You mean like all of us living in the west, straining the worlds resources like, 20 times more per capita than the average african?
To be sure, we are using natural resources more than a 3rd world nation, but that's not really the issue here. The problem is that they are straining their own resources; ie how much food they can produce. Cheap space access in particular would help alleviate our impact on the environment, suggesting that we dedicate even more effort to that end.
I would suggest a fair chance of competing with us in the "free market" for a start.
It might work, it might not. In any event, it affects NASA's funding requirements not even a little bit, which was the topic of the parent.
Note however that im an not calling you "insane". That is bad manners, and not very mature.
I do apologize; I had thought your post was a response by the thread parent, the one who opined that as long as there is any suffering in the world we should do anything and everytyhing to correct it, regardless of whether it would be effective. Thinking that using all of NASA's funding to try and feed the Third World would definitely be insane. It'd be a striking example of the "Give a man to fish, teach a man to fish" maxim.
In any event, I stand by my previous post. So many people like to say "It's their culture not to practice any safe sex whatsoever" even though it is one of the things keeping them in a state of famine and general misery. They might not like to use condoms, but if they want to get anywhere they're gonna have to start, as well as consider implementing a number of other techniques relating to technology, government, and general way of life which we in the West have found to be far more successful.
For instance, imagine a society which considers anyone with blue eyes to be ineligible for any kind of employment. If they then find themselves having a manpower shortage, causing severe economic problems throughout the land, it is stupid for them to continue discriminating on the basis of eye color. It would be even more stupid for other, wealthier nations to start shipping in brown-eyed laborers. It doesn't solve the problem, it just staves it off for a little while so that in the future, even more people will be affected when it resurfaces.
Ever thought about how the ones that used to put their "insane" opponents in an asylum were mostly communist dictators?
Very true, but just because I think an idea is foolish doesn't mean that it is correct. And if ever there was a stupid idea, shutting down our own programs just to raise funds to bail out some other nation's perpetual foulups is one of them, especially when they will continue to do so.
Let me get this straight. Some people are living very poor life styles. This life of theirs currently involves, among other things, having as many kids as they possibly can, regardless of the available food supply. And then you rant about how it's wrong to demand that they change in the face of the obvious need to do so.
But, and here's the good part, you also want us to take our money and force them to lead better lives. Even ignoring the hypocracy of that suggestion, if you honestly think that is a good idea, I have this bridge I'd like to sell you.
Let me ask you this. Parents are over there having too many kids and then not being able to feed them. If we come over there and do nothing but give them food, without making it clear to them why they were in this predicament in the first place, what are they going to end up with? Another generation doing the exact same thing. They either have to stop having so many kids or start growing more food. We cannot support their entire population ourselves and it is insane of you to suggest otherwise.
The problem here is not the RIAA running around tryiong to sue everyone. It's annoying, but that's all it really is. The issue is them running to Congress and getting them to pass laws on their behalf. That is what libertarians identify as the problem.
I have no problems with the -AA's using copy protected CD's. Or only releasing stuff on DRM-ed media or any number of stupid tactics. But the DMCA and UCITA and SSSCA all point to the true enemy being not the content industries, but Congress itself. The government isn't the one capable of stopping the abuse. They are the ones doing the abusing! They are bending over backwards to make companies happy, regardless of the effects on us lowly citizens. We can't simply ignore the stupidity of the media because they have taken the precaution of making it illegal to do so.
As much as the idea of civil disobedience appeals to me, it won't work in this case. You say you have broadband? Who do you get it from? Wouldn't they be more worried about a lawsuit than you and so be more likely to disconnect you? Dial-up ISP's are a dime a dozen, but essentially useless for these purposes.
Notice how so many of the recent insanity laws are written so as to attack the ISP as well as the offender? They couldn't possibly sue 10 million citizens, especially when trying to do so would have very little 'cowing' effect on everyone else. Recent events show it to be quite the opposte, in fact. Far easier to go after a couple of ISP's which have much more to lose and will fall in line at the snap of a finger.
If and when the ISP loses it's liability over the content sent over it or individuals cannot be disconnected by a company with a grudge, then most of the antics currently on display will be reduced to the ineffective propoganda it really is.
We ought to make a case that the Internet is being treated wildly incorrectly when it comes to crime. People accused of murder don't have power or water cut off to their home, even if the crime made use of those utilities. Neither does mail delivery cease, nor garbage collection stop coming by, nor newspapers stop delivering. Why should net access be any different?
