Yeah, Bush had a "decent policy on our space program" too, like a manned Mars mission. But, like McCain is on anything else he's saying this campaign season, he's going to continue the Bush policies he voted with over 90% of the time this decade, and just bait & switch us to some Pentagon/CIA boondoggles instead of NASA's space mission.
You're voting for McCain because you're a Republican. You voted for Bush twice, too. It's not rocket science to see that you're a bad decider. Vote McCain if you want to see him "take up space" in the White House the way that Bush did: get in the way without doing anything useful.
Well, that's even worse. Griffin's NASA isn't stymied by lack of know-how, it's lack of can-do. Though not in Griffin's specialty: Star Wars and spacewar, which Griffin has protected with can-do without the know-how.
NASA is failing because of politics, which was of course injected into its science at every step relevant to the hyperpolitical Bush team, of which Griffin was an essential part. We have to be realistic about how to get NASA working again, starting with replacing Griffin and his Pentagon/CIA priorities with an administrator who will continue to focus on science, and its traditional benefits to American industry and society.
Or we can just let the Bush plan roll on, and leave NASA as decimated an institution as any of the others Bush groped to death this decade.
Will he? Funny how you extrapolate Obama, a Democrat, from Bush and Nixon, the two most partisan Republicans in history. Despite the records of Kennedy, Johnson, and even financially crippled (by the Nixon/Ford legacy) Carter, and Clinton, too, which show that NASA is a Democratic programme that Republicans lie about and steal from.
I didn't say that Bush was alone. But we can have high expectations of Obama, despite the knowledge (that I'm offering here) that Bush is leaving Obama with a crippled NASA and a devastated budget and economy to fund it from.
That list of myths debunked seems pretty sensible, even in details that run counter to conventional wisdom. But even though the list properly cautions several times against how most any equipment left plugged in will still drain power while doing nothing useful (infinitely bad efficiency), the article still makes an inefficienty mistake:
Sleeping continues to draw a small amount of power, between 1 and 3 watts, even though the system appears to be inactive. By comparison, Suspend draws less than 1 watt. Even over the course of a year, this difference is probably negligible.
Over the course of a year, 2 unnecessary watts is 17.532 unnecessary KWh. Sure, that's only about $1.75 at about $0.10:KWh. But that's for each device. At home, in addition to sleeping computers, there's dozens of devices with AC adapters wasting watts most of the day (and night), which is possibly hundreds of dollars wasted. In offices and datacenters, possibly thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars a year wasted. And each KWh means loads of extra Greenhouse CO2 unnecessarily pumped into the sky, even if it's (still) cheap to so recklessly pollute.
Which is what the One Watt Initiative is designed to minimize. The US government has joined the global efficiency organization, mandating purchases of equipment that consumes no more than 1 watt in standby mode. Whatever the global impact of 3W wasted in standby can be cut by 2/3 if switching to 1W.
In the short run, that makes energy bills lower (and, by saving heat from standby devices, further lowers energy costs due to less required cooling). In the long run, we've got more fuel and intact climate left to work with - and that stuff just costs way too much to replace when it runs out.
The time to start putting NASA brains on alternative energy solutions, and studying the causes of global ecosystem decline was in the 1960s.
Good thing we did just that. Fuelcells, solar PV, and pushing mechanical efficiencies to their theoretical limits has been among the best Return on Investment from our NASA budgets ever since the Apollo Program. Global ecology might not even exist without NASA satellites both inspiring the public and gushing data to scientists. Innovation in energy engineering and ecology science has been falling back to Earth for about as long as NASA has been lauching devices off of it.
In fact, the R&D for visiting Mars has lots of "dual use" in delivering "survival tech" here on Earth long before we ever get to Mars. And of course the systems on Mars will need efficiencies and exploitation systems that will work here on Earth, Mars' sister planet. Plus, studying Mars' "parallel evolution" more directly, especially after its climate has evidently catastrophically changed from one more like ours today, is an unequaled opportunity to study what looks like our possible future, without either waiting or having to guess.
These are the main reasons to love space, and NASA's exploration of it. Because Earth is in space, too. What NASA teaches us about space, we learn about ourself. And since NASA primarily teaches us about machines for living in space with extremely limited resources, while we push ours at home to the brink, we need more of exactly what NASA has already given us now more than ever.
