keeps it tenantship in manned fixed orbit platforms like the ISS and ueses its decades-long library of experience to mentor and manage the fledgling commercial space industry.
As I speak, I still need clarification on whether or not NASA is still playing space monkey to DoD tasking, because if what I read above (from August 2005) is still valid, it appears that they are.
I also am talking about now. As I indicated elsewhere in this subthread, all of my statements are supported by two specific facts:
1. The STS program, maintained and operated by NASA, was required by the Pentagon to have low-orbit satellite retrieval capability.
2. The DoD employed NASA to conduct classified missions.
One such mission was STS-53 to carry "a classified primary payload for the United States Department of Defense" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-53#Mission_highlights.
Another such mission was STS-44, in which "the mission was dedicated to the Department of Defense. The unclassified payload included a Defense Support Program (DSP) satellite and attached Inertial Upper Stage (IUS), deployed on flight day one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-44#Mission_highlights
Yet another such mission was STS-39, which "was a dedicated Department of Defense mission. Unclassified payload included Air Force Program-675 (AFP675); Infrared Background Signature Survey (IBSS) with Critical Ionization Velocity (CIV), Chemical Release Observation (CRO) and Shuttle Pallet Satellite-II (SPAS-II) experiments; and Space Test Payload-1 (STP-1). Classified payload consisted of Multi-Purpose Release Canister (MPEC). Also on board was Radiation Monitoring Equipment III (RME III) and Cloud Logic to Optimize Use of Defense Systems-IA (CLOUDS-I)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-39#Mission_highlights
In all there are at least 10 such missions where NASA conducted operations on behalf of the DoD. Again, I'm not saying there was or is a detachment of active or reserve military astronauts on standby ready to fly into orbit. However, if the DoD is paying NASA to perform classified operations, then NASA is working for the military and performing military-funded manned space work. It might not be the entire mission (in some cases it was), but it's clear to me that NASA and the DoD have gainfully worked together in the recent past and may be continuing to do so now or in the future.
You say DoD doesn't do manned space missions, I say they do. They pay for them!
My bad, that entire sentence was incorrect. It should have read:
You say NASA doesn't do military manned space missions, I say they do. The DoD pays for them!
I guess it all comes down to semantics. You say DoD doesn't do manned space missions, I say they do. They pay for them!
If the bill is paid for by DoD, the payload and/or tasking is classified, but the crew and launch vehicle are all NASA, then what is it? It's NASA doing military!! NASA was (at that time) in the best position to execute a manned US space mission. How can you confirm that DoD employed NASA to conduct several missions which had classified segments up to and including satellite retrieval, and say that "NASA doesn't do military".
I for one never believed for one minute that the AF, Army or Navy had trained astronauts on active or reserve duty on standby that were tasked to conduct actual space missions. I believe the DoD generated orders for and secured funding to employ NASA to conduct and accomplish specific military-related tasks.
Also, please show some references for the US military's own manned space program.
US Air Force Space Command - much of their ballistic mission capability was transferred to AF Global Strike Command. The USAFSC's space mission is defined as:
"Spacelift operations at the East and West Coast launch bases provide services, facilities and range safety control for the conduct of DOD, NASA and commercial launches. Through the command and control of all DOD satellites, satellite operators provide force-multiplying effects -- continuous global coverage, low vulnerability and autonomous operations. Satellites provide essential in-theater secure communications, weather and navigational data for ground, air and fleet operations and threat warning. Ground-based radar and Defense Support Program satellites monitor ballistic missile launches around the world to guard against a surprise missile attack on North America. Space surveillance radars provide vital information on the location of satellites and space debris for the nation and the world." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Force_Space_Command#Space_capabilities
Are you suggesting that the AF has a manned space program? With the exception of former AF pilots that migrated to NASA to fly the shuttle, I'd love to read what you've got.
US Army Space And Missile Command - again, their primary mission is missiles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Space_and_Missile_Defense_Command
Does the Navy have a space program?
Please share what you have so I can learn!
I would categorically disagree with you, sir.
