I wish I could give you a +ve vote (none available to me at the moment). I've had this kind of runaround on Slashdot too (see here and here). The education level of the Slashdot crowd must be higher than average. If so, the quality of fiscal and economic education in the schools must be correspondingly abysmal.
Just as a side note: at the time of my Slashdot discussion (see links), gold was around $1350/Toz. It is now, 13 months later, around $1700/Toz. The gold isn't that much more "valuable". The $US is that much less valuable (along with other currencies).
What is the absurdity of the fear that a model airplane that can fly thousands of miles by itself could be used to deliver something hazardous?
It is akin to worrying about general aviation (all those "uncontrolled" airplanes in the sky - in the hands of terrorists, etc.) while ignoring the proverbial elephant in the room - Ryder trucks. Only more so.
Further, as has been demonstrated repeatedly, a car bomb is a horrifyingly effective terrorist weapon (cheap, fast, inconspicuous, readily available, large payload). As an example, the use of just one such device ended up with US forces leaving Beirut.
Thus far, no model airplanes have been used in any terrorist attack (long distance or otherwise). If we are to worry about model airplane terrorist attacks, then we are no longer able to prioritize and are fearful to the point of collapse.
In form, yes. But I have seen repeatedly model aircraft designers using techniques & technology that only sometime later appeared (publicly, at least) on military UAVs. Also, only relatively recently have military UAVs become so small - falling into the realm of model aircraft. And now that the difference is blurring, at what point will a model airplane be considered an ITAR "munition"?
... these UAVs are becoming more and more like amateur model aircraft. In this current climate (fear, terror, control), I believe the model aircraft crowd are therefore likely to be increasingly regulated. It has happened already to the high power rocketry crowd (they pushed back - with some limited success).
An anecdote: a few years ago, a group flew a model airplane across the Atlantic (link). I found this quite interesting and told a few friends. One reacted with horror, postulating that terrorists would be able to use such a thing to deliver all sorts of nasty. No counterargument convinced him of the absurdity of his fear.
I was comparing the attention space opera related articles receive with that garnered by real space related articles. The latter typically receive far fewer comments.
Aren't Yuri Gagarin and Neil Armstrong more inspiring? To bring it even closer to this crowd, how about John Carmack? He's working his way up from first principles - developing real hardware. It surprises me that the technical people ostensibly filling this discussion site are apparently more interested in wildly inaccurate space opera.
Why is it every time there's an article posted in connection with some soap opera in space, so many/. denizens are all over it with 100's of posts. Yet whenever there's an article on the real thing (space probes, man in space, deep space observation, etc.), either there are only a few tens of posts (many frivolous), and/or there's actual opposition (waste of money, rich bastards in space, etc.).
Fun and entertaining as he is (and indeed, happy birthday to the man), Shatner is an actor. Neil Armstrong, Wernher von Braun, Burt Rutan, Carl Sagan are/were the real deal - scientists, engineers, astronauts.
Of course, I might be jumping the gun. Perhaps this article will garner few posts.
... I don't like eBooks. There is no problem with APIs, DRM, ravenous megacorps, etc. when lending a paper book to someone. There is no lending fee and the loan event is not recorded.
As eBook development ascends the experience/technology curve (robustness, display quality, etc.), such devices could become a realistic alternative. But all this tethering and associated DRM kill the idea stone dead for me.
Meaning yourself, right? You're just smarter than the vast majority of climate scientists -- and that's a reasonable position. Good for you.
Instead of appealing to authority, just read the emails. Then come back and tell me you'd accept that kind of behavior from someone in, say, the medical research field.
And there's no "huge political agenda" opposing global warming?
Yes, of course there is. But that doesn't change the fact. Just read the emails. The manipulation is obvious. A real scientist would not talk of hiding and deleting data.
Had the exposed emails I read been from scientists working in some other discipline, I think there'd be no doubt cast on the accusations of manipulation. I suspect that the huge political and financial agenda behind the so called global warming movement (political control, taxation and the sale of carbon credits) is whitewashing what any reasonable person can read as blatant manipulation of data.
Forgive me, but perhaps the problem here is not so much the extortionist crap the media distributors, etc. are foisting on people. Perhaps the problem is more that rather than tell them to go to hell, you'd accept it by paying an additional $500 (not to mention the effort you seem to have expended). Is it really that important to watch TV?
