Yeah, I guess I know what you mean. I'm also prone to taking wildly off-the-wall suggestions seriously as a thought exercise... but your error was bringing the conclusion back to a serious and scientifically correct conclusion.
See the other responder to my Windex post who commented about NASA's false assumption that there would be homeless Martians lining up to clean off the instruments every time it stopped. That's the right way to respond to serious-sounding-but-idiotic suggestions in a science forum... with an even more absurd follow-up.
Nonetheless, I thank you (sincerely, not snarkily) for your serious scientific observations.:)
"A few extra actuators and a bottle of Windex", snarkiness aside
Lighten up. It was a joke. On the other hand, if I had suggested adding an extra roll of duct tape to the mission payload, that would have been a clue that I was making a serious suggestion because duct tape can solve any problem.
Does it need continuous power to stay capable of operating?
Yes. It requires some nominal amount of power for heating to avoid freezing and damaging components. This is what happened to the Phoenix lander (as anticipated in that case). With the panels covered in dust, plus the additional cold and lack of sunlight during the winter, Spirit is unlikely to survive the winter unless something changes.
Couldn't they have programmed some kind of self-cleaning cycle so these robots can fix themselves after sandstorms? The mission cost of a few extra actuators and a bottle of Windex seems pretty minimal versus robot death because of a particularly nasty storm.
If you like to make an original website, this is still possible. You CAN still have your own site, do all the html yourself. Alternatively, you can also spend less than 10 minutes to get your blog online, or less than 15 to have a photo album online.
This is a good insight as there is a serious time commitment to (a) figuring out a good format for publishing your own website, and (b) figuring out the content that you want to put up there.
The whole social networking bend takes the issue of deciding on format completely out of consideration, which is oftentimes a good thing because creating a visual appealing design is not a trivial thing to do.
As an aside, I mange my own site and have recently committed heavily to letting Flickr and Del.icio.us handle important blocks of content that I make available through my site and I am *very* pleased with the way these services have streamlined my ability to run my site.
To me SpaceX seems to be more of an airline that builds it's own planes then a NASA supplier like Boeing and Lockheed. This analogy isn't quite straightforward because the industry is brand-new. But it seems like SpaceX has future revenue streams planned that don't include milking NASA's budget. This is a big plus.
But to me it seems like they're playing in a different competitive field than Boeing and Lockheed because they have this advantage and in order to be able to play in that field they shouldn't be given money as easily.
The thing that separates them from the NASA supplier companies is that they report and answer to NASA (accountability). My assumption is that SpaceX wanted a bit more leeway to pursue their goals of commercial space (and that means less accountability).
I think a company that wants less accountability shouldn't get as much funding. Am I mistaken?
NASA's budget is somewhere in the neighborhood of $8 Billion per year to do all the work they do. The plan that Obama is supposedly signing off on will increase that by an extra $1 Billion. An alternative option that was presented was to increase NASA's budget by $3 Billion per year (which would have been the difference needed to fulfill Bush's original timeline).
As it stands, it seems like at some point during the 20's there will be a couple of humans spending a month or more at a time living on the Moon in much the same way that the 90's and 00's had been spent ramping up the ISS for human occupation.
Yes... yes... Obama hasn't "cut" anything. I meant to say "he didn't choose the most expensive option". He certainly could have cut the human space program (a popular option presented by the Augustine Commission) and we should all be thankful that he didn't do that.
McCain may have not been my ideal choice, but at least I knew exactly what he was going to do before he got into office.
Bush signed off on the initial Constellation Plan. Bush made space exploration a pro-Republican issue. I don't know McCain's specific position, but the Republican Party line would have been in favor of the $3 Billion plan that the Augustine Commission recommended would be necessary to push human exploration of space ahead at the levels Bush was targeting.
Remember, just because you are arguing your own fiscal conservatism doesn't mean you can pigeon-hole political parties who have historically been associated with that trait.
If anything, Obama is cutting back on the plans presented by the last president. The Democrat is tightening the government purse strings.
I doubt the government would give a billion dollars to Elon Musk to fund his private space company. If Musk wants to compete with the public sector, let him use his only money.
The article did open the door wide open for ISS space tourism because it says, and I quote, "And commercial companies would take over the job of getting supplies to the international space station."
A true republican would say the government has no right to legislate peoples personal life and information about the government should be easily available.