Same reason the tax from Audio CDR's go straight to the RIAA, regardless of whether they were actually used to burn their songs. The idea that they do not in fact own all audio content in the world doesn't compute.
I really don't think privatizing NASA would do any good. They'd still have the same people and managers and system of doing things. And everything they do is based on the fact that they don't have to make a profit. It would be years, if ever, before they could actually launch a shuttle and earn back the money spent on it.
NASA was formed because space exploration technology was so hideously expensive no private company would ever engage in it, right? The trick to privatizing space is to offer an incentive to the free market above and beyond the wealth available in space. A large reward for successful and cheap launches has been suggested before, but I'd love to hear other ideas.
The difference is that private companies that shoot themselves in the foot to that extent are the exception while for government agencies (and monopolies) it's the rule.
Of course, the US is the only country to ever use the H-Bomb: and we used it twice.
Incorrect. The US has tested several H-bombs, but we are not the only ones to do so. For instance, the largest detonation on record was a Soviet device.
The US is the only one to actually use nukes on people (which ended up being far less bloody than the alternative), but then those were purely fission weapons. No fusing hydrogen.
Lastly, nukes are not wholly without practical applications. Pulsedrives would be a space propulsion system vastly superior to anything we use today. The concept is 50 years old. They could be used to move asteroids and comets around. Lots of uses, though the EMP is rather difficult to deal with.
You can't prove that Napster caused sales to go up. Of course, the RIAA can't prove that it caused sales to go down, either. Which means it comes down to "Who has more lawyers?".
Usually. Not always. The way things are going, most definitely not always. Go pick up one of those 'Dumb Laws' books that are so entertaining to see why.
I'd like to state that the above is my opinion, and is clearly meant to be such, since I am not a doctor, and have no clinical training to actually make such an evaluation.
I'm being a bit paranoid, I guess, but I'm not in the mood to get sued today.
Too late! Eisner saw your post and the stormtroopers are on their way to your house as we speak!
Either. He's basically asking what happens to GPL'd code after the copyright/left expires, be it seven or seventy years.
The irony here is that falling into the public domain would be the only legal way General Public Licensed code could be used in closed source programs.
And they also have to show that a DRM OS and hardware could be implemented without killing off the entire industry. And they have to show their sales are actually being harmed by file sharing. Etc, etc, etc...
Why should it matter? They're not trying to win a case in court, they're trying to buy legislation. Proving that their case is right would never occur to these guys.
I double-checked the USPS webpage. There's two varieties, Certified Mail and Return Receipt. CM is what I described, RR is what you described.
Return Receipt: This provides the sender with proof of delivery. A return receipt can be purchased for mail sent COD, Express Mail, insured for more than $50, registered, or certified. The return receipt shows who signed for the item and the date that it was delivered. Unless prohibited by law, the return receipt also provides the delivery address if the address on the mailpiece is no longer correct.
As compared with... Certified mail provides proof of mailing and delivery of mail. The sender receives a mailing receipt at the time of mailing, and a record of delivery is maintained by the Postal Service. A return receipt to provide the sender with proof of delivery can also be purchased for an additional fee.
Certified makes no mention of a signature or correct delivery.
All certified mail means is that it was delivered. Not necessarily to you, just that it ended up in someone's mailbox. If it went to the wrong address, it has still been certifiably delivered.
3 potential causes for all this, all quite possible.
Murphy is lying. If someone sued me because of something I posted on/., my first inclination would be to laugh and throw it away. I think that I'd call the county and confirm that this wasn't a joke first.
Xybernaut is lying. By some means they got a clerk to record it as sent and got a judgement of a cool half million in their favor. But they'd have to know they stand no chance of collecting that much.
The USPS goofed. It happens. Not often, but as unfortunate as the results would be, it could certainly happen to a legal notice like this.
Re:so, you people want to build a gun eh?
on
Homemade Gauss Gun
·
· Score: 2
If you've ever done systems administration for more than a dozen workstations over a period of general hardware and software upgrading, you would welcome thin clients with open arms, regardless of the cost. Also, you can use old hardware (_really_ old in some cases) to run thin client software and save on money & time that way.
Heck, we set up a Citrix system at my high school a few years back and just to show it off we ran Mac LC's and some old 386 IBM PC's as clients. Real freaky looking, the NT4 GUI on this clunky, ancient beige case.