... yet I can't help thinking that it's akin to the classic black body. Light hits it and is absorbed. I assume the energy is re-emitted from said anti-laser in the form of heat or some-such.
No doubt there's more to it than this. But TFA isn't clear.
... maybe I can see the point. But for long term reference material or for books I value, there's no way I'm going to use any of the eBooks. Sure, they're portable. But they come with more points of failure that can prevent the contained books from being read. Also, the text isn't (yet) so clear and sharp as ink on paper.
But even were there no technical issues, the DRM makes it a non-starter for me. I've had/.ers beat me up about my opinion on this subject. Still, it doesn't fix the "rub". When the distributors can reach out and remove books remotely (as Amazon has already done), or restrict what one can do with them, or charge for lending, or provide no mechanism to buy anonymously, etc, I'm just not interested.
PS: if you tell me that the distributors promise not to delete books remotely again, you are then telling me that you trust large corporations to keep their word.
Secondly, SS is just fine. It's running a surplus and can pay full benefits for the next 27 years.
Actually not. SS is now entering the phase where more is being drawn than being contributed (somewhat ahead of schedule - http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html). Further, there is no surplus - there hasn't been for many years. Federal law prohibits it ( http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/51264.pdf). Any surplus must by law be rolled into the general fund (referred to in the document as "borrowing from the Social Security trust fund"). Given that the federal government is currently in debt to the tune of approximately $14Trillion, there is no actual SS money accumulated anywhere.
The situation is dire. Not only is the debt not being reduced, but the deficit is accelerating. Extra taxes aren't going to cover it (they'll probably make the situation worse). Medicare/Medicaid are in even worse shape - and the prior administration made that worse still by signing into law the Medicare Drug Prescription Act.
I get beat up (metaphorically speaking) whenever I express my opinion on this subject. There is a continual erosion of the "difficulty" in the tests. The technical aspects are being de-emphasized. The Morse requirement is gone and the knowledge of electronics is going.
Too many people complained that they couldn't pass even a 5WPM Morse test. Putting aside for a moment arguments over relevance, 5WPM is not hard. It required maybe 20 minutes of exercise a night for a month. But that was too much. I hear the same argument now regarding the technical requirements, "I don't plan on building my radio, so why do I have to study electronics?".
The result is that now many license holders today are unable to build a TX or RX. They are essentially appliance operators - glorified CB users. If you doubt me regarding this technical observation, take a look at old Ham magazines/books (from a few decades ago). How many people capable of passing today's licensing tests could understand them without additional study? There are all sorts of interesting digital/satellite/etc. technical facets now that could replace at least some of the old knowledge exams. But were they to be reflected in the tests, the complaints about them being too hard would escalate.
Yes, I generalize. But that's the pattern as I see it.
I hope you'll take this in the spirit in which it's meant (i.e. - not ad hominem). Given your uninformed technical opinion, you need to study more on the subject of Amateur Radio. If you do, then you'll realize just how fallacious your assertion is.
Regarding the messianic complex - that's a separate issue.
Whichever side of the debate one falls...
on
Bastardi's Wager
·
· Score: 1
... it must be admitted that the man is prepared to put his money where his mouth is.
Interesting contrast to my experience: I find black ink on paper (using standard TR font) easier to read than the lower contrast text on eReaders and monitors. Flat panel monitors have no detectable flicker like the old CRT monitors (even at high vertical refresh rates with no interleaving) - but their contrast is poorer.
In my case, the "tangible" aspect of turning physical pages seems to make the information stick better. Perhaps that's due to familiarity with the format.
You are right - I was just reading the proposed payload capability of the Ares V - it's a Saturn V class really.
Still, what are the odds of NASA succeeding in getting funding? The agency hasn't had any priority for decades - and it's not going to get any better with the massive federal debt and other pressing economic issues. And even if development work on Ares V is (re)started, will its schedule again slip year-for-year?
While it's easy to armchair quarterback, it is a fact that on-orbit assembly and rendezvous are now not in any way novel or unusually dangerous. Piecemeal launching using smaller vehicles and Earth-orbit assembly (as was proposed early in the Apollo days before the Saturn V was proven) is a reasonable approach.
There are many heavy lift launchers out there now in the private sector. Surely it would be much cheaper and quicker to validate one of the existing designs. SpaceX has had two for two successful launches of their Falcon 9. Their economics are excellent too - and without the use of dangerous and difficult SRBs.
Even without including the new kid, there are many viable existing designs.