Good point! As a life-longer voter for Democrat candidates, I'd enthusiastically elect a Republican who campaigned with this agenda. As it stands, if the government insists on being all-controlling I'd prefer a control system that benefits the disenfranchised who are in need of aid because they can't help themselves (as opposed to special interest monopolists that current Republicans insist on helping).
When I was young Republicans wanted a less powerful government who couldn't regulate anything. Why is there a call by three Republicans for more government control? Do they not remember the values of their party?
Maybe they only want a powerful government when it's convenient for them?
look at observable data and draw a reasonable conclusion
While it can be scientific, this method is not science. Observing real data of an experimental outcome (without an offsetting control group) cannot possibly determine how any singular variation effects the outcome.
The global warming hypothesis is that carbon emissions from humans results in increased temperatures. When you can design an experiment that can test this, it can be proved or disproved. Until then, it's wise to assume that it's true because the impact on humanity would be dire if that was the case.
As for the Big Bang "experiment"... what kind of strawman argument is that? Seriously? You expect me to respond to that?
If you can falsify any of the theories by experiment, people will pay attention to you, regardless of politics.
I'd like to see you "Design an experiment" that falsifies the global warming hypothesis. Go out an get yourself a model Sun and then figure out how to simulate an experimental and control version of Earth. My understanding is that entropy/chaos and imperfect assumptions in any such model can lead to spectacularly divergent results. So until a realistic Sun/Earth computer model exists, a true "global warming experiment" can't be run.
The EPA admitted "varying degrees of uncertainty across many of these scientific issues."
Scientific Community: There is a difficult-to-calculate chance that the Earth is undergoing warming caused by the actions of humans and that this will do irreparable damage to the planet.
The mathematical reaction is to (a) assess the "cost" of the potential damage (i.e. the risk) and (b) the likelihood of the occurrence actually happening. This is basic stuff. Wikipedia does a better job explaining it than I could. But suffice it to say, when the risk is "the planet" there is a very good reason to follow what TFA is calling "a precautionary approach" even when the likelihood of science being correct is quite low.
the rest of the world doesn't care or need to know that you planted seeds.
Virtual seeds is the key. Nobody cares about *virtual* statistics on anything. If any of my friends were to plant real seeds for growing some kind of plant or if they found out that a seed they had planted in their wife had taken root then I'd be very interested in seeing an update.
Journalism seems to have this code of ethics that says you have to get a quote from a human being before you can report on it. That's nonsense -- all this stuff is out there on thomas.loc.gov and everywhere else and the traditional media ignores it -- and when they do report on it they don't even bother to link to it.
Amen. Sources are sources whether they are people who are experts or published at some reference. And just because something is given as a quote doesn't make it true because people frequently have uninformed opinions. The news job is to give people INFORMED OPINIONS so interviewing some sensationalist and just him spout his malformed ideas does NOT add any journalistic value to the world.
there are no methods to reliably search for CC licensed manuscripts that raise the bar above the "self-published" garbage that's out there.
How exactly do you do that with "officially published" works?
Word of mouth and author's reputation are a good way of sifting the chaff. "Officially published" works usually mean manuscript editors have been involved in the process which helps ensure that a manuscript has a consistency that the original author may not have been capable of providing (editing my own manuscript over the last two years has been quite eye-opening to this experience). Meanwhile, "officially published" works will get wrung through by a copy editor who is typically somebody who has an English degree so you can get assurance that the spelling and grammar are up to par (whereas not all authors are English majors with a background in composition). Not to say that this alone is enough to make a good story, because a good story requires the pre-existence of a good plot. However, when a good plot has not been wrung through by editors (which is why people can be expected to shy away from self-publishers who don't have strong word-of-mouth recommendations) the end product suffers. That is to say... editors contribute an important part to the development and publication of a manuscript. I believe you need both a good plot and good editing to create something that people would want to curl up and read.
Citation needed, and I'm not just trying to be a dick... I am geniunely curious about how you search for CC licensed manuscripts.
I am a CC author and to my knowledge there are no methods to reliably search for CC licensed manuscripts that raise the bar above the "self-published" garbage that's out there.
I'll be putting out a "Version 2.1" of the linked novel sometime next year and the reason for all the revisions is because good writing requires many hours of editing. Editing is what separates "traditional publication" from many (not all) self-publishers and "CC authors" (who aren't already widely known).
