As a Germany living in the US who has seen both sides, let me put some things into perspective here:
Your reference "capable of running Windows" is complete irrelevant. Are you trying to whip up some anti-MS mob here on Slachdot?
Yes, takes are a money grab on people who mind their own business. In the US (I live in North Carolina), I pay property tax; think about how you would justify that?
Yes, these taxes are discouraging economic growth. And yes again, there are higher taxes in Germany than in many other places.
But: the German government takes the stand that certain right need to be provided to the people. (Slightly simiplifying) Free access to education, health care, information, news, etc are part of that. It's a bunch of non-economic goals, but at large, the people share them in principle.
And as far as my personal preference goes: I think Germany is better off for having ARD or ZDF as their main news providers, as opposed the the "fair and balanced" Fox news here in the US.
For one, Shuttle PCs are still a fair amount bigger than this; and not as pretty either. I've actually been looking around for something like the Mac Mini, but PC based, for a good while. Admittedly, I haven't been looking all that hard. Care to point out a complete system (except for monitor, mouse, keyboard), that's PC based and the size, power and price of a Mac Mini?
Makes you wonder about the guys at Science...
on
Martian Sea Discovered
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
It wasn't too long ago that the guys from the Science magazine compiled their list of the 10 most important breakthroughs of 2004. Ranked 1 were the Mars rovers. For all I remember, Mars Express delivered probably at least as many new insights, if not more, but it was notably missing in that list. Why's that? Just because it doesn't have wheels to drive around, or is it the lack of an american flag on its side? Or what exactly is it that puts the rovers into a league of their own?
It does not prevent buffer overflows, it just makes it harder to exploit them, because things that one might manage to write past the allocated buffer will not be readily executable.
Skip all of the cultural and boundary-pushing arguments, and just go show me a robot used full-time on Earth to walk around and do science.
We don't use robots for biology, geology, or archeology, save for when they're absolutely necessary (such as, going to see if it's safe for humans.)
Biology, geology and archeology are done on earth, where it's very cheap to "maintain" humans. Space is no such place. That was one important point that the GP tried to make. You didn't even address that.
There's another flaw to your arguments though: it's not important for a robot to be able to do everything a human can do. When you're in orbit, what does it matter if you can walk around?
To maybe help you get acquainted with this perspective, think about this one: Even today, computers are still somewhat weak about certain aspects of the chess game; strategy being on thing, AFAIK. But they excel in other areas, like patience and tactics. The net result is that their strenghts at least make up for their weeknesses, and the number of humans able to compete with them dwindles. Soon there may be no human left capable of that, even though computers might still be somewhat lacking in certain areas. But it just won't matter.
With all this focus on keeping obsolete technology (shuttle) running, and preserving almost ancient technology (saturn), one is led to wonder if they really are as forward looking as they should be.
Admittedly, preserving the Saturn is worthwhile, but how about you keep the general public excited about space by doing something new, instead of putting the past into prettier showcases?
"have had a direct and perceptible impact on our everyday lives, and/or could dramatically affect our lives in the future..."
Ok, I have to call bullshit here. The space shuttle does not have much of an impact on our lives. Other than being a drain of tax money, of course.
It's old and obsolete technology, so it won't have much of an effect on our future either. These days, it doesn't inspire anyone anymore either. I can get excited about SpaceShip one, but about the next shuttle mission? Give me a break!
NASA should not do anyhting of the sort here. For one, who is to say they won't overpay for something? I mean even if they offered a prize somewere more reasonable like around 10 million dollars, what if the first company to "make it work" could do it for 3 million. That means nasa has just waisted 7 million dollars that could have went to another project.
For one, give NASA a little more credit. I'd think they're smart enough to put out prizes such that they're stand to gain if it gets collected. As for your example: Is there really a lot that NASA gets accomplished for $10M these days?
Also, if the prize isn't large enough, some of the major players capable of making things happen might stay away form competing because of not having enough money to compete or because the return on investment is too low.
Now ask yourself, If you was the CEO of a large publicaly traded company, how many times would your investor/board of directors let you compete in good faith When after spending X amount of money to acomplish goals X and Z, your bigest competitor beats you to the punch and your out X amount of dollars and little hope of recycleing the research that went into it.