NASA has been in the manned military business for years. One of the stipulations (aka limitations) that the Pentagon placed on the Space Transportation System program was for the Space Shuttle to have low-earth orbit capability for satellite retrieval. Why would the Pentagon want to retrieve satellites or impose such a directive on the 'civilian' STS program, knowing it would sentence that vehicle to a vehicle lifespan shortening harsher environment with a narrower band of non-military applications? Much of the 80's was dedicated to such a requirement. Tell me what really happened on STS-53 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-53, it was the 10th and final DoD mission, which is still classified.
Part of the promotion, a large chunk, of the STS program was it's civilian applications with a quick-launch turnaround time and projected lower cost due to reusable parts.
Come now, to say that NASA "doesn't do any manned military space" is completely wrong. A federally funded, executive-branch accountable, Congressionally oversighted organization like NASA has been servicing the DoD for years. Since much of it is classified and was presumably piggybacked on overt legitimate scientific missions, the real question in this new age of budgetary accountability becomes, how can we depend on NASA to focus on it's core mission when there is an executive level, military mandated override that may or may not be what the general civilian population wants to foot the bill for?
Is the STS program in it's final days? Thankfully yes. Please don't spread the disinformation that NASA doesn't do military, the DoD kept them gainfully employed for many good years.
I originally wanted to post this here http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/09/25/2328247/NASAs-Space-Plans-Take-Another-Hit, but an unknown error prevented me from doing so. My commentary is still relevant for this article:
I think that NASA should be stripped down and restructured. All manned missions and support operations with a military application should be converted to their respective military counterparts, the whole thing headed up by Joint Chiefs of Staff. From Wikipedia, "their primary responsibility is to ensure the personnel readiness, policy, planning and training of their respective military services for the combatant commanders to utilize." The President and Secretary of Defense can tap the manned space capability of the respective military branches, and the JCS maintains training, policy and readiness. Oversight for military applications already has a process, which would remain in place.
NASA would be reduced or redesignated from it's current role to that of managing and conducing operations for unmanned space missions such as deep space probes and telescopes, establishing rules, standards and accident reviews for commercial space activities just like the FAA. NASA would also continue to provide tenantship to fixed orbital platforms such as the ISS, in conjunction with other participating nations. Every manned application is auctioned off to civilian corporations that meet specific minimal requirements. NASA would become the space analogy of the FAA, allowing a vacuum to exist allowing other responsible and qualified fair trade entities to step in and compete for the best possible road to commercial space business.
I remember hearing a comment back after the 9/11 attacks that the FBI database couldn't be searched like Google provides it's search queries. From that standpoint of modernization and capability, I say cheers to the FBI for making such a rebound (smells like Carnivore) 8 years later. Interestingly, or rather unsurprisingly, "The FBI declined to comment on the program."
Now on to the AI accusations.
"That could change if the FBI gets it hands on the data sources on its 2008 wish list. That list includes airline manifests sent to the Department of Homeland Security, the national Social Security number database, and the Postal Serviceâ(TM)s change-of-address database. There are also 24 additional databases the FBI is seeking, but those names were blacked out in the released data."
The results of such a query aren't too far off from that of a true prototype AI, which in it's operationally completed state would provide the best prediction bang for the buck there ever was in the history of mankind. And how best to employ that fledgling AI but in law enforcement pursuit of known terrorist criminals.
Where were they, what did they do and where are they now?
Thanks for the product recommendation. As you can tell, I'm not exactly operating on the bleeding edge of technology and that price range fits in nicely with my budget.
With their proprietary CUDA and Firestream technologies, I would think Nvidia and AMD/ATI resepctively would be able to make a daughter card that could add or increase GPU capability on their existing respective hardware, or open up 3rd party licensing to build this market segment.
My ATI X1300 handles far more BOINC than it does games, and I have no real reason to upgrade right now. But if there was an add-on that ATI or an approved 3rd party manufacturer developed that was reasonably priced, I wouldn't hesitate to add functionality.
I seem to remember a similar concept years ago with the Intel 386 SX architecture where you could purchase an optional math co-processor to plug in next to it.
I'm forcasting a new breed of information anonymizer service...
Picture a warehouse with row after row of computer workstations goiing back as far as the eye can see, stacked floor to ceiling. The occupants are half-assembled mannequins, disjointedly operating input devices by way of random herky-jerky animated mechanical motion.
