First, no one is doubting that the US and the Russians are far ahead in space research. No one seems to care really. If the US wanted respect it could simply stop invading nations based on their predominant religion.
You will probably get marked down as a troll but the sad fact is that Boeing, TRW, Lockheed and the rest survive on the waste of government. Now and then they produce neat toys but just as often they are involved in very significant cost overrun/contract malfeasance.
It amuses me to see huge flags hanging in their buildings, as if they have the market cornered on being patriotic. Yet they are constantly being in the news for ripping off taxpayers. I don't mean suspicions of ripoffs, but charges laid and fines paid on the basis of evidence.
Sorry to all the nerds who think Star Trek is real science. We are not getting off of the Earth.
There is nowhere to go. Anything nearby is completely unsuitable for human habitation. When I mean "nearby" I am including a very very large volume far beyond the solar system.
Even if you could determine a place to go you don't have the right equipment. I mean you. Humans are not designed for long term exposure to space. Sorry. I don't know of one respected scientist who thinks our physiology and psychology permit long term exposure to radiation, low gravity, and isolation.
The very best you can hope for is sentient machines who can survive and in fact thrive in open space to spend thousands of years travelling as Earth's ambassadors. There is no "warp drive" that is going to zap you safely to a tropical paradise in another galaxy.
Tellme was brought into existance for one purpose - to go public. Their business model was a joke (internet on phones?) and they were total media whores with their bunk-beds and 'sleepless developers' in every media outlet you could find (most of which now defunct).
Too bad for them most of this stuff was cliched by time they rolled it out as amusing press. Also too bad the IPO craze was over before they could flog it. They now stand as a totally irrelevant testiment to 90s greed.
How do you teleport to someplace man has never gone? How do you teleport a living person. This is exactly the issue I am talking about - people who are so science stupid you actually believe what you see on Star Trek.
Just because we are turning Earth into a garbage dump, that doesn't mean manned space travel is any more viable.
I am not saying it "shouldn't" be done, I am saying it cannot be done.
Point 1 - where to go? Mars? You would need massive external support to live there. Can't happen if by your arg Earth is gone. Anywhere worth going (Earth like planet) is so far away it is not worth considering given our understanding of physics.....leading to
Point 2 - don't believe in "warp speed" or some other fantasy that instantly lands you on a paradise in another galaxy instantly. The reality is that even at very high speeds we can conceive of producing, it would take so long to get anywhere useful that you would run out of food, go insane, or get irradiated.
Robotic life will be the only view of Earth aliens ever see. That wil have to be good enough for our legacy - our organic systems are completely unsuited physically and mentally for long term space exposure. If we want to destroy Earth then we are going to have to deal with having NOWHERE to live.
People need to give up the Star Trek fantasises. We have learned conclusively that space travel is toxic. If not zero G, then radiation. And where would you go? Mars? You would leave Earth for Mars????? I like getting water from the sky periodically, and food from the ground. Very convenient.
We need to realize manned space travel is not going to happen. There is nowhere to go, and getting there would kill you (if you could even stay alive long enough to get anywhere useful). Manned space travel is one of those things that doesn;t make any sense if you think about it for ten minutes with an education in basic science.
ISS does nothing. All it does it float around. No one is breaking down the door to do research up there. When is the last time you heard a researcher remark that they wish ISS would be completed so they could get their project up? This is not a risk issue, its an issue of admitting that this project is a drain of resrouces and a waste of time.
If NASA didn't jhave to fund this rustbucket they could actually be pursuing more viable unmanned craft for true science. Fuding ISS should not be confused with funding research.
ISS takes the cake for the greatest white elephant project since Star Wars. I have to hand it to Boeing - they really played NASA and the government like fiddles on this one, resulting in a massive transfer of funds with practically nothing of lasting scientific (or industrial, or commerical) value being returned.
We have all the science from ISS we will ever need- prolonged exposure to zero-G environments is toxic. None of the other science promised in the 80s is worth pursuing in zero-G anymore - computer simulations of the effects of zero G are cheaper and more useful. No we won't be developing advanced circuit manufacturing techniques in space, or radical drugs.
ISS is a drain on NASA that is diverting funds from the newfound darling of research - unmanned drones. If a person was to crash on Mars, collect a soil sample, then die, it would be a $500 billion failure. For an unmanned drone it is a $500 million success.
Just let it go NASA, it was never anything more than a pork project.