It sounds like by "not pursuing" top talent, Google is actively letting the top talent go wherever they want. I think if these guys applied for jobs at Google, they'd get hired.
It comes down to economics. If you say "We've got to hire John Doe" then the price you're willing to pay for John Doe to join your staff goes way up. Whereas if John Doe applies and gets hired to traditional way... he's more inclined to expect a normal market driven salary.
a lot of us have been in the position of being able to do a lot worse, or been offered $$$ to do a lot worse
As a Linux user who works as a software engineer, I'd be interested to learn about the vulnerabilities that the exploit uses to take control of a Linux system. I have no formal security background, but understand how to use cron and Makefiles for non-nefarious purposes... so a short paper about these attack vectors would be quite educational. I like knowing how to protect myself and knowing how to explain to other people what is right/wrong so they can protect themselves. Not publishing known risks (especially if they're PEBCAK risks) is security through obscurity and I think Linux is a strong enough platform that it shouldn't be relying on this type of security.
restricting parenthood to those with the capacity to do the job
I don't believe it's a popular opinion, but I believe Child Protective Services should be expanded before things like "The Dolphin System" get implemented. In my humble opinion, parents who are unqualified do more harm to the society of children than anybody through the internet ever could.
You have my sincerest apologizes, as I'm apparently uninformed. I guess my point was that the sheer number of technology stories that have been based on offices in Virginia is above average... but that's not really a good measure of anything significant (except maybe isolated instances where funding has been distributed by people who don't understand the systems that they need built).
Whether private or public, ineptitude as well as competence abounds.
It seems like in Virginia... ineptitude abounds.
I live in Massachusetts... competence is fairly prevalent here. Going to the RMV (our version of the DMV) still sucks, but unless you're getting your license for the first time you can circumvent that hellish trip and process your registration forms through a website.:)
Slashdot Mirror
We should try and break the 18mo CEO cycle.
A good way to start would be to NOT give $100 Million to every failed CEO as you're kicking his ass out the door.
Yeah, I guess I know what you mean. I'm also prone to taking wildly off-the-wall suggestions seriously as a thought exercise... but your error was bringing the conclusion back to a serious and scientifically correct conclusion.
See the other responder to my Windex post who commented about NASA's false assumption that there would be homeless Martians lining up to clean off the instruments every time it stopped. That's the right way to respond to serious-sounding-but-idiotic suggestions in a science forum... with an even more absurd follow-up.
Nonetheless, I thank you (sincerely, not snarkily) for your serious scientific observations. :)
"A few extra actuators and a bottle of Windex", snarkiness aside
Lighten up. It was a joke. On the other hand, if I had suggested adding an extra roll of duct tape to the mission payload, that would have been a clue that I was making a serious suggestion because duct tape can solve any problem.
Does it need continuous power to stay capable of operating?
Yes. It requires some nominal amount of power for heating to avoid freezing and damaging components. This is what happened to the Phoenix lander (as anticipated in that case). With the panels covered in dust, plus the additional cold and lack of sunlight during the winter, Spirit is unlikely to survive the winter unless something changes.
Couldn't they have programmed some kind of self-cleaning cycle so these robots can fix themselves after sandstorms? The mission cost of a few extra actuators and a bottle of Windex seems pretty minimal versus robot death because of a particularly nasty storm.
If you like to make an original website, this is still possible. You CAN still have your own site, do all the html yourself. Alternatively, you can also spend less than 10 minutes to get your blog online, or less than 15 to have a photo album online.
This is a good insight as there is a serious time commitment to (a) figuring out a good format for publishing your own website, and (b) figuring out the content that you want to put up there.
The whole social networking bend takes the issue of deciding on format completely out of consideration, which is oftentimes a good thing because creating a visual appealing design is not a trivial thing to do.
As an aside, I mange my own site and have recently committed heavily to letting Flickr and Del.icio.us handle important blocks of content that I make available through my site and I am *very* pleased with the way these services have streamlined my ability to run my site.
To me SpaceX seems to be more of an airline that builds it's own planes then a NASA supplier like Boeing and Lockheed. This analogy isn't quite straightforward because the industry is brand-new. But it seems like SpaceX has future revenue streams planned that don't include milking NASA's budget. This is a big plus.