Anyone else notice that Bush's term is leaving the US space program without a Space Shuttle or alternative for staffing or servicing the Space Station that we paid more than our share to build, and actually devastating the manned missions to Mars that would keep our lead among our global competitors? Remember when Bush ran for reelection in 2004 promising us a Mars mission, though everyone knew he was "kidding"?
What we'll have left, after Bush's term is done (in which he put Star Wars scientist and CIA venture capitalist Michael Griffin in charge of NASA) is a space program that mainly launches spy satellites and promotes "space supremacy" for the Pentagon and the CIA. Military satellites now used to spy on Americans.
This one is a "collision asteroid" because it's good marketing for Star Wars "missile defense" gussied up for more recent Hollywood treatment like _Deep Impact_.
The Kaiser also drove his Germans crazy enough that they went Nazi on us, and got going the other big problem that almost killed everybody.
Maybe the Czar was too "soft" on the Bolsheviks. But it was those kings going so hard on their people for so long that let them think that Communism, or Nazism, with their own new overlords, were the way "out".
I wasn't grammatically clear. The Czarist regime drove the Russians nuts, so nuts that the Russians went Communist, which nearly got us all mutually killed. That had everything to do with the Cold War, which the bloody demise of the Czars, replaced by "Communist" bureaucratic monarchs, inexorably produced.
Has any of these "czars" the US government has been fond of appointing the past decade or so actually accomplished anything except creating more serfs?
Why does the US government have people modeled on the most hated monarchs, who drove Russians so nuts that they went "Communist" on us for 3/4 of a century, and nearly helped us blast the world back to microscopic life?
How about Congress just returns copyright to its Constitutional basis: at most 17 years (a human "generation") of private monopoly on any content, but only when that monopoly will "promote progress in science and the useful arts". That regime doesn't need a czar, it needs a searchable content registry archive and an antitrust watchdog.
So what? This "story" on Slashdot's front page doesn't even bother to identify what "jQuery" is. All it does is make a press release pimping jQuery, "now with Microsoft's support!".
Windows was originally released in November 1985, making it 25 years old next month.
I prefer Linux to Windows the way I prefer a car to carrying a mule on my back. But is Linux today as useable an OS as Windows was in 2001 (when NT 4.0 was still its highpoint - possibly still the case)?
Instead of spending a lot of energy and wasteful construction techniques building many pillars surrounding islands, maybe we could cultivate coral reefs around them in the right shape. It could take years, but tsunamis don't hit any one island or platform very often.
That is, if this "refractive shield" is any more protective than just the same amount of "armor" in a simple wall around the defended location. Is it?
Let's say your corp is more than 50% likely to go through "e-discovery" once every 10 years. Each worker will generate 10GB * 10 years = 100GB, backing up all the increasing data pile is (pairing the balancing ends of the accumulation for half the accumulation years) 101GB * 5 = 505GB, at $5:GB is $2525, plus about $2M:TB / 505GB = $1.01M, for a total of $1,012,525 per worker, times at least 0.50 probability is at least $506,262 average predictable cost per employee.
One approach is to keep much less data. But when you keep less data, you have to guess right every time what data you'll need later. If your process discards data that's valuable later (but lost) it better be worth less than the amount you save. That's too hard to know, which is one reason companies keep all the data, and figure it out later.
A better approach is just to cut that $1-3M:TB e-discovery cost. Of course, the best way is to avoid being investigated, but one has less than 100% control over that, especially from inside the IT department. A much better way to do it is to better inventory the data stored as you go along accumulating it, in the terms in which a later e-discovery would search it. Which also can have the benefit of making the info in the data more available in the normal course of business, which can make that data's increased value (and lowered costs of searching it) worth the entire process. The cheaper possible e-discovery would be just a bonus.
What really gets me is how these economics are the true cost of storage. A 1TB drive costs $120, and maybe a better 1TB in a 100% redundant RAID costs $250. But it really costs something like $300,000 over its lifetime (probably replaced every 3 or so years, across the 10 years I analyzed). If IT spent a few hundred hours a year streamlining the navigation of all that data, at a cost of a few dozens of thousands of dollars, divided across all those employees, the entire org's IT operations would be much more economical, when the large cumulative risk of e-discovery costs are factored into the true cost.