Sure, but a thin client PC can go a very long time without needing hardware upgrades and all the muss and fuss that normal PC's entail. I have seen Mac LC's and 386's running NT4 over a Citrix system and doing it pretty well. Far easier and cheaper to upgrade and maintain a couple of uber-servers than a zillion clients, both in terms of hardware and software.
And if you use a free software approach, then it gets even cheaper. No licenses needed.
I see an awful lot of 'licenses for NT' in that list that could easily be avoided. I shudder to think how much they must have cost. And memory is cheap these days.
My favorite was setting up really old hardware on a citrix thin client network like what you described. There's nothing like seeing NT4 on a Mac LC or 386-era PC.
Re:so, you people want to build a gun eh?
on
Homemade Gauss Gun
·
· Score: 2
Err, don't think so. I used 2000 meters per second velocity, 3 meters distance, and gees are in meters/second^2, so the units are all consistent. Plugging t=2000/a into the t^2 yields 3=1/2*a*4,000,000/(a^2) -> a=2,000,000/3. Did I mess this up somewhere?
But you may be right about the rest. It's a ridiculous acceleration but it doesn't last very long. I would like some kind of documentation on the thing, though. A mach 6 railgun doesn't seem to be the type of project someone does in his spare time.
Slashdot Mirror
To be sure, we are using natural resources more than a 3rd world nation, but that's not really the issue here. The problem is that they are straining their own resources; ie how much food they can produce. Cheap space access in particular would help alleviate our impact on the environment, suggesting that we dedicate even more effort to that end.
I would suggest a fair chance of competing with us in the "free market" for a start.
It might work, it might not. In any event, it affects NASA's funding requirements not even a little bit, which was the topic of the parent.
Note however that im an not calling you "insane". That is bad manners, and not very mature.
I do apologize; I had thought your post was a response by the thread parent, the one who opined that as long as there is any suffering in the world we should do anything and everytyhing to correct it, regardless of whether it would be effective. Thinking that using all of NASA's funding to try and feed the Third World would definitely be insane. It'd be a striking example of the "Give a man to fish, teach a man to fish" maxim.
In any event, I stand by my previous post. So many people like to say "It's their culture not to practice any safe sex whatsoever" even though it is one of the things keeping them in a state of famine and general misery. They might not like to use condoms, but if they want to get anywhere they're gonna have to start, as well as consider implementing a number of other techniques relating to technology, government, and general way of life which we in the West have found to be far more successful.
For instance, imagine a society which considers anyone with blue eyes to be ineligible for any kind of employment. If they then find themselves having a manpower shortage, causing severe economic problems throughout the land, it is stupid for them to continue discriminating on the basis of eye color. It would be even more stupid for other, wealthier nations to start shipping in brown-eyed laborers. It doesn't solve the problem, it just staves it off for a little while so that in the future, even more people will be affected when it resurfaces.
Ever thought about how the ones that used to put their "insane" opponents in an asylum were mostly communist dictators?
Very true, but just because I think an idea is foolish doesn't mean that it is correct. And if ever there was a stupid idea, shutting down our own programs just to raise funds to bail out some other nation's perpetual foulups is one of them, especially when they will continue to do so.
But, and here's the good part, you also want us to take our money and force them to lead better lives. Even ignoring the hypocracy of that suggestion, if you honestly think that is a good idea, I have this bridge I'd like to sell you.
Let me ask you this. Parents are over there having too many kids and then not being able to feed them. If we come over there and do nothing but give them food, without making it clear to them why they were in this predicament in the first place, what are they going to end up with? Another generation doing the exact same thing. They either have to stop having so many kids or start growing more food. We cannot support their entire population ourselves and it is insane of you to suggest otherwise.
But only if the USSR was also trying to get to Mars.
I have no problems with the -AA's using copy protected CD's. Or only releasing stuff on DRM-ed media or any number of stupid tactics. But the DMCA and UCITA and SSSCA all point to the true enemy being not the content industries, but Congress itself. The government isn't the one capable of stopping the abuse. They are the ones doing the abusing! They are bending over backwards to make companies happy, regardless of the effects on us lowly citizens. We can't simply ignore the stupidity of the media because they have taken the precaution of making it illegal to do so.
So the -AA's are both technologically and biologically primitive! Probably comes of having so many lawyers.