While this is a worthwhile consideration, also look at it from the bright side: The Russians would be able to deliver on a fair number of things, and do so cheaper than their US competition. If you let them in, NASA might get some things on the cheap, and the Russians are happy too. Of course, in some circles, this would not appear to be politically correct...
[...] With NASA the moneys are colected from taxes and sometimes comercial missions, you need to justify what is being spent if you expect to get it and you have to qualify/spend the budget in order to get it again the next year.
Again, NASA is actually much better off this way: They make the rules, they decide on the prize. It's not like they'd run competitions for random junk. This is a way to control cost, and push the financial risk to the other side.
Eventualy this will echo with claims of a $200 toilet seat or a $1200 step ladder and every new congressman trying to get re-elected will jump on the waist in an attemp to "clean up washington" so they can get re-elected. I don't think we want NASA to become a political venture so congressmen make a name for themselves. NOBODY really likes paying taxes and would soon see this as a reason to cut NASA's funding. They would have a fit when some bitter company that was competing started telling the newspapers they could build a simular product for millions less in an effort to get congress to award them a contract.
If said bitter company can do it for less, let them do it, have them collect the prize, and make a nice profit along they way. If they don't do it, one would reason that apparently, they were not able to pull it off...
If NASA way of doing buisiness nedds reform, this is definatly not the way to do it. And anyone that thinks this is a way for the little guy to get thier foot into the door should reconsider the situation. IT favors the large guy with tons of money and a research base alrwady in existance form ealier contracts.
I agree that this is not aimed at the little guy. It is still for mid-size or large corporations. But it keeps the cost in check, inspires competition, which is usually a good thing, and if nothing else, it might stir up some new ideas and new thinking.
Having that said, this is not for every project. If there's something you absolutely need, this scheme won't assure you that anyone will go for it and/or succeed. But for those "Get us this and that type of data from Deimos" or "Land on an asteroid and move around on it some" missions that are not absolute necessities, NASA has nothing to lose, but a lot to gain.
You need to take the blinders off for a second here: The Americans are far worse offenders than the Chinese. Just compare the per capita consumption of fossil fuel and you'll very quickly reach the same conclusion. Now, I'm not going to point out some of the other finer points of the Kyoto treaty, as others have done already. But here's something else to think about:
Many countries, and China and India the biggest among them, become more and more industrialized, and thereby drive the global demand for fuel up. At the same time, it is expected that very soon, the amount of oil reserves known and not-yet-exploited on earth will decline; oil is used more quickly than new is found. Put those two together, and you'll see rising gas prices. Add to that a possible further decline of the dollar, in particular due to the debt that's running out of bounds, and Americans might find themselves paying a lot more at the pump in the forseeable future. And now think about redneck country, and suburbias everywhere: will the US be able to let go of the car as a primary means for transportation easily? No. Will most other countries have an easier time? Probably.
At that time, Americans will be in pain. Sure, some George Bush III might start a few new wars over oil, but when people read comments in their history books about past presidents claiming they'd not sign a treaty like Kyoto if only a single American job was put in jeopardy, they'll realize what morons where running their contry.
To quote from your first link: Reconstruction is often thought of as harsh, but compared to the standards of history Confederates were by and large treated well after the Civil War. I also think of the reconciliation as a restoration of federal law, and not as an oppression. Sure, illegal, and often racist tendencies were oppressed; I don't have a problem with that Do you? When this period ended in the 1870s, racism got the upper hand again in the South. Great.
Don't switch subjects: You claimed that the Soviets were scared to invade the US in the 1990s; providing a link on why the Japanese didn't want to do this in the 1940s does not support that claim.
Yeah, and other people fail to understand that certain simple truths don't change even when time does.
The earth is a plane and all that, right? It's always a good idea to use your own brain instead of sheepishly following some old writings.
1) For example in mid 1800's after the civil war, many people wanted to continue a military occpation of the south, but decided it was unfeasable and impossible because of widespread private gun ownership.
First of all, make that late 1800s. Also: what occupation are you talking about? If you talk say continue, the south apparently was occupied after the war?
2) In the 1980's the USSR had extreme difficulties considering any military strategy against the United States, because they had absolutely no idea about how to deal with over 100 million private gun owners.
Why would they bother to keep 100 million private gun owners down? If the soviets would have won an (obviously nuclear) war against the US, the major cities would have been nuked, and the rest could have been left to rot.