Slashdot Mirror
I wish I could give you a +ve vote (none available to me at the moment). I've had this kind of runaround on Slashdot too (see here and here). The education level of the Slashdot crowd must be higher than average. If so, the quality of fiscal and economic education in the schools must be correspondingly abysmal.
Just as a side note: at the time of my Slashdot discussion (see links), gold was around $1350/Toz. It is now, 13 months later, around $1700/Toz. The gold isn't that much more "valuable". The $US is that much less valuable (along with other currencies).
What is the absurdity of the fear that a model airplane that can fly thousands of miles by itself could be used to deliver something hazardous?
It is akin to worrying about general aviation (all those "uncontrolled" airplanes in the sky - in the hands of terrorists, etc.) while ignoring the proverbial elephant in the room - Ryder trucks. Only more so.
Further, as has been demonstrated repeatedly, a car bomb is a horrifyingly effective terrorist weapon (cheap, fast, inconspicuous, readily available, large payload). As an example, the use of just one such device ended up with US forces leaving Beirut.
Thus far, no model airplanes have been used in any terrorist attack (long distance or otherwise). If we are to worry about model airplane terrorist attacks, then we are no longer able to prioritize and are fearful to the point of collapse.
In form, yes. But I have seen repeatedly model aircraft designers using techniques & technology that only sometime later appeared (publicly, at least) on military UAVs. Also, only relatively recently have military UAVs become so small - falling into the realm of model aircraft. And now that the difference is blurring, at what point will a model airplane be considered an ITAR "munition"?
... these UAVs are becoming more and more like amateur model aircraft. In this current climate (fear, terror, control), I believe the model aircraft crowd are therefore likely to be increasingly regulated. It has happened already to the high power rocketry crowd (they pushed back - with some limited success).
An anecdote: a few years ago, a group flew a model airplane across the Atlantic (link). I found this quite interesting and told a few friends. One reacted with horror, postulating that terrorists would be able to use such a thing to deliver all sorts of nasty. No counterargument convinced him of the absurdity of his fear.
Assuming you don't mean in person, a quick youtube search revealed this (among others):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqzbnSymE2w
I was comparing the attention space opera related articles receive with that garnered by real space related articles. The latter typically receive far fewer comments.
Aren't Yuri Gagarin and Neil Armstrong more inspiring? To bring it even closer to this crowd, how about John Carmack? He's working his way up from first principles - developing real hardware. It surprises me that the technical people ostensibly filling this discussion site are apparently more interested in wildly inaccurate space opera.
Good thing you posted as an AC. If the initial response to my post is any measure, your "blasphemy" would result in crucifixion. :-)
Interesting. It appears to be akin to a religious issue for you (assuming you are really that upset with me).
Why is it every time there's an article posted in connection with some soap opera in space, so many /. denizens are all over it with 100's of posts. Yet whenever there's an article on the real thing (space probes, man in space, deep space observation, etc.), either there are only a few tens of posts (many frivolous), and/or there's actual opposition (waste of money, rich bastards in space, etc.).
Fun and entertaining as he is (and indeed, happy birthday to the man), Shatner is an actor. Neil Armstrong, Wernher von Braun, Burt Rutan, Carl Sagan are/were the real deal - scientists, engineers, astronauts.
Of course, I might be jumping the gun. Perhaps this article will garner few posts.
Why is my karma going up in smoke? :-)
... I don't like eBooks. There is no problem with APIs, DRM, ravenous megacorps, etc. when lending a paper book to someone. There is no lending fee and the loan event is not recorded.
As eBook development ascends the experience/technology curve (robustness, display quality, etc.), such devices could become a realistic alternative. But all this tethering and associated DRM kill the idea stone dead for me.
While I agree with you, I think you missed the parent poster's joke. Of course, that makes the non-trivial assumption I understand the joke.
Meaning yourself, right? You're just smarter than the vast majority of climate scientists -- and that's a reasonable position. Good for you.
Instead of appealing to authority, just read the emails. Then come back and tell me you'd accept that kind of behavior from someone in, say, the medical research field.
And there's no "huge political agenda" opposing global warming?
Yes, of course there is. But that doesn't change the fact. Just read the emails. The manipulation is obvious. A real scientist would not talk of hiding and deleting data.
