Exactly. Although, I've gotten used to the command scheme, bizarre as it is. The military kills me, though. I try a fortress periodically just to see what's changed, but until I can get my archers to, you know, arch, it just keeps turning into a trap fest. Which, admittedly, is fun enough until the fortress bogs down from the discarded clothing everywhere. *sigh*
Not that I'm complaining, mind. It's a free game, and Toady doesn't owe me anything. I just selfishly hope that someday he finishes the fundamental mechanics.
That page is for planetary systems with more than one planet each. The page you want is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrasolar_planets.
"As of July 6, 2011, 565 extra-solar planets have been identified."
I'm sorry, Ida is not a planet. Having something orbit you is not a function of how much gravity you have, but the difference in mass between you and the moon.
With that said, I've always referred to the dwarf planets as planets. I mean, it's right there in the name! You wouldn't say that "terrestrial planets" aren't planets, after all. That means admitting that there are at least 12 planets in the solar system, though, so either way the textbooks have to change.
I'd like to see more out of Europe, but some nations are actually doing this. China's first space station was just shipped to the launch site, for example, and the Daily Show has an excellent take on India's aspirations. There's something to be said for a space presence as a status symbol (which is why Iran likes to fire off SCUDs and call them indigenous), and I think once the economic torch is passed from them their successors will go to space as well. It even makes for some strange partners, e.g. Ukraine and Brazil.
Look up the fallacy of equivocation sometime. A tomato is both a fruit and a vegetable, depending on the context. Your problem is that you realize you have to qualify the "scientific definition", but don't consider that the court may be using the culinary definition. Which makes sense, since from a scientific perspective you'd be crazy not to call all fruits vegetables. Quoth Wikipedia:
As an adjective, the word vegetable is used in scientific and technical contexts with a different and much broader meaning, namely of "related to plants" in general, edible or not — as in vegetable matter, vegetable kingdom, vegetable origin, etc.
He's not saying that government involvement is per se bad, or that private companies can do everything. He's saying that there is no government leadership who can do any of those things right now, and the current legislation coming out of congress is in fact harmful. In the face of that, privatization is the best we can do.
I think all of us would rather have a real, achievable, budgeted program for NASA as well. As it is, we'll have to leave the real exploration to the Chinese (and God bless them for it).
They used the last fuel tank on STS134, so no go on that (though they could build more). They will be using the 9 RS-25 main engines on the replacement vehicle, according to the current plan, but they will be destroyed in those flights. They could use the SRB segments again, but enough work went into upgrades for Ares1 that I suspect they will use the new ones for what comes next. Miles O'Brien had the CEO ULA on his show today, and she commented that although they proposed a plan to run the shuttle commercially, and it would have been viable, there is not the political will to allow it. So they moved on to other plans, and without them there is no way the shuttle could ever fly again - there's just too much equipment that's been dismantled.
Honestly, I don't think that's a bad thing. The Shuttle was a great machine, and taught us a lot about how to do things efficiently (often by not being efficient itself). Failing to take those lessons and move on to implement them would be a real tragedy... which is why Congress's decisions lately are so painful. But there are a lot of folks who did learn, and I think the Shuttle's legacy will be tremendous.
Well said. It's worth noting that in terms of capability, the shuttle was a huge success. It's just that you had to take all of that capability on every flight, whether you needed it or not, so the economics didn't work. The next generation is quite promising for solving that, and with out losing much capability.
If we manage to get: - One of: Crewed Dragon, Dreamchaser, CST-100, or New Shepherd - ISS and Bigelow stations - Either SLS or Falcon Heavy
Then we have essentially all the capabilities of the Shuttle except for large volume downmass. Add Orion/MPCV (or an upgrade to one of the other crew vehicles) and we'll have a significantly farther reach. If they can just get it done in such a way that Congress can't kill it, this could be a new age, and that the lessons that make it possible were learned from the Shuttle is possibly the best legacy it can have.
The next window is the 16th if the Delta 4 launch gets off on time, not that that helps you. I don't know how long you're there, but the Delta launch is scheduled for the 14th at 2:49-3:08 a.m., which would be better than nothing.
this prevents them from suing because of these names
Lindows? I'll grant that it prevents them from suing successfully, but they are more than happy to throw money around to inconvenience the competition.