In the future, the only way to defeat the government machines designed to watch for illegal human behavior is by creating machines to filter through imprecise mechanical motion the actions of humans wishing to avoid such detection.
I think it's safe to say the majority of a film's gross revenue generally comes from box office sales. Occasionally there will be a film that preforms poorly while it's in theaters and achieves a level of gross revenue that would have not been possible without DVD sales. With that said, Rotten Tomatoes offers an interesting resource - the Approved Tomatometer Critics - reviews from accredited media outlet and online film societies that produce aggregate scores. Further, you can dig deeper and see why a film generated a particular Tomatometer rating. There's a delicate balance between a film's budget, it's overall reaction at the box office, when it was released, and how much it generated in gross revenue.
I'll go back to my critical analysis to underscore why RT is an essential component of this critical review:
- Punisher: War Zone cost US$35mil, was released in December, generated a RT Tomatometer score of 26%, and failed to generate box office revenue equal to it's budget. By most measures (you can read the reviews on RT to find out why), it was a box office failure.
- X-Men cost US$75mil, was released in July, generated a RT Tomatometer score of 80%, and generated US$296. By most measures (again you can read the reviews on RT to find out why), it was a box office success.
Two different films, the box office failure had Arad/Lee on production while the box office success didn't, two different release seasons, two different Tomatometer scores. Literally, these Marvel films are nearly polar opposites. The only thing they had in common for these purposes was they had budgets of US$100mil or less and of course they were a production by Marvel Entertainment.
The Rotten Tomatoes Tomatometer provides data and reviews by a consistant panel of diverse critics that provide aggregate ratings and detailed insight into why a film does poorly or well at the box office.
- 6 out of 15 films had budgets of US$100 or less. Out of those 6 films, all were first installments.
That should have read "... had budgets of US$100mil or less..."
I have eliminated most of my commentary to present this analysis of Marvel motion pictures released since 2000. I mark that time period as the beginning of Marvel Entertainment's ability to bring characters and stories to life in a way they were never capable of before.
1. X-Men (2000) - 80% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/xmen/. Released in July with a budget of US$75mil, it grossed more that US$296mil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-Men_film without Arad and Lee on production.
2. Spider-Man (2002) - 90% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/spiderman/. Released in May with a budget of US$140mil, it grossed more than US$821mil with Arad and Lee on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider-Man_(film)
3. Daredevil (2003) - 44% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/daredevil/. Released in February with a budget of US$78mil, it grossed more than US$179mil with Arad on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daredevil_(film)
4. X2: X-Men United (2003) - 88% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/x2_xmen_united/. Released in May with a budget of US$110mil, it grossed more than US$407mil with Arad on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X2:_X-Men_United
5. The Hulk (2003) - 61% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/hulk/. Released in June with a budget of US$137mil, it grossed more than US$245mil with Arad and Lee on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulk_(film)
6. The Punisher (2004) - 29% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1131721-punisher/. Released in April with a budget of US$15mil, it grossed more than US$54mil with Arad and Lee on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Punisher_(2004_film)
7. Spider-Man 2 (2004) - 94% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/spiderman_2/. Released in June with a budget of US$200mil, it grossed more than US$783mil with Arad and Lee on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider-Man_2
8. Electra (2005) - 10% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/elektra/. Released in January with a budget of US$43mil, it grossed more than US$56mil with Arad on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elektra_(2005_film)
9. Fantastic Four (2005) - 26% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/fantastic_four/. Released in July with a budget of US$100mil, it grossed more than US$330mil with Arad on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantastic_Four_(film)
10. X-Men The Last Stand (2006)- 56% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/x_men_3_the_last_stand/. Released in May with a budget of US$110mil, it grossed more than US$407mil with Arad on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X2_(film)
11. Spider-Man 3 (2007) 62% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/spiderman_3/. Released in May with a budget of US$258mil, it grossed more than US$890mil with Arad and Lee on production. http://en.wikip
Get it? Waiting to hear... Sony headphones... Rootkit.
Ugh, nevermind.