Seriously: do you have any references for those odd claims that you're making here, or are you just pulling them out of thin air?
Re:Gun rights primer
on
Internet Hunting
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Yeah, unfortunately, most people fail to understand that the constitution and its amendments was written with the late 1700s in mind. Need examples:
It has no sane rules to elect the president. Something like the electorial college made sense 200 years ago, but not now!
It permitted slavery. Later on, it get "re-interpreted". Duh, what does that tell you!?
With no proper institutions to safe you from the evil empire (the UK) or evil neighbors, handguns made sense. Things have changed...
...
So, looking at the constitution as a source of truth and wisdom is, frankly, bullshit.
Apart from that: What sportsmanship (or honor) is there if a disabled person shoots animals like this? It's pathetic, and people engaging in this sort of activity for fun are just disgusting bastards.
Given the US's perfect 5 and 0 record against European adversaries (Revolution, War of 1812, Spanish-American War, WWI and WWII), and the fact that European cultures would likely have to fight in the same kind of culturally sensitive way that the US does (and our recent adversaries have not -- eg using human shields, not wearing uniforms, crashing civilian planes into sky-scrapers, etc.), I think a US v. Europe conflict would be over very quickly.
In 1812, what harm did you do to the UK? You made inroads into what would later come Canada how far? 500 meters? That would be ~1600 feet for you, in case you care. Did the Buckingham palace get destroyed, or was that your capitol? And you certainly remember that the White House became white to cover-up the fire damage it took in that war.
As others have pointed out, in the European theater, the US military was not a major factor either in WWI or WWII. You joined in when Germany was already collapsing. Big deal.
The US hegemony will crumble over time, for one very simple reason: too many people in the US are as arrogant, ignorant and self-righteous as you. Your military may be almost invincible. But:
What about your dependence on oil... the demand will increase considerably over time, but production isn't likely to keep up. Where does that leave your pretty suburbias?
What about your dependence on foreign imports? The US imports more than it exports, and has done so for a long time. Consequently, the dollar keeps falling on the long run. If you're hurting now when going abroad, try again in 20 years!
Your bright president, the same guy who announced just a few years ago that the public deficit would be gone by the end of the decade, is racking up new dept at an astonishing rate. Once interest rates rise again, this will hurt you seriously. Needless to say, the money spent in Iraq does not benefit the US at all.
Feel free to pull your head out of your ass and add to this list yourself as you see fit...
The US fill fall, and it won't be for military weakness, but because others will surpass you economically. It may be China, India, a truly united Europe, or someone else. And at the rate the US is making friends today, nobody will shed a tear for you when that time comes.
Sorry, but I can't resist. This is just a very funny example of how bad spelling shoots yourself in the foot sometimes. It's enemies', not just enemies. The way you wrote it turns the whole meaning upside down.
Actually, I disagree. It says that the less sick person is more worthy of treatment. Is this a triage situation where 1000 people are injured, but there are only 10 ER slots available in the next hour? No, not exactly. What you would end up saying is that the less sick you are the more likely you will get treatment. Think of how efficient ERs would be (ever had to sit for a few hours in the ER waiting room to wait to get stitches or a broken bone, when it's full of a bunch of people with colds, flu, etc., and everybody is glaring at the empty ER bed being kept open for trauma patients?)
What I was getting at is that the system is based on a certain notion of fairness, if you will. Other priorities are conceivable. To the best of my knowledge, the matching does not try to maximize the number of survivors, which could be seen as a more worthwhile goal by some.
Before everyone cries foul play here...
on
Todd Need[ed] a Liver
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
A lot of concerns have been raised on the legal and moral issues of this case, rightfully so, as I think, and many people believe that the high moral path would be to not allow anyone to bypass the national list. And that's a good point. But...
But what if people do not agree with the way this list is handled? There can be very valid reasons, to disagree. Think about priorities. Everything else equal...
Should a sicker person have a higher priority? sounds good, but it also implies that healthier patients would have to wait till their healt deteriorates "enough", which somewhat perverts the whole thing.
Should people who are themselves registered as donors receive a higher priority as recipients? Seems only fair, or not? What if their religion does not allow it? And how do you avoid abuse?