Yahoo runs on open source (FeeBSD, perl, php, apache) and their 'product' is of course open source - you can view the source of any html file and you may set your robot to crawling their site.
They may not produce open source but they use it throughout to produce their revenues and support it (they employ some FreeBSD team members).
Someone alert the nearly 1 billion web users worldwide.
Price of admission is a full disk comprimise
on
CNet on WinFS
·
· Score: 1
Yes it is cool, but in version 1 you have to take on an enormous risk - virii, bugs, other issues crippling your entire OS is a more sophisiticated way than you can conceive a defense against. The more complex the system the more complex the attack. MS users do not require such complex systems - I don't know why MS is risking exposing them to more sophisiticated attacks.
While I applaud new thinking from any OS vendor, this type of re-architecting will mean little to the core home/business user. Are files really that hard to find on your computer? Are people really ready to throw their data into a virtual bucket and use pattern matching to find it later? Maybe, but consider the risks:
1. It is discivered to be broken shortly after release. This would cripple the entire OS and require a huge mae culpa from MS.
2. It is insecure. Once again, the whole OS would be undermined, users would revolt.
3. No one "gets it". The R&D cost and time spent will be for naught, people will keep on thinking like they always have - organizing files through Windows Explorer.
Considering the huge installed base and relatively low requirements of MS users (cruise the web, listen to music, read email), it just doesn't seem worth the risk. I would offer that secure, reliable mediocrity is what they should shoot for, they already own the market for desktop OSs and can't possibly convert the 5% who use Apple/linux etc.
Having a good 1U design hasn't been a bragging point since 2000. 1U boxes are now at the same level of commoditization as beige-box desktops. Even blades are becoming a commodity. I don't think blade designs have been a bragging point for at least a year now.
Postrel desperate to reinvent herself
on
The Substance of Style
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I have been following her writings for years - from her uber-pro-capitalism/libertarian puff-piece "The Future and Its Enemies" to this. She wants to do well but is too focused on making a momentous statement.
Although the Puritans were early settlers, they did not "found" the United States of America. They founded a British colony. They were happy to be British. They brought Redcoats with them.
The premise of the founding of this nation had little to do with religious freedom and everything to do with political and more precisely economic freedom.
How can you distinguish church and state in this country? The state IS the church. Not since Nazi Germany have people tied a victim complex with an inherent sense of infallibility together so closely (despite mountains of evidence taking the nation beyond fallibility to straight out complicity).
If this nation were truly interested in liberty there would not be a dogmatic phrase at all. If students wish to burn the flag every morning in the parking lot they should be allowed to. Its their country too. Its their flag too. You don't own their opinion or free will or right to act towards the symbols of statehood as they see fit.
In most other nations this is not an issue as state worship is not the national religion.
But killing off AOL completely would not mean shutting off the broadband - TW was running that (RoadRunner) before they merged with AOL. I am talking about shutting off dial-up - a low-margin business that is an ongoing distraction from the media business TW desperately needs to return to.
Slashdot Mirror
First, no one is doubting that the US and the Russians are far ahead in space research. No one seems to care really. If the US wanted respect it could simply stop invading nations based on their predominant religion.
It amuses me to see huge flags hanging in their buildings, as if they have the market cornered on being patriotic. Yet they are constantly being in the news for ripping off taxpayers. I don't mean suspicions of ripoffs, but charges laid and fines paid on the basis of evidence.
The robot doesn't so the wrench is left at home along with your dilemma.
If a machine landed on Mars, had its craft destroyed, collected a rock sample and phoned home the data, it would be a $500 million success.
The debate of manned vs. unmanned is over save the vitriol - the science and economics are not even in dispute.
There is nowhere to go. Anything nearby is completely unsuitable for human habitation. When I mean "nearby" I am including a very very large volume far beyond the solar system.
Even if you could determine a place to go you don't have the right equipment. I mean you. Humans are not designed for long term exposure to space. Sorry. I don't know of one respected scientist who thinks our physiology and psychology permit long term exposure to radiation, low gravity, and isolation.
The very best you can hope for is sentient machines who can survive and in fact thrive in open space to spend thousands of years travelling as Earth's ambassadors. There is no "warp drive" that is going to zap you safely to a tropical paradise in another galaxy.
My iPod is the first HD-based player to reliably work with linux.
Online address books? What will they think of next?
