...unless you're needing to attach to a Citrix desktop, where you need Java, Active X, or a client installation. And given the love for Microsoft by most Mac users... it's either Java (dynamic), or the (somewhat plodding) installed Citrix client.
Science Since 1500 by H.T. Pledge
More of a philsophical work than pure science per se, the book puts biology, chemistry, math and physics together and discusses each in relation to the other as well in terms of history and application.
Ten Books on Architecture by Vitruvius
All about ancient architecture and how to build arches, domes, baths, pillared buildings, etc with Roman technology and building techniques.
True, but it was "reported" to be sponsored by Senators Snowe (R-Maine) and Rockefeller (D-WV) on some of the "news" outlets.
Nevermind looking in Thomas, check out the Senate's Daily Digest for 1 April. Nothing there either.
Not only has this not been reported by any mainstream media source (AP/UPI/Reuters) or in any news source of record (WSJ, NY Times, et al), but that it's not listed on the Senate's website? Or that the PDF is a blank template without any names on it?
Methinks \. caught a regurgitates April Fools blog entry a couple days late!
(Yes, I've been playing with the infinite improbability engine... thus my fiance!)
Anyway, I've now seen a few seasons of DwtS. MOST of the time, it's a pretty enjoyable show even with the cheese factor being set to "Gouda". However, last season (the 7th) was regarded as weak by most of the viewers, as most of the stars were "C list" at BEST.
Compare the names on the lists, and DwtS w/ Woz just looks a lot more watchable...
Season 7:
Jeffrey Ross (Stand Up Comedian)
Ted McGinley (Actor)
Kim Kardashian (Reality TV Star)
Misty May-Treanor (Olympic Beach Volleyball Champion)
Rocco DiSpirito (Celebrity Chef)
Toni Braxton (Grammy Award Winning Singer)
Cloris Leachman (Oscar Award Winning Actress)
Susan Lucci (All My Children TV Star)
Maurice Greene (Olympic Sprinter)
Cody Linley (Hannah Montana Star)
Lance Bass (Former 'N Sync Star)
Warren Sapp (Super Bowl Champion NFL Football player)
Brooke Burke (Model and TV Host)
Season 8:
Belinda Carlisle (Singer in The Go-Go's)
David Alan Grier (Actor and Comedian)
Jewel (Singer-Songwriter)
Shawn Johnson (2008 Olympic Gymnast)
Lil' Kim (Grammy Award Winning Rapper)
Gilles Marini (Actor)
Ty Murray (Rodeo Athlete)
Nancy O'Dell (Access Hollywood Co-Anchor)
Steve-O (Jackass and Wildboyz Performer)
Denise Richards (Actress)
Lawrence Taylor (Retired NFL Linebacker)
Chuck Wicks (Country Singer) Steve Wozniak (Apple Co-Founder and Philanthropist)
The same thing will happen: Apple will devolve again and be directionless, perhaps again bringing in a big soda company executive for CEO. History repeats itself. Market share will drop.
The problem with many firms (in IT especially Microsoft, Apple and Dell) is that they were built around their founders and really can't perform as a corporate culture without them. And without a vibrant corporate culture, the firm stagnates or fails. Commodore or Wang anyone?
Ah, but turducken is tasty! But only in it's cooked state.
Perhaps Luna will be tasty too, after it's been prepared and cooked and is actually ready to be served.
So one guy running for President is news, but another is not? I love that logic! AND you knew everything about John McCain before he ran for office? Please. As the main article cites, the wider media is just coming to terms that it was far less "fair & balanced" than even FOX News.
And, perhaps most importantly: Giving the public what they want isn't reporting the news, it's WRITING the news!
Is this really a surprise, Obama had 8 (!) covers of TIME in 2008, 2 of which he shared with McCain. McCain had 1 cover that he didn't share. Call me crazy, but that's way over the line.
But this isn't anything new... Bill Clinton had 7 covers while campaigning for office, one of which he shared with Tsongas, another two with George H.W. Bush.
In THAT election, George H.W. Bush (a sitting President!) had exactly 1 cover, plus the two he shared with Clinton.
While it is low density, it's also full of smaller bodies which have questionable movement characteristics. Quite simply, we cannot be sure at this time if it will be an issue or not. Being in a ship going (say).01c and getting bombarded by a dozen basketball sized objects per hour for days would be an issue!
True, you probably won't be able to keep the engine going, but you certainly don't want to build up speed in the inner solar system. Odds are you want to slingshot around Venus (or maybe Sol), gain speed, and then slingshot again around Jupiter or Saturn, and THEN light the main engine. It's all about conservation of fuel and getting the biggest bang for the buck. It really doesn't matter if you're using nuclear pulse, ion or any other engine technology humanity might invent any time soon.