I'm living in the US on a work visa right now, and am a potential donor (per driver license entry). Yet, on the other hand, there is a law that states that only something like 5% of organ donations can go to aliens. I, for one, don't think that's fair in my case.
...
Organ donations are a complex matter. Whatever the details, I believe that every patient has the right to come up with creative ideas to fight for his/her survival, and also that each donor has the right to decide what should be done with his/her organs; who else could have a higher right?
To see that suburbia is not a god-given evil, look at Europe. People live more "packed" there, yet it doesn't feel like Tokyo...
I used to live in Muenster, Germany, a city of 300k, and had no problem getting from day to day just by bike. There was also viable public transport, of course. And it's nice city too. I enjoyed living there a lot.
Now I live in Durham, NC, USA, a city of 200k, and you can't get anywhere by bike (no bike lanes), the public transport is not really an option, and I have to drive around by car. No choice.
Suburbia and the dependence on cars in urban area are a choice a society makes. It's not a law of nature.
Re:Not a stretch, the Proton is made for this
on
Soyuz To The Moon?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
It wouldn't be free, but it would certainly be cheaper then developing a new heavy lift rocket or buying Titan IVB, the only other rocket in use with equivalent throw.
The Ariane 5 can easily compete with a Titan 4B in terms of throw, as you put it...
Slashdot Mirror
The US was screwing with Iran as early as the 52/53, and it is quite well documented that oil was the main motivation behind it.
Or are you suggesting that Iran threatened to nuke Israel in the early 50s? No? Didn't think so.
Amen
As a Germany living in the US who has seen both sides, let me put some things into perspective here:
Your reference "capable of running Windows" is complete irrelevant. Are you trying to whip up some anti-MS mob here on Slachdot?
Yes, takes are a money grab on people who mind their own business. In the US (I live in North Carolina), I pay property tax; think about how you would justify that?
Yes, these taxes are discouraging economic growth. And yes again, there are higher taxes in Germany than in many other places.
But: the German government takes the stand that certain right need to be provided to the people. (Slightly simiplifying) Free access to education, health care, information, news, etc are part of that. It's a bunch of non-economic goals, but at large, the people share them in principle.
And as far as my personal preference goes: I think Germany is better off for having ARD or ZDF as their main news providers, as opposed the the "fair and balanced" Fox news here in the US.
Those numbers are more than half a year old; and I'd bet they're far from accurate now.
"Why, I'd like the cheeseburger, Sir! That makes me unique."
'nuff said...
RTFA, he's running Linux on it. Duh.
For one, Shuttle PCs are still a fair amount bigger than this; and not as pretty either. I've actually been looking around for something like the Mac Mini, but PC based, for a good while. Admittedly, I haven't been looking all that hard. Care to point out a complete system (except for monitor, mouse, keyboard), that's PC based and the size, power and price of a Mac Mini?
It wasn't too long ago that the guys from the Science magazine compiled their list of the 10 most important breakthroughs of 2004. Ranked 1 were the Mars rovers. For all I remember, Mars Express delivered probably at least as many new insights, if not more, but it was notably missing in that list. Why's that? Just because it doesn't have wheels to drive around, or is it the lack of an american flag on its side? Or what exactly is it that puts the rovers into a league of their own?
It does not prevent buffer overflows, it just makes it harder to exploit them, because things that one might manage to write past the allocated buffer will not be readily executable.
We don't use robots for biology, geology, or archeology, save for when they're absolutely necessary (such as, going to see if it's safe for humans.)
Biology, geology and archeology are done on earth, where it's very cheap to "maintain" humans. Space is no such place. That was one important point that the GP tried to make. You didn't even address that.
There's another flaw to your arguments though: it's not important for a robot to be able to do everything a human can do. When you're in orbit, what does it matter if you can walk around?
To maybe help you get acquainted with this perspective, think about this one: Even today, computers are still somewhat weak about certain aspects of the chess game; strategy being on thing, AFAIK. But they excel in other areas, like patience and tactics. The net result is that their strenghts at least make up for their weeknesses, and the number of humans able to compete with them dwindles. Soon there may be no human left capable of that, even though computers might still be somewhat lacking in certain areas. But it just won't matter.
Admittedly, preserving the Saturn is worthwhile, but how about you keep the general public excited about space by doing something new, instead of putting the past into prettier showcases?