Too bad for them most of this stuff was cliched by time they rolled it out as amusing press. Also too bad the IPO craze was over before they could flog it. They now stand as a totally irrelevant testiment to 90s greed.
Next thing you know the government will contract out the manufacture of nuclear missiles!
How do you teleport to someplace man has never gone? How do you teleport a living person. This is exactly the issue I am talking about - people who are so science stupid you actually believe what you see on Star Trek.
I am not saying it "shouldn't" be done, I am saying it cannot be done.
Point 1 - where to go? Mars? You would need massive external support to live there. Can't happen if by your arg Earth is gone. Anywhere worth going (Earth like planet) is so far away it is not worth considering given our understanding of physics.....leading to
Point 2 - don't believe in "warp speed" or some other fantasy that instantly lands you on a paradise in another galaxy instantly. The reality is that even at very high speeds we can conceive of producing, it would take so long to get anywhere useful that you would run out of food, go insane, or get irradiated.
Robotic life will be the only view of Earth aliens ever see. That wil have to be good enough for our legacy - our organic systems are completely unsuited physically and mentally for long term space exposure. If we want to destroy Earth then we are going to have to deal with having NOWHERE to live.
We need to realize manned space travel is not going to happen. There is nowhere to go, and getting there would kill you (if you could even stay alive long enough to get anywhere useful). Manned space travel is one of those things that doesn;t make any sense if you think about it for ten minutes with an education in basic science.
ISS does nothing. All it does it float around. No one is breaking down the door to do research up there. When is the last time you heard a researcher remark that they wish ISS would be completed so they could get their project up? This is not a risk issue, its an issue of admitting that this project is a drain of resrouces and a waste of time.
If NASA didn't jhave to fund this rustbucket they could actually be pursuing more viable unmanned craft for true science. Fuding ISS should not be confused with funding research.
We have all the science from ISS we will ever need- prolonged exposure to zero-G environments is toxic. None of the other science promised in the 80s is worth pursuing in zero-G anymore - computer simulations of the effects of zero G are cheaper and more useful. No we won't be developing advanced circuit manufacturing techniques in space, or radical drugs.
ISS is a drain on NASA that is diverting funds from the newfound darling of research - unmanned drones. If a person was to crash on Mars, collect a soil sample, then die, it would be a $500 billion failure. For an unmanned drone it is a $500 million success.
Just let it go NASA, it was never anything more than a pork project.
They may not produce open source but they use it throughout to produce their revenues and support it (they employ some FreeBSD team members).
Just because it is peppered with lights...just like 87, 84, 92, 237, 130, and half of the other highways going through the Bay.
Someone alert the nearly 1 billion web users worldwide.
Yes it is cool, but in version 1 you have to take on an enormous risk - virii, bugs, other issues crippling your entire OS is a more sophisiticated way than you can conceive a defense against. The more complex the system the more complex the attack. MS users do not require such complex systems - I don't know why MS is risking exposing them to more sophisiticated attacks.
1. It is discivered to be broken shortly after release. This would cripple the entire OS and require a huge mae culpa from MS.
2. It is insecure. Once again, the whole OS would be undermined, users would revolt.
3. No one "gets it". The R&D cost and time spent will be for naught, people will keep on thinking like they always have - organizing files through Windows Explorer.
Considering the huge installed base and relatively low requirements of MS users (cruise the web, listen to music, read email), it just doesn't seem worth the risk. I would offer that secure, reliable mediocrity is what they should shoot for, they already own the market for desktop OSs and can't possibly convert the 5% who use Apple/linux etc.
Having a good 1U design hasn't been a bragging point since 2000. 1U boxes are now at the same level of commoditization as beige-box desktops. Even blades are becoming a commodity. I don't think blade designs have been a bragging point for at least a year now.
Sorry Virginia, you are not a guru.
The premise of the founding of this nation had little to do with religious freedom and everything to do with political and more precisely economic freedom.
If this nation were truly interested in liberty there would not be a dogmatic phrase at all. If students wish to burn the flag every morning in the parking lot they should be allowed to. Its their country too. Its their flag too. You don't own their opinion or free will or right to act towards the symbols of statehood as they see fit.
In most other nations this is not an issue as state worship is not the national religion.
But killing off AOL completely would not mean shutting off the broadband - TW was running that (RoadRunner) before they merged with AOL. I am talking about shutting off dial-up - a low-margin business that is an ongoing distraction from the media business TW desperately needs to return to.