But to me it seems like they're playing in a different competitive field than Boeing and Lockheed because they have this advantage and in order to be able to play in that field they shouldn't be given money as easily.
The thing that separates them from the NASA supplier companies is that they report and answer to NASA (accountability). My assumption is that SpaceX wanted a bit more leeway to pursue their goals of commercial space (and that means less accountability).
I think a company that wants less accountability shouldn't get as much funding. Am I mistaken?
NASA's budget is somewhere in the neighborhood of $8 Billion per year to do all the work they do. The plan that Obama is supposedly signing off on will increase that by an extra $1 Billion. An alternative option that was presented was to increase NASA's budget by $3 Billion per year (which would have been the difference needed to fulfill Bush's original timeline).
As it stands, it seems like at some point during the 20's there will be a couple of humans spending a month or more at a time living on the Moon in much the same way that the 90's and 00's had been spent ramping up the ISS for human occupation.
Yes... yes... Obama hasn't "cut" anything. I meant to say "he didn't choose the most expensive option". He certainly could have cut the human space program (a popular option presented by the Augustine Commission) and we should all be thankful that he didn't do that.
McCain may have not been my ideal choice, but at least I knew exactly what he was going to do before he got into office.
Bush signed off on the initial Constellation Plan. Bush made space exploration a pro-Republican issue. I don't know McCain's specific position, but the Republican Party line would have been in favor of the $3 Billion plan that the Augustine Commission recommended would be necessary to push human exploration of space ahead at the levels Bush was targeting.
Remember, just because you are arguing your own fiscal conservatism doesn't mean you can pigeon-hole political parties who have historically been associated with that trait.
If anything, Obama is cutting back on the plans presented by the last president. The Democrat is tightening the government purse strings.
I doubt the government would give a billion dollars to Elon Musk to fund his private space company. If Musk wants to compete with the public sector, let him use his only money.
The article did open the door wide open for ISS space tourism because it says, and I quote, "And commercial companies would take over the job of getting supplies to the international space station."
You then require a 2+ minute span of continuing recurrences.
They could change their rhythm faster than two minutes. Or, if he's the average slashdotter, he could finish in less than a minute.
Point is.. you haven't figured out all the variables yet.
A true republican would say the government has no right to legislate peoples personal life and information about the government should be easily available.
Good point! As a life-longer voter for Democrat candidates, I'd enthusiastically elect a Republican who campaigned with this agenda. As it stands, if the government insists on being all-controlling I'd prefer a control system that benefits the disenfranchised who are in need of aid because they can't help themselves (as opposed to special interest monopolists that current Republicans insist on helping).
Not really, I've know for quite some time... I just wanted to highlight the political hypocrisy of these three congressmen.
Ideas like these... whether coming from Republicans or Democrats... are not supported by me.
When I was young Republicans wanted a less powerful government who couldn't regulate anything. Why is there a call by three Republicans for more government control? Do they not remember the values of their party?
Maybe they only want a powerful government when it's convenient for them?
look at observable data and draw a reasonable conclusion
While it can be scientific, this method is not science. Observing real data of an experimental outcome (without an offsetting control group) cannot possibly determine how any singular variation effects the outcome.
The global warming hypothesis is that carbon emissions from humans results in increased temperatures. When you can design an experiment that can test this, it can be proved or disproved. Until then, it's wise to assume that it's true because the impact on humanity would be dire if that was the case.
As for the Big Bang "experiment"... what kind of strawman argument is that? Seriously? You expect me to respond to that?
If you can falsify any of the theories by experiment, people will pay attention to you, regardless of politics.
I'd like to see you "Design an experiment" that falsifies the global warming hypothesis. Go out an get yourself a model Sun and then figure out how to simulate an experimental and control version of Earth. My understanding is that entropy/chaos and imperfect assumptions in any such model can lead to spectacularly divergent results. So until a realistic Sun/Earth computer model exists, a true "global warming experiment" can't be run.
The EPA admitted "varying degrees of uncertainty across many of these scientific issues."
Scientific Community: There is a difficult-to-calculate chance that the Earth is undergoing warming caused by the actions of humans and that this will do irreparable damage to the planet.
The mathematical reaction is to (a) assess the "cost" of the potential damage (i.e. the risk) and (b) the likelihood of the occurrence actually happening. This is basic stuff. Wikipedia does a better job explaining it than I could. But suffice it to say, when the risk is "the planet" there is a very good reason to follow what TFA is calling "a precautionary approach" even when the likelihood of science being correct is quite low.
the rest of the world doesn't care or need to know that you planted seeds.