IMO, what's more interesting is dealing with the Oort cloud. It's about 50,000 AU out (1 AU = distance Earth to Sol), and that's quite a long way, given that Neptune is 30 AU. For a little perspective, Voyager 2's been moving at ~3.3 AU/year since 1977 and is 86 AU out. This star is 632,396 AU away.
Anyway, the Oort cloud may well be like the Alps were to Bronze Age man: impassible except in certain locations and conditions.
We don't talk about relativistic speed, we talk about fractions of relativistic speed. Say we use "c" for the constant speed of light. If we can get to even.1 light speed (something which is pretty much impossible at this time, even with an Orion pusher-plate nuclear ship), we'd get to that star in 100 years. So you're talking either a probe or at best a multi-generational starship. And good luck getting data back over such distances!
Makes sense, as it's going to be hard to support schools with oil prices tanking.
Russia has lost over $230 Billion USD in the last month, and it's not going to get better as oil prices remain flat or slide (perhaps to $40/barrel).
Oort Cloud object 2006 SQ372, a minor planet (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/08/080819-new-planet.html) is 1600AU-2000AU out from Sol. By way of comparison, Sedna is 88AU.
Right now, it being 472 light years away (29,849,752 AU! or, 111 trips from Sol to Proxima Centauri...) we don't even know if it is a dual sun or not. Let alone what local conditions are like.
The heck with the Delta Quadrant! This this thing is FAR AWAY.
So personally, 330AU may not be irrational for a large solar system especially if the star in question has an overactive gravitational field or no nearby star systems to contend with. Our sun has 12 solar systems within 10 light years. Who knows what this star has to affect it?
Straight out of the Cyberpunk 2020 rulebook?
What they really need to chip those afraid of kidnapping is 7 levels of unarmed combat and a few of evasion...
It's not absurd, it's prohibitively expensive for obsolete gear. Consider that your Blackberry is EXPONENTIALLY more powerful than all of Mission Control in 1969. Why on Earth do you want to pay billions to bring back slide-rule tech?
We *can't* go back to the Apollo gear. What little survives is in museums and the tools that made it are long gone. So are the tools that made the tools, and the knowhow that went with it. You might as well ask for a brand new L-1011 jetliner.
My point was that the US could fight a war in Viet Nam that proportionally cost 9x what the Iraq wars costs *and* go to the moon *and* fund "The Great Society". The original poster saying we need to ax manned spaceflight until fusion due to cost/benefit was what I was railing against, not saying that wars are good. Sheesh!
That's your right of course, but *most* of the folks that lost houses didn't put in much equity to begin with, nor make many payments. So while it's bad, it's not *that* bad.
I didn't say they were in any particular order, but yeah, otherwise I agree with you.
I'm certainly not saying that the bubble won't be hurtful, but it's more of the secondary in the 1-2 punch with high/rising energy prices and non-core inflation for the first time in decades.
Proportionally, the Viet Nam War cost more far more: 9.4% of GDP vs. the Iraq War @ 1% of GDP. The entire military budget is 4.4% of GDP, and that's including spending on Corp of Engineer projects and other non-combat related spending.
(BTW: The Department of Defense estimates a presence in Iraq through 2017 at $1.7 trillion. $3 trillion is a number came up with by some people with some VERY vested interests.)
We WERE in a recession in 1957-1958 (when NASA was founded) and the housing bubble, while bad, is no where NEAR as bad a Black Monday or The Crash or perhaps even the.Com bubble. The only reason why people are bemoaning it (and rightly so!) is because people lost homes. That many of them were homes they never should have bought is another discussion.
And we've gone nowhere NEAR the limits. We could easily to manned missions to Mars, set up a real scientific lab on the Moon, even have missions to asteroids all on chemical rockets and boosters.
By some logic, it's never a good time to do anything. But human advancement depends on it. And NASA's budget is a mere 0.6% of the US GDP.
Call me a kook, but if I wanted to save money, let's ax something really worthless like The Department of Education. It gets [b]3.3 TIMES[/b] NASA's budget, but the kids are dumber today than they were when Carter formed the DoEd thirty odd years ago!
Slashdot Mirror
...unless you're needing to attach to a Citrix desktop, where you need Java, Active X, or a client installation. And given the love for Microsoft by most Mac users... it's either Java (dynamic), or the (somewhat plodding) installed Citrix client.