Notice how so many of the recent insanity laws are written so as to attack the ISP as well as the offender? They couldn't possibly sue 10 million citizens, especially when trying to do so would have very little 'cowing' effect on everyone else. Recent events show it to be quite the opposte, in fact. Far easier to go after a couple of ISP's which have much more to lose and will fall in line at the snap of a finger.
If and when the ISP loses it's liability over the content sent over it or individuals cannot be disconnected by a company with a grudge, then most of the antics currently on display will be reduced to the ineffective propoganda it really is.
We ought to make a case that the Internet is being treated wildly incorrectly when it comes to crime. People accused of murder don't have power or water cut off to their home, even if the crime made use of those utilities. Neither does mail delivery cease, nor garbage collection stop coming by, nor newspapers stop delivering. Why should net access be any different?
Same reason the tax from Audio CDR's go straight to the RIAA, regardless of whether they were actually used to burn their songs. The idea that they do not in fact own all audio content in the world doesn't compute.
NASA was formed because space exploration technology was so hideously expensive no private company would ever engage in it, right? The trick to privatizing space is to offer an incentive to the free market above and beyond the wealth available in space. A large reward for successful and cheap launches has been suggested before, but I'd love to hear other ideas.
The difference is that private companies that shoot themselves in the foot to that extent are the exception while for government agencies (and monopolies) it's the rule.
Incorrect. The US has tested several H-bombs, but we are not the only ones to do so. For instance, the largest detonation on record was a Soviet device.
The US is the only one to actually use nukes on people (which ended up being far less bloody than the alternative), but then those were purely fission weapons. No fusing hydrogen.
Lastly, nukes are not wholly without practical applications. Pulsedrives would be a space propulsion system vastly superior to anything we use today. The concept is 50 years old. They could be used to move asteroids and comets around. Lots of uses, though the EMP is rather difficult to deal with.
You can't prove that Napster caused sales to go up. Of course, the RIAA can't prove that it caused sales to go down, either. Which means it comes down to "Who has more lawyers?".
Usually. Not always. The way things are going, most definitely not always. Go pick up one of those 'Dumb Laws' books that are so entertaining to see why.
Too late! Eisner saw your post and the stormtroopers are on their way to your house as we speak!
The irony here is that falling into the public domain would be the only legal way General Public Licensed code could be used in closed source programs.
And we the people are displaying amazing restraint in not making him illegal.
Why should it matter? They're not trying to win a case in court, they're trying to buy legislation. Proving that their case is right would never occur to these guys.
Return Receipt: This provides the sender with proof of delivery. A return receipt can be purchased for mail sent COD, Express Mail, insured for more than $50, registered, or certified. The return receipt shows who signed for the item and the date that it was delivered. Unless prohibited by law, the return receipt also provides the delivery address if the address on the mailpiece is no longer correct.
As compared with...
Certified mail provides proof of mailing and delivery of mail. The sender receives a mailing receipt at the time of mailing, and a record of delivery is maintained by the Postal Service. A return receipt to provide the sender with proof of delivery can also be purchased for an additional fee.
Certified makes no mention of a signature or correct delivery.
Here's the source page.
Perhaps "Allegations by Amnesty International of murder by Barricks." would have been better.
3 potential causes for all this, all quite possible. /., my first inclination would be to laugh and throw it away. I think that I'd call the county and confirm that this wasn't a joke first.
Murphy is lying. If someone sued me because of something I posted on
Xybernaut is lying. By some means they got a clerk to record it as sent and got a judgement of a cool half million in their favor. But they'd have to know they stand no chance of collecting that much.
The USPS goofed. It happens. Not often, but as unfortunate as the results would be, it could certainly happen to a legal notice like this.
And so it is, my bad.
If you've ever done systems administration for more than a dozen workstations over a period of general hardware and software upgrading, you would welcome thin clients with open arms, regardless of the cost. Also, you can use old hardware (_really_ old in some cases) to run thin client software and save on money & time that way.
Heck, we set up a Citrix system at my high school a few years back and just to show it off we ran Mac LC's and some old 386 IBM PC's as clients. Real freaky looking, the NT4 GUI on this clunky, ancient beige case.
And if you use a free software approach, then it gets even cheaper. No licenses needed.
My favorite was setting up really old hardware on a citrix thin client network like what you described. There's nothing like seeing NT4 on a Mac LC or 386-era PC.
But you may be right about the rest. It's a ridiculous acceleration but it doesn't last very long. I would like some kind of documentation on the thing, though. A mach 6 railgun doesn't seem to be the type of project someone does in his spare time.