Had the exposed emails I read been from scientists working in some other discipline, I think there'd be no doubt cast on the accusations of manipulation. I suspect that the huge political and financial agenda behind the so called global warming movement (political control, taxation and the sale of carbon credits) is whitewashing what any reasonable person can read as blatant manipulation of data.
Forgive me, but perhaps the problem here is not so much the extortionist crap the media distributors, etc. are foisting on people. Perhaps the problem is more that rather than tell them to go to hell, you'd accept it by paying an additional $500 (not to mention the effort you seem to have expended). Is it really that important to watch TV?
No doubt there's more to it than this. But TFA isn't clear.
But even were there no technical issues, the DRM makes it a non-starter for me. I've had /.ers beat me up about my opinion on this subject. Still, it doesn't fix the "rub". When the distributors can reach out and remove books remotely (as Amazon has already done), or restrict what one can do with them, or charge for lending, or provide no mechanism to buy anonymously, etc, I'm just not interested.
PS: if you tell me that the distributors promise not to delete books remotely again, you are then telling me that you trust large corporations to keep their word.
Secondly, SS is just fine. It's running a surplus and can pay full benefits for the next 27 years.
Actually not. SS is now entering the phase where more is being drawn than being contributed (somewhat ahead of schedule - http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html). Further, there is no surplus - there hasn't been for many years. Federal law prohibits it ( http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/51264.pdf). Any surplus must by law be rolled into the general fund (referred to in the document as "borrowing from the Social Security trust fund"). Given that the federal government is currently in debt to the tune of approximately $14Trillion, there is no actual SS money accumulated anywhere.
The situation is dire. Not only is the debt not being reduced, but the deficit is accelerating. Extra taxes aren't going to cover it (they'll probably make the situation worse). Medicare/Medicaid are in even worse shape - and the prior administration made that worse still by signing into law the Medicare Drug Prescription Act.
Bleak indeed.
I get beat up (metaphorically speaking) whenever I express my opinion on this subject. There is a continual erosion of the "difficulty" in the tests. The technical aspects are being de-emphasized. The Morse requirement is gone and the knowledge of electronics is going.
Too many people complained that they couldn't pass even a 5WPM Morse test. Putting aside for a moment arguments over relevance, 5WPM is not hard. It required maybe 20 minutes of exercise a night for a month. But that was too much. I hear the same argument now regarding the technical requirements, "I don't plan on building my radio, so why do I have to study electronics?".
The result is that now many license holders today are unable to build a TX or RX. They are essentially appliance operators - glorified CB users. If you doubt me regarding this technical observation, take a look at old Ham magazines/books (from a few decades ago). How many people capable of passing today's licensing tests could understand them without additional study? There are all sorts of interesting digital/satellite/etc. technical facets now that could replace at least some of the old knowledge exams. But were they to be reflected in the tests, the complaints about them being too hard would escalate.
Yes, I generalize. But that's the pattern as I see it.
I hope you'll take this in the spirit in which it's meant (i.e. - not ad hominem). Given your uninformed technical opinion, you need to study more on the subject of Amateur Radio. If you do, then you'll realize just how fallacious your assertion is. Regarding the messianic complex - that's a separate issue.
... it must be admitted that the man is prepared to put his money where his mouth is.
Interesting contrast to my experience: I find black ink on paper (using standard TR font) easier to read than the lower contrast text on eReaders and monitors. Flat panel monitors have no detectable flicker like the old CRT monitors (even at high vertical refresh rates with no interleaving) - but their contrast is poorer.
In my case, the "tangible" aspect of turning physical pages seems to make the information stick better. Perhaps that's due to familiarity with the format.
You are right - I was just reading the proposed payload capability of the Ares V - it's a Saturn V class really.
Still, what are the odds of NASA succeeding in getting funding? The agency hasn't had any priority for decades - and it's not going to get any better with the massive federal debt and other pressing economic issues. And even if development work on Ares V is (re)started, will its schedule again slip year-for-year?
While it's easy to armchair quarterback, it is a fact that on-orbit assembly and rendezvous are now not in any way novel or unusually dangerous. Piecemeal launching using smaller vehicles and Earth-orbit assembly (as was proposed early in the Apollo days before the Saturn V was proven) is a reasonable approach.
There are many heavy lift launchers out there now in the private sector. Surely it would be much cheaper and quicker to validate one of the existing designs. SpaceX has had two for two successful launches of their Falcon 9. Their economics are excellent too - and without the use of dangerous and difficult SRBs.
Even without including the new kid, there are many viable existing designs.