Science Since 1500 by H.T. Pledge
More of a philsophical work than pure science per se, the book puts biology, chemistry, math and physics together and discusses each in relation to the other as well in terms of history and application.
Ten Books on Architecture by Vitruvius
All about ancient architecture and how to build arches, domes, baths, pillared buildings, etc with Roman technology and building techniques.
True, but it was "reported" to be sponsored by Senators Snowe (R-Maine) and Rockefeller (D-WV) on some of the "news" outlets.
Nevermind looking in Thomas, check out the Senate's Daily Digest for 1 April. Nothing there either.
Not only has this not been reported by any mainstream media source (AP/UPI/Reuters) or in any news source of record (WSJ, NY Times, et al), but that it's not listed on the Senate's website? Or that the PDF is a blank template without any names on it?
Methinks \. caught a regurgitates April Fools blog entry a couple days late!
(Yes, I've been playing with the infinite improbability engine... thus my fiance!)
Anyway, I've now seen a few seasons of DwtS. MOST of the time, it's a pretty enjoyable show even with the cheese factor being set to "Gouda". However, last season (the 7th) was regarded as weak by most of the viewers, as most of the stars were "C list" at BEST.
Compare the names on the lists, and DwtS w/ Woz just looks a lot more watchable...
Season 7:
Jeffrey Ross (Stand Up Comedian)
Ted McGinley (Actor)
Kim Kardashian (Reality TV Star)
Misty May-Treanor (Olympic Beach Volleyball Champion)
Rocco DiSpirito (Celebrity Chef)
Toni Braxton (Grammy Award Winning Singer)
Cloris Leachman (Oscar Award Winning Actress)
Susan Lucci (All My Children TV Star)
Maurice Greene (Olympic Sprinter)
Cody Linley (Hannah Montana Star)
Lance Bass (Former 'N Sync Star)
Warren Sapp (Super Bowl Champion NFL Football player)
Brooke Burke (Model and TV Host)
Season 8:
Belinda Carlisle (Singer in The Go-Go's)
David Alan Grier (Actor and Comedian)
Jewel (Singer-Songwriter)
Shawn Johnson (2008 Olympic Gymnast)
Lil' Kim (Grammy Award Winning Rapper)
Gilles Marini (Actor)
Ty Murray (Rodeo Athlete)
Nancy O'Dell (Access Hollywood Co-Anchor)
Steve-O (Jackass and Wildboyz Performer)
Denise Richards (Actress)
Lawrence Taylor (Retired NFL Linebacker)
Chuck Wicks (Country Singer)
Steve Wozniak (Apple Co-Founder and Philanthropist)
And Ice Station Zebra. And Braveheart!!
The same thing will happen: Apple will devolve again and be directionless, perhaps again bringing in a big soda company executive for CEO. History repeats itself. Market share will drop.
The problem with many firms (in IT especially Microsoft, Apple and Dell) is that they were built around their founders and really can't perform as a corporate culture without them. And without a vibrant corporate culture, the firm stagnates or fails. Commodore or Wang anyone?
USA Today ran a story on it a few months back... http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2007-08-21-founder-ceos_N.htm
Ah, but turducken is tasty! But only in it's cooked state. Perhaps Luna will be tasty too, after it's been prepared and cooked and is actually ready to be served.
...unless you're running RSA's SecureID soft token application, which doesn't work on certain BBs if you raise the OS beyond 4.3.
So one guy running for President is news, but another is not? I love that logic! AND you knew everything about John McCain before he ran for office? Please.
As the main article cites, the wider media is just coming to terms that it was far less "fair & balanced" than even FOX News.
And, perhaps most importantly: Giving the public what they want isn't reporting the news, it's WRITING the news!
Is this really a surprise, Obama had 8 (!) covers of TIME in 2008, 2 of which he shared with McCain. McCain had 1 cover that he didn't share. Call me crazy, but that's way over the line.
But this isn't anything new... Bill Clinton had 7 covers while campaigning for office, one of which he shared with Tsongas, another two with George H.W. Bush.
In THAT election, George H.W. Bush (a sitting President!) had exactly 1 cover, plus the two he shared with Clinton.
It's deja vu all over again!!
While it is low density, it's also full of smaller bodies which have questionable movement characteristics. Quite simply, we cannot be sure at this time if it will be an issue or not. Being in a ship going (say) .01c and getting bombarded by a dozen basketball sized objects per hour for days would be an issue!
True, you probably won't be able to keep the engine going, but you certainly don't want to build up speed in the inner solar system. Odds are you want to slingshot around Venus (or maybe Sol), gain speed, and then slingshot again around Jupiter or Saturn, and THEN light the main engine. It's all about conservation of fuel and getting the biggest bang for the buck. It really doesn't matter if you're using nuclear pulse, ion or any other engine technology humanity might invent any time soon.