I have 2 commonly used email accounts. One of them has my name abbreviated in the email address, and has my full name and gender listed. The other takes my handle for the address, and has random data for everything else. They won't be making anything public that wasn't already.
There's nothing wrong with forking it, the question is whether it's still the same thing after you do. Nobody is claiming that X.Org is the same as Xfree86, even though they are clearly related. Likewise OpenOffice.org and LibreOffice. Has the Android kernel deviated enough that it should no longer be called Linux? I think probably.
It's not just that the contracts are fixed price, but also that they don't cover the entire development cost. The companies in question are investing their own money in the belief that there will be a market for these thing once they're developed (of which NASA is only part), and NASA is providing some grant money in the belief that some of these companies will succeed in producing options that will be useful to them.
Unlike the old model, the contractors (who I'd rather call grant recipients) retain a large amount of risk, to the point where one of them went out of business because they couldn't meet the milestones under which NASA would pay out. It really is a novel way of doing things, although it's only a small percentage of what NASA spends. Hopefully these projects will be successful so that they can do more things this way, but it's really only appropriate for situations where the tech is well understood. The bleeding edge stuff will still have to be done the old way, since there aren't contractors out there willing to take those risks.
International joint ventures, particularly between governments, is a foolish and expensive thing unless the point is explicitly to improve diplomatic relations.
Expensive I'll grant. Foolish depends on what you're attempting to accomplish. One of the causes attributed to the success of the ISS is that the international agreements made it too difficult for Congress to pull the funding in the next budget cycle. So if your purpose is to get a solid commitment to something, involving international partners may be worth the cost.
Who said anything about a rocket? The CRS awards in this round were all for crew vehicles, and Boeing is predicting that they'll have theirs ready by 2015. Given that it's being developed in concert with Bigelow, who is quite interested in keeping costs down, it's likely to be cost competitive.
Look, I don't even like the CST-100, since it doesn't really push any boundaries (that's how they're keeping costs down). It still looks like a perfectly reasonable vehicle for NASA to support.
Slashdot Mirror
Not that I'm complaining, mind. It's a free game, and Toady doesn't owe me anything. I just selfishly hope that someday he finishes the fundamental mechanics.
Don't be ridiculous. That's like saying that Boy Scout camp is to burn the scouts... oh. I see. Carry on, then.
Yeah, and no one buys Oracle either. If only the world worked that way.
I think we're already doing pretty well on that count, thank you very much.
That page is for planetary systems with more than one planet each. The page you want is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrasolar_planets. "As of July 6, 2011, 565 extra-solar planets have been identified."
With that said, I've always referred to the dwarf planets as planets. I mean, it's right there in the name! You wouldn't say that "terrestrial planets" aren't planets, after all. That means admitting that there are at least 12 planets in the solar system, though, so either way the textbooks have to change.
I'd like to see more out of Europe, but some nations are actually doing this. China's first space station was just shipped to the launch site, for example, and the Daily Show has an excellent take on India's aspirations. There's something to be said for a space presence as a status symbol (which is why Iran likes to fire off SCUDs and call them indigenous), and I think once the economic torch is passed from them their successors will go to space as well. It even makes for some strange partners, e.g. Ukraine and Brazil.
As an adjective, the word vegetable is used in scientific and technical contexts with a different and much broader meaning, namely of "related to plants" in general, edible or not — as in vegetable matter, vegetable kingdom, vegetable origin, etc.
So, again... what is the likelihood an expert witness would claim a fire was arson at a trial?
50/50 - depending on whether he's been hired by the prosecution or the defense.
The only Tetris movie we need is The Complete History of the Soviet Union, Through the Eyes of a Humble Worker
He's not saying that government involvement is per se bad, or that private companies can do everything. He's saying that there is no government leadership who can do any of those things right now, and the current legislation coming out of congress is in fact harmful. In the face of that, privatization is the best we can do.
I think all of us would rather have a real, achievable, budgeted program for NASA as well. As it is, we'll have to leave the real exploration to the Chinese (and God bless them for it).