Ten years is a long time in microelectronics. In 1998, we had Pentium MMX/150MHz, SVGA, 10bT/T1, 10GB-IDE, if we were lucky. And the industry, with its R&D and market driving development, is much bigger now, with more engineers using better tools.
Which of the component techs I mentioned do you think is the main bottleneck? I'd say the batteries to drive it, followed by the radio. If it were wired instead for those, what do you think would be the bottleneck that would take longer than a decade?
Labor's time is usually better spent producing more than covering its ass with something that doesn't produce anything. When it does work on CYA, it's management.
I expect that the glasses will cost thousands more than their equivalent workstation monitor, but will still have a market among specialists who need them in the field when they first arrive. Which is how these technologies always start.
It will take a few years for a less high-end version to become cheap. By which I mean they'll cost somewhere around $300-700. If they really are styled cool, and do cool stuff with mobile devices, like share synced displays with other people (whether their glasses or their monitors), they'll not cost too much more than just hi-end fashion shades.
Within 10 years, we'll be there. Maybe even 5-7 years, or less. Cheap SVGA imitations, without the wireless, will probably already be used before then by gamers ("heads up display") and some specialists, like technicians who need overlays on their natural viewfield.
5% drop and plummeting in 3 days is bad. Especially since the Dow has only grown about 2% from Bush's inauguration through today, over almost 8 years of your Republicans running the show.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac worked fine until they were turned into debt hype by you Republicans.
A 5% drop across the board is huge, especially when it's just the first big step down. But when it comes after no growth for most of a decade, that's a measure that the economy is in tatters.
If you're also going to pretend that this economic collapse isn't even happening, next you'll be telling me that the Federal levees didn't collapse after Katrina. I just know you've got some Republican lie stashed away to keep that one in denial.
Goodbye. Don't come whining to me when your denial doesn't put food on your plate anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, Bush had a "decent policy on our space program" too, like a manned Mars mission. But, like McCain is on anything else he's saying this campaign season, he's going to continue the Bush policies he voted with over 90% of the time this decade, and just bait & switch us to some Pentagon/CIA boondoggles instead of NASA's space mission.
You're voting for McCain because you're a Republican. You voted for Bush twice, too. It's not rocket science to see that you're a bad decider. Vote McCain if you want to see him "take up space" in the White House the way that Bush did: get in the way without doing anything useful.
Well, that's even worse. Griffin's NASA isn't stymied by lack of know-how, it's lack of can-do. Though not in Griffin's specialty: Star Wars and spacewar, which Griffin has protected with can-do without the know-how.
NASA is failing because of politics, which was of course injected into its science at every step relevant to the hyperpolitical Bush team, of which Griffin was an essential part. We have to be realistic about how to get NASA working again, starting with replacing Griffin and his Pentagon/CIA priorities with an administrator who will continue to focus on science, and its traditional benefits to American industry and society.
Or we can just let the Bush plan roll on, and leave NASA as decimated an institution as any of the others Bush groped to death this decade.
Will he? Funny how you extrapolate Obama, a Democrat, from Bush and Nixon, the two most partisan Republicans in history. Despite the records of Kennedy, Johnson, and even financially crippled (by the Nixon/Ford legacy) Carter, and Clinton, too, which show that NASA is a Democratic programme that Republicans lie about and steal from.
I didn't say that Bush was alone. But we can have high expectations of Obama, despite the knowledge (that I'm offering here) that Bush is leaving Obama with a crippled NASA and a devastated budget and economy to fund it from.
That list of myths debunked seems pretty sensible, even in details that run counter to conventional wisdom. But even though the list properly cautions several times against how most any equipment left plugged in will still drain power while doing nothing useful (infinitely bad efficiency), the article still makes an inefficienty mistake:
Over the course of a year, 2 unnecessary watts is 17.532 unnecessary KWh. Sure, that's only about $1.75 at about $0.10:KWh. But that's for each device. At home, in addition to sleeping computers, there's dozens of devices with AC adapters wasting watts most of the day (and night), which is possibly hundreds of dollars wasted. In offices and datacenters, possibly thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars a year wasted. And each KWh means loads of extra Greenhouse CO2 unnecessarily pumped into the sky, even if it's (still) cheap to so recklessly pollute.