IMO, what's more interesting is dealing with the Oort cloud. It's about 50,000 AU out (1 AU = distance Earth to Sol), and that's quite a long way, given that Neptune is 30 AU. For a little perspective, Voyager 2's been moving at ~3.3 AU/year since 1977 and is 86 AU out. This star is 632,396 AU away.
Anyway, the Oort cloud may well be like the Alps were to Bronze Age man: impassible except in certain locations and conditions.
We don't talk about relativistic speed, we talk about fractions of relativistic speed. Say we use "c" for the constant speed of light. If we can get to even .1 light speed (something which is pretty much impossible at this time, even with an Orion pusher-plate nuclear ship), we'd get to that star in 100 years. So you're talking either a probe or at best a multi-generational starship. And good luck getting data back over such distances!
Makes sense, as it's going to be hard to support schools with oil prices tanking. Russia has lost over $230 Billion USD in the last month, and it's not going to get better as oil prices remain flat or slide (perhaps to $40/barrel).
If we ever needed an "Ironic" choice for moderation purposes, this post is it!
Oort Cloud object 2006 SQ372, a minor planet (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/08/080819-new-planet.html) is 1600AU-2000AU out from Sol. By way of comparison, Sedna is 88AU.
Right now, it being 472 light years away (29,849,752 AU! or, 111 trips from Sol to Proxima Centauri...) we don't even know if it is a dual sun or not. Let alone what local conditions are like.
The heck with the Delta Quadrant! This this thing is FAR AWAY.
So personally, 330AU may not be irrational for a large solar system especially if the star in question has an overactive gravitational field or no nearby star systems to contend with. Our sun has 12 solar systems within 10 light years. Who knows what this star has to affect it?
Straight out of the Cyberpunk 2020 rulebook? What they really need to chip those afraid of kidnapping is 7 levels of unarmed combat and a few of evasion...
It's not absurd, it's prohibitively expensive for obsolete gear. Consider that your Blackberry is EXPONENTIALLY more powerful than all of Mission Control in 1969. Why on Earth do you want to pay billions to bring back slide-rule tech?
We *can't* go back to the Apollo gear. What little survives is in museums and the tools that made it are long gone. So are the tools that made the tools, and the knowhow that went with it. You might as well ask for a brand new L-1011 jetliner.
My point was that the US could fight a war in Viet Nam that proportionally cost 9x what the Iraq wars costs *and* go to the moon *and* fund "The Great Society". The original poster saying we need to ax manned spaceflight until fusion due to cost/benefit was what I was railing against, not saying that wars are good. Sheesh!
Um... that was sarcasm. I apologize for not putting in a [/sarcasm] at the end.
That's total dollar amount, not % GDP, you anonymous genius you!! Or is the 2008 American economy the same size as the 1968 American economy? :-p
That's your right of course, but *most* of the folks that lost houses didn't put in much equity to begin with, nor make many payments. So while it's bad, it's not *that* bad. I didn't say they were in any particular order, but yeah, otherwise I agree with you. I'm certainly not saying that the bubble won't be hurtful, but it's more of the secondary in the 1-2 punch with high/rising energy prices and non-core inflation for the first time in decades.
Proportionally, the Viet Nam War cost more far more: 9.4% of GDP vs. the Iraq War @ 1% of GDP. The entire military budget is 4.4% of GDP, and that's including spending on Corp of Engineer projects and other non-combat related spending. (BTW: The Department of Defense estimates a presence in Iraq through 2017 at $1.7 trillion. $3 trillion is a number came up with by some people with some VERY vested interests.) We WERE in a recession in 1957-1958 (when NASA was founded) and the housing bubble, while bad, is no where NEAR as bad a Black Monday or The Crash or perhaps even the .Com bubble. The only reason why people are bemoaning it (and rightly so!) is because people lost homes. That many of them were homes they never should have bought is another discussion.
And we've gone nowhere NEAR the limits. We could easily to manned missions to Mars, set up a real scientific lab on the Moon, even have missions to asteroids all on chemical rockets and boosters.
By some logic, it's never a good time to do anything. But human advancement depends on it. And NASA's budget is a mere 0.6% of the US GDP.
Call me a kook, but if I wanted to save money, let's ax something really worthless like The Department of Education. It gets [b]3.3 TIMES[/b] NASA's budget, but the kids are dumber today than they were when Carter formed the DoEd thirty odd years ago!