I'm not doubting or disqualifying other states of mind, but let's hear a round of cheer for the one that most people percieve - wakeful thought and cognizant awareness; the idea of self and the myriad of directions it takes us in.
Chances are, you've pondered the notion at one time or another, 'I wonder if anyone else is thinking this right now', or 'I wonder how many other people have thought what I'm thinking'. What a supreme notion, to be able to have recursive thoughts where we can examine our own thoughts and compare them to the thoughts of others. Suddenly we're not thinking about the object anymore, we're thinking about thinking about the object and pondering if others have done the same thing.
Hurray for the executive control system of the mind!
I'm curious, DARPA, IBM and Lucent were working on proprietary holographic storage medium solutions. HDSS exerpt (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDSS):
"During CES 2006, a workable holographic drive was tested and stored 300 GB of memory compared to blu-ray's 100 GB. It has been announced that hologram disks will be a post-blu-ray storage device."
I'm just curious since IBM was one of the groups working on this technology if there have been any advances that apply to the main article.
From the IBM website http://domino.research.ibm.com/comm/pr.nsf/pages/rsc.holo.html:
"Unique to holographic data storage is the ability to perform essentially immediate data searches through huge digital libraries by simply illuminating the media with all of the stored information (a holograph) with a pattern of the requested information."
Why aren't we hearing more about this?
Resale is currently one advantage of the retail product manufacturer that is probably on the way out if MS has anything to do with it. Take any application that requires the activation key to be linked with a user name and a password, or explicitly forbids the resale of the software to a third party, and you have a product that can only be sold to one person.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitations_on_exclusive_rights:_Computer_programs "This one change by congress has resulted in the odd situation where software makers claim that purchasers do not own the software but rather only license it. The courts have split on whether or not the claim in the software agreement that a purchaser does not own the software is enforceable and thus require an additional license to use the software."
Further, "The law allows any copies that are created for the above purposes to be transferred when the software is sold, only along with the copy made to prepare them. Adaptations made can not be transferred without permission from the copyright holder."
Which is why any self-respecting software distributer wants to close that 'archival copy' loophole and require each instance of the software to perform an authentication with a unique CD Key.
A good example of the implementation is Valve and Steam. Here is a company that does digital downloads of the same retail product with the same limitation, they all have to authenticate each time the software is run.
And where that trails off and the gray area begins, go back to that same rules and regulations compendium and glean appropriate behavior and confidentiality employee agreements to remind people what is acceptable and what is not.
It's a rare situation that has employees actively working and conducting business in various locations and stages of production where they are exempt from the rules and regulations that govern safety, access and distribution of proprietary information, asset security and liability. When in doubt, employees are encouraged to seek out their immediate supervisor or manager and share case-by case situations that fall outside of established guidelines.
While this puts more burdin on the rules to list what is appropriate and what isn't, the "employee handbook" can become a living document that grows as procedures change and situations require ammended courses of action.
I'd also suggest incorporating a a policy revision or review process, where the common employee can affect change through communication to an individual or department that can highlight a policy or procedure that is incomplete or inaccurate.
In the end, the Company is seen as less infallible and more adaptive, the management that executive or owners rely on to get things done are better empowered to merge effort with Company expectations.
Scientists have a wealth of number crunching power at their collective fingertips to pull from to get results, people are already doing it for free with projects like Boinc. Create a business model where participants can be paid credits in aggregate for time spent working on projects. The requirements are tighter, the controls are tighter, the projects are more focused and accredited or approved by educational institutions, with oversight. Corporate sponsors are brought to the table and can provide projects to work on, providing a modest budget to pull from. To encourage more participation by new scientists, any scientist with a minimum level of education can launch their own project, there's an approved toolset to use to help get the project started, and to encourage anonymous participants to help crunch the project and get results, the participants earn "credits" that can be loaded onto a credit card and spent at approved locations for real world items.
Sound familiar, right? We already see this type of activity with Boinc and separately with reloadable credit cards like Netspend. In an overpopulated sea of distributed computing volunteers, let's start paying these thankless people for their scientific contributions and encourage more scientists to get involved and solve problems.
Yes, you folks are right. In my sincere effort to recount the details, I switched dollars and yen.
The fines levied that i referred to were in the "tens of thousands of dollars".