Which is what the One Watt Initiative is designed to minimize. The US government has joined the global efficiency organization, mandating purchases of equipment that consumes no more than 1 watt in standby mode. Whatever the global impact of 3W wasted in standby can be cut by 2/3 if switching to 1W.
In the short run, that makes energy bills lower (and, by saving heat from standby devices, further lowers energy costs due to less required cooling). In the long run, we've got more fuel and intact climate left to work with - and that stuff just costs way too much to replace when it runs out.
The time to start putting NASA brains on alternative energy solutions, and studying the causes of global ecosystem decline was in the 1960s.
Good thing we did just that. Fuelcells, solar PV, and pushing mechanical efficiencies to their theoretical limits has been among the best Return on Investment from our NASA budgets ever since the Apollo Program. Global ecology might not even exist without NASA satellites both inspiring the public and gushing data to scientists. Innovation in energy engineering and ecology science has been falling back to Earth for about as long as NASA has been lauching devices off of it.
In fact, the R&D for visiting Mars has lots of "dual use" in delivering "survival tech" here on Earth long before we ever get to Mars. And of course the systems on Mars will need efficiencies and exploitation systems that will work here on Earth, Mars' sister planet. Plus, studying Mars' "parallel evolution" more directly, especially after its climate has evidently catastrophically changed from one more like ours today, is an unequaled opportunity to study what looks like our possible future, without either waiting or having to guess.
These are the main reasons to love space, and NASA's exploration of it. Because Earth is in space, too. What NASA teaches us about space, we learn about ourself. And since NASA primarily teaches us about machines for living in space with extremely limited resources, while we push ours at home to the brink, we need more of exactly what NASA has already given us now more than ever.
Anyone else notice that Bush's term is leaving the US space program without a Space Shuttle or alternative for staffing or servicing the Space Station that we paid more than our share to build, and actually devastating the manned missions to Mars that would keep our lead among our global competitors? Remember when Bush ran for reelection in 2004 promising us a Mars mission, though everyone knew he was "kidding"?
What we'll have left, after Bush's term is done (in which he put Star Wars scientist and CIA venture capitalist Michael Griffin in charge of NASA) is a space program that mainly launches spy satellites and promotes "space supremacy" for the Pentagon and the CIA. Military satellites now used to spy on Americans.
We call them "shooting stars", and wish on them.
This one is a "collision asteroid" because it's good marketing for Star Wars "missile defense" gussied up for more recent Hollywood treatment like _Deep Impact_.
The Kaiser also drove his Germans crazy enough that they went Nazi on us, and got going the other big problem that almost killed everybody.
Maybe the Czar was too "soft" on the Bolsheviks. But it was those kings going so hard on their people for so long that let them think that Communism, or Nazism, with their own new overlords, were the way "out".
I wasn't grammatically clear. The Czarist regime drove the Russians nuts, so nuts that the Russians went Communist, which nearly got us all mutually killed. That had everything to do with the Cold War, which the bloody demise of the Czars, replaced by "Communist" bureaucratic monarchs, inexorably produced.
Has any of these "czars" the US government has been fond of appointing the past decade or so actually accomplished anything except creating more serfs?
Why does the US government have people modeled on the most hated monarchs, who drove Russians so nuts that they went "Communist" on us for 3/4 of a century, and nearly helped us blast the world back to microscopic life?
How about Congress just returns copyright to its Constitutional basis: at most 17 years (a human "generation") of private monopoly on any content, but only when that monopoly will "promote progress in science and the useful arts". That regime doesn't need a czar, it needs a searchable content registry archive and an antitrust watchdog.
In your interactive advertiser dreams.
So what? This "story" on Slashdot's front page doesn't even bother to identify what "jQuery" is. All it does is make a press release pimping jQuery, "now with Microsoft's support!".
Windows was originally released in November 1985, making it 25 years old next month.
I prefer Linux to Windows the way I prefer a car to carrying a mule on my back. But is Linux today as useable an OS as Windows was in 2001 (when NT 4.0 was still its highpoint - possibly still the case)?
Can't someone whose judge was so clearly (and probably provably) corrupt use the courts to sue the judge?
Sounds like a job for some trained starfish.
Instead of spending a lot of energy and wasteful construction techniques building many pillars surrounding islands, maybe we could cultivate coral reefs around them in the right shape. It could take years, but tsunamis don't hit any one island or platform very often.