Ok, I have to call bullshit here. The space shuttle does not have much of an impact on our lives. Other than being a drain of tax money, of course.
It's old and obsolete technology, so it won't have much of an effect on our future either. These days, it doesn't inspire anyone anymore either. I can get excited about SpaceShip one, but about the next shuttle mission? Give me a break!
Think of it: rent-a-wife / get-a-hooker is one of the oldest businesses out there. A heck of a lot older than car sharing!
For one, give NASA a little more credit. I'd think they're smart enough to put out prizes such that they're stand to gain if it gets collected. As for your example: Is there really a lot that NASA gets accomplished for $10M these days?
Also, if the prize isn't large enough, some of the major players capable of making things happen might stay away form competing because of not having enough money to compete or because the return on investment is too low. Now ask yourself, If you was the CEO of a large publicaly traded company, how many times would your investor/board of directors let you compete in good faith When after spending X amount of money to acomplish goals X and Z, your bigest competitor beats you to the punch and your out X amount of dollars and little hope of recycleing the research that went into it.
While this is a worthwhile consideration, also look at it from the bright side: The Russians would be able to deliver on a fair number of things, and do so cheaper than their US competition. If you let them in, NASA might get some things on the cheap, and the Russians are happy too. Of course, in some circles, this would not appear to be politically correct...
[...] With NASA the moneys are colected from taxes and sometimes comercial missions, you need to justify what is being spent if you expect to get it and you have to qualify/spend the budget in order to get it again the next year.
Again, NASA is actually much better off this way: They make the rules, they decide on the prize. It's not like they'd run competitions for random junk. This is a way to control cost, and push the financial risk to the other side.
Eventualy this will echo with claims of a $200 toilet seat or a $1200 step ladder and every new congressman trying to get re-elected will jump on the waist in an attemp to "clean up washington" so they can get re-elected. I don't think we want NASA to become a political venture so congressmen make a name for themselves. NOBODY really likes paying taxes and would soon see this as a reason to cut NASA's funding. They would have a fit when some bitter company that was competing started telling the newspapers they could build a simular product for millions less in an effort to get congress to award them a contract.
If said bitter company can do it for less, let them do it, have them collect the prize, and make a nice profit along they way. If they don't do it, one would reason that apparently, they were not able to pull it off...
If NASA way of doing buisiness nedds reform, this is definatly not the way to do it. And anyone that thinks this is a way for the little guy to get thier foot into the door should reconsider the situation. IT favors the large guy with tons of money and a research base alrwady in existance form ealier contracts. I agree that this is not aimed at the little guy. It is still for mid-size or large corporations. But it keeps the cost in check, inspires competition, which is usually a good thing, and if nothing else, it might stir up some new ideas and new thinking.
Having that said, this is not for every project. If there's something you absolutely need, this scheme won't assure you that anyone will go for it and/or succeed. But for those "Get us this and that type of data from Deimos" or "Land on an asteroid and move around on it some" missions that are not absolute necessities, NASA has nothing to lose, but a lot to gain.
You need to take the blinders off for a second here: The Americans are far worse offenders than the Chinese. Just compare the per capita consumption of fossil fuel and you'll very quickly reach the same conclusion. Now, I'm not going to point out some of the other finer points of the Kyoto treaty, as others have done already. But here's something else to think about:
Many countries, and China and India the biggest among them, become more and more industrialized, and thereby drive the global demand for fuel up. At the same time, it is expected that very soon, the amount of oil reserves known and not-yet-exploited on earth will decline; oil is used more quickly than new is found. Put those two together, and you'll see rising gas prices. Add to that a possible further decline of the dollar, in particular due to the debt that's running out of bounds, and Americans might find themselves paying a lot more at the pump in the forseeable future. And now think about redneck country, and suburbias everywhere: will the US be able to let go of the car as a primary means for transportation easily? No. Will most other countries have an easier time? Probably.
At that time, Americans will be in pain. Sure, some George Bush III might start a few new wars over oil, but when people read comments in their history books about past presidents claiming they'd not sign a treaty like Kyoto if only a single American job was put in jeopardy, they'll realize what morons where running their contry.
Don't switch subjects: You claimed that the Soviets were scared to invade the US in the 1990s; providing a link on why the Japanese didn't want to do this in the 1940s does not support that claim.