Virtual seeds is the key. Nobody cares about *virtual* statistics on anything. If any of my friends were to plant real seeds for growing some kind of plant or if they found out that a seed they had planted in their wife had taken root then I'd be very interested in seeing an update.
Journalism seems to have this code of ethics that says you have to get a quote from a human being before you can report on it. That's nonsense -- all this stuff is out there on thomas.loc.gov and everywhere else and the traditional media ignores it -- and when they do report on it they don't even bother to link to it.
Amen. Sources are sources whether they are people who are experts or published at some reference. And just because something is given as a quote doesn't make it true because people frequently have uninformed opinions. The news job is to give people INFORMED OPINIONS so interviewing some sensationalist and just him spout his malformed ideas does NOT add any journalistic value to the world.
there are no methods to reliably search for CC licensed manuscripts that raise the bar above the "self-published" garbage that's out there.
How exactly do you do that with "officially published" works?
Word of mouth and author's reputation are a good way of sifting the chaff. "Officially published" works usually mean manuscript editors have been involved in the process which helps ensure that a manuscript has a consistency that the original author may not have been capable of providing (editing my own manuscript over the last two years has been quite eye-opening to this experience). Meanwhile, "officially published" works will get wrung through by a copy editor who is typically somebody who has an English degree so you can get assurance that the spelling and grammar are up to par (whereas not all authors are English majors with a background in composition). Not to say that this alone is enough to make a good story, because a good story requires the pre-existence of a good plot. However, when a good plot has not been wrung through by editors (which is why people can be expected to shy away from self-publishers who don't have strong word-of-mouth recommendations) the end product suffers. That is to say... editors contribute an important part to the development and publication of a manuscript. I believe you need both a good plot and good editing to create something that people would want to curl up and read.
the works of Creative Commons authors everywhere
Citation needed, and I'm not just trying to be a dick... I am geniunely curious about how you search for CC licensed manuscripts.
I am a CC author and to my knowledge there are no methods to reliably search for CC licensed manuscripts that raise the bar above the "self-published" garbage that's out there.
I'll be putting out a "Version 2.1" of the linked novel sometime next year and the reason for all the revisions is because good writing requires many hours of editing. Editing is what separates "traditional publication" from many (not all) self-publishers and "CC authors" (who aren't already widely known).
It sounds like by "not pursuing" top talent, Google is actively letting the top talent go wherever they want. I think if these guys applied for jobs at Google, they'd get hired.
It comes down to economics. If you say "We've got to hire John Doe" then the price you're willing to pay for John Doe to join your staff goes way up. Whereas if John Doe applies and gets hired to traditional way... he's more inclined to expect a normal market driven salary.
a lot of us have been in the position of being able to do a lot worse, or been offered $$$ to do a lot worse
As a Linux user who works as a software engineer, I'd be interested to learn about the vulnerabilities that the exploit uses to take control of a Linux system. I have no formal security background, but understand how to use cron and Makefiles for non-nefarious purposes... so a short paper about these attack vectors would be quite educational. I like knowing how to protect myself and knowing how to explain to other people what is right/wrong so they can protect themselves. Not publishing known risks (especially if they're PEBCAK risks) is security through obscurity and I think Linux is a strong enough platform that it shouldn't be relying on this type of security.
restricting parenthood to those with the capacity to do the job
I don't believe it's a popular opinion, but I believe Child Protective Services should be expanded before things like "The Dolphin System" get implemented. In my humble opinion, parents who are unqualified do more harm to the society of children than anybody through the internet ever could.
comparing apples to oranges
You have my sincerest apologizes, as I'm apparently uninformed. I guess my point was that the sheer number of technology stories that have been based on offices in Virginia is above average... but that's not really a good measure of anything significant (except maybe isolated instances where funding has been distributed by people who don't understand the systems that they need built).
Whether private or public, ineptitude as well as competence abounds.
It seems like in Virginia... ineptitude abounds.
I live in Massachusetts... competence is fairly prevalent here. Going to the RMV (our version of the DMV) still sucks, but unless you're getting your license for the first time you can circumvent that hellish trip and process your registration forms through a website. :)