They used the last fuel tank on STS134, so no go on that (though they could build more). They will be using the 9 RS-25 main engines on the replacement vehicle, according to the current plan, but they will be destroyed in those flights. They could use the SRB segments again, but enough work went into upgrades for Ares1 that I suspect they will use the new ones for what comes next. Miles O'Brien had the CEO ULA on his show today, and she commented that although they proposed a plan to run the shuttle commercially, and it would have been viable, there is not the political will to allow it. So they moved on to other plans, and without them there is no way the shuttle could ever fly again - there's just too much equipment that's been dismantled.
Honestly, I don't think that's a bad thing. The Shuttle was a great machine, and taught us a lot about how to do things efficiently (often by not being efficient itself). Failing to take those lessons and move on to implement them would be a real tragedy... which is why Congress's decisions lately are so painful. But there are a lot of folks who did learn, and I think the Shuttle's legacy will be tremendous.
Indeed, and best of luck to you (and everyone involved). :)
The weather went green for a bit, so there is at least a chance!
Well said. It's worth noting that in terms of capability, the shuttle was a huge success. It's just that you had to take all of that capability on every flight, whether you needed it or not, so the economics didn't work. The next generation is quite promising for solving that, and with out losing much capability.
If we manage to get:
- One of: Crewed Dragon, Dreamchaser, CST-100, or New Shepherd
- ISS and Bigelow stations
- Either SLS or Falcon Heavy
Then we have essentially all the capabilities of the Shuttle except for large volume downmass. Add Orion/MPCV (or an upgrade to one of the other crew vehicles) and we'll have a significantly farther reach. If they can just get it done in such a way that Congress can't kill it, this could be a new age, and that the lessons that make it possible were learned from the Shuttle is possibly the best legacy it can have.
The next window is the 16th if the Delta 4 launch gets off on time, not that that helps you. I don't know how long you're there, but the Delta launch is scheduled for the 14th at 2:49-3:08 a.m., which would be better than nothing.
this prevents them from suing because of these names
Lindows? I'll grant that it prevents them from suing successfully, but they are more than happy to throw money around to inconvenience the competition.
How sad is it that I see this huge advancement and think, "Boy, that sounds expensive." *sigh* Such is life in modern America.
I have 2 commonly used email accounts. One of them has my name abbreviated in the email address, and has my full name and gender listed. The other takes my handle for the address, and has random data for everything else. They won't be making anything public that wasn't already.
ob: It's computers all the way down!
There's nothing wrong with forking it, the question is whether it's still the same thing after you do. Nobody is claiming that X.Org is the same as Xfree86, even though they are clearly related. Likewise OpenOffice.org and LibreOffice. Has the Android kernel deviated enough that it should no longer be called Linux? I think probably.
Otherwise it has to be able to keep up with the sun...
I feel like they could get some military funding for this thing by saying that they want to upgrade it to "outrun the terminator."
It's not just that the contracts are fixed price, but also that they don't cover the entire development cost. The companies in question are investing their own money in the belief that there will be a market for these thing once they're developed (of which NASA is only part), and NASA is providing some grant money in the belief that some of these companies will succeed in producing options that will be useful to them.
Unlike the old model, the contractors (who I'd rather call grant recipients) retain a large amount of risk, to the point where one of them went out of business because they couldn't meet the milestones under which NASA would pay out. It really is a novel way of doing things, although it's only a small percentage of what NASA spends. Hopefully these projects will be successful so that they can do more things this way, but it's really only appropriate for situations where the tech is well understood. The bleeding edge stuff will still have to be done the old way, since there aren't contractors out there willing to take those risks.
International joint ventures, particularly between governments, is a foolish and expensive thing unless the point is explicitly to improve diplomatic relations.
Expensive I'll grant. Foolish depends on what you're attempting to accomplish. One of the causes attributed to the success of the ISS is that the international agreements made it too difficult for Congress to pull the funding in the next budget cycle. So if your purpose is to get a solid commitment to something, involving international partners may be worth the cost.
Who said anything about a rocket? The CRS awards in this round were all for crew vehicles, and Boeing is predicting that they'll have theirs ready by 2015. Given that it's being developed in concert with Bigelow, who is quite interested in keeping costs down, it's likely to be cost competitive.
Look, I don't even like the CST-100, since it doesn't really push any boundaries (that's how they're keeping costs down). It still looks like a perfectly reasonable vehicle for NASA to support.
Now, see, here's what's wrong with /.'s comment system. Something like this shouldn't get buried at the bottom.