That is, if this "refractive shield" is any more protective than just the same amount of "armor" in a simple wall around the defended location. Is it?
Moderation -1
100% Overrated
Some "spies" have lame jobs like going around trollModding comments that explain how lame their jobs are.
Let's say your corp is more than 50% likely to go through "e-discovery" once every 10 years. Each worker will generate 10GB * 10 years = 100GB, backing up all the increasing data pile is (pairing the balancing ends of the accumulation for half the accumulation years) 101GB * 5 = 505GB, at $5:GB is $2525, plus about $2M:TB / 505GB = $1.01M, for a total of $1,012,525 per worker, times at least 0.50 probability is at least $506,262 average predictable cost per employee.
One approach is to keep much less data. But when you keep less data, you have to guess right every time what data you'll need later. If your process discards data that's valuable later (but lost) it better be worth less than the amount you save. That's too hard to know, which is one reason companies keep all the data, and figure it out later.
A better approach is just to cut that $1-3M:TB e-discovery cost. Of course, the best way is to avoid being investigated, but one has less than 100% control over that, especially from inside the IT department. A much better way to do it is to better inventory the data stored as you go along accumulating it, in the terms in which a later e-discovery would search it. Which also can have the benefit of making the info in the data more available in the normal course of business, which can make that data's increased value (and lowered costs of searching it) worth the entire process. The cheaper possible e-discovery would be just a bonus.
What really gets me is how these economics are the true cost of storage. A 1TB drive costs $120, and maybe a better 1TB in a 100% redundant RAID costs $250. But it really costs something like $300,000 over its lifetime (probably replaced every 3 or so years, across the 10 years I analyzed). If IT spent a few hundred hours a year streamlining the navigation of all that data, at a cost of a few dozens of thousands of dollars, divided across all those employees, the entire org's IT operations would be much more economical, when the large cumulative risk of e-discovery costs are factored into the true cost.
Ten years is a long time in microelectronics. In 1998, we had Pentium MMX/150MHz, SVGA, 10bT/T1, 10GB-IDE, if we were lucky. And the industry, with its R&D and market driving development, is much bigger now, with more engineers using better tools.
Which of the component techs I mentioned do you think is the main bottleneck? I'd say the batteries to drive it, followed by the radio. If it were wired instead for those, what do you think would be the bottleneck that would take longer than a decade?
There's More Than One Way To Do It.
But most of the existing code published on the Web, especially the basic stuff that they'd be googling for, uses the way(s) I mentioned.
And for security's sake, I always run an explicit absolute pathname. I don't know why I'd run what you just mentioned.
No, start with CPAN.Perl.org , and look at the rest of Perl.org when you need more.
And google for perl fragments (along with (/usr/bin/perl OR /usr/local/bin/perl)) to see what people actually do, and how they do it.
Labor's time is usually better spent producing more than covering its ass with something that doesn't produce anything. When it does work on CYA, it's management.
I expect that the glasses will cost thousands more than their equivalent workstation monitor, but will still have a market among specialists who need them in the field when they first arrive. Which is how these technologies always start.
It will take a few years for a less high-end version to become cheap. By which I mean they'll cost somewhere around $300-700. If they really are styled cool, and do cool stuff with mobile devices, like share synced displays with other people (whether their glasses or their monitors), they'll not cost too much more than just hi-end fashion shades.
Within 10 years, we'll be there. Maybe even 5-7 years, or less. Cheap SVGA imitations, without the wireless, will probably already be used before then by gamers ("heads up display") and some specialists, like technicians who need overlays on their natural viewfield.
Since eyemounted displays have been used successfully for over a couple of decades, I don't think that's a problem.
5% drop and plummeting in 3 days is bad. Especially since the Dow has only grown about 2% from Bush's inauguration through today, over almost 8 years of your Republicans running the show.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac worked fine until they were turned into debt hype by you Republicans.
A 5% drop across the board is huge, especially when it's just the first big step down. But when it comes after no growth for most of a decade, that's a measure that the economy is in tatters.
If you're also going to pretend that this economic collapse isn't even happening, next you'll be telling me that the Federal levees didn't collapse after Katrina. I just know you've got some Republican lie stashed away to keep that one in denial.
Goodbye. Don't come whining to me when your denial doesn't put food on your plate anymore.