Yeah, and other people fail to understand that certain simple truths don't change even when time does.
The earth is a plane and all that, right? It's always a good idea to use your own brain instead of sheepishly following some old writings.
1) For example in mid 1800's after the civil war, many people wanted to continue a military occpation of the south, but decided it was unfeasable and impossible because of widespread private gun ownership.
First of all, make that late 1800s. Also: what occupation are you talking about? If you talk say continue, the south apparently was occupied after the war?
2) In the 1980's the USSR had extreme difficulties considering any military strategy against the United States, because they had absolutely no idea about how to deal with over 100 million private gun owners.
Why would they bother to keep 100 million private gun owners down? If the soviets would have won an (obviously nuclear) war against the US, the major cities would have been nuked, and the rest could have been left to rot.
Seriously: do you have any references for those odd claims that you're making here, or are you just pulling them out of thin air?
- It has no sane rules to elect the president. Something like the electorial college made sense 200 years ago, but not now!
- It permitted slavery. Later on, it get "re-interpreted". Duh, what does that tell you!?
- With no proper institutions to safe you from the evil empire (the UK) or evil neighbors, handguns made sense. Things have changed...
- ...
So, looking at the constitution as a source of truth and wisdom is, frankly, bullshit.Apart from that: What sportsmanship (or honor) is there if a disabled person shoots animals like this? It's pathetic, and people engaging in this sort of activity for fun are just disgusting bastards.
In 1812, what harm did you do to the UK? You made inroads into what would later come Canada how far? 500 meters? That would be ~1600 feet for you, in case you care. Did the Buckingham palace get destroyed, or was that your capitol? And you certainly remember that the White House became white to cover-up the fire damage it took in that war.
As others have pointed out, in the European theater, the US military was not a major factor either in WWI or WWII. You joined in when Germany was already collapsing. Big deal.
The US hegemony will crumble over time, for one very simple reason: too many people in the US are as arrogant, ignorant and self-righteous as you. Your military may be almost invincible. But:
- What about your dependence on oil... the demand will increase considerably over time, but production isn't likely to keep up. Where does that leave your pretty suburbias?
- What about your dependence on foreign imports? The US imports more than it exports, and has done so for a long time. Consequently, the dollar keeps falling on the long run. If you're hurting now when going abroad, try again in 20 years!
- Your bright president, the same guy who announced just a few years ago that the public deficit would be gone by the end of the decade, is racking up new dept at an astonishing rate. Once interest rates rise again, this will hurt you seriously. Needless to say, the money spent in Iraq does not benefit the US at all.
- Feel free to pull your head out of your ass and add to this list yourself as you see fit...
The US fill fall, and it won't be for military weakness, but because others will surpass you economically. It may be China, India, a truly united Europe, or someone else. And at the rate the US is making friends today, nobody will shed a tear for you when that time comes.Sorry, but I can't resist. This is just a very funny example of how bad spelling shoots yourself in the foot sometimes. It's enemies', not just enemies. The way you wrote it turns the whole meaning upside down.
What I was getting at is that the system is based on a certain notion of fairness, if you will. Other priorities are conceivable. To the best of my knowledge, the matching does not try to maximize the number of survivors, which could be seen as a more worthwhile goal by some.
But what if people do not agree with the way this list is handled? There can be very valid reasons, to disagree. Think about priorities. Everything else equal...
Organ donations are a complex matter. Whatever the details, I believe that every patient has the right to come up with creative ideas to fight for his/her survival, and also that each donor has the right to decide what should be done with his/her organs; who else could have a higher right?
I used to live in Muenster, Germany, a city of 300k, and had no problem getting from day to day just by bike. There was also viable public transport, of course. And it's nice city too. I enjoyed living there a lot.
Now I live in Durham, NC, USA, a city of 200k, and you can't get anywhere by bike (no bike lanes), the public transport is not really an option, and I have to drive around by car. No choice.
Suburbia and the dependence on cars in urban area are a choice a society makes. It's not a law of nature.
The Ariane 5 can easily compete with a Titan 4B in terms of throw, as you put it...
If you're torn, remember that the C=64 came with Basic from *gasp* Microsoft! What? You feel a bit less torn now that you remember? Thought so!