I think you mean "That's why we need a moon-based factory". Especially when it comes to refining raw materials . o O { metals } for building, say, spaceships, makes sense to do it all on the moon. Benefits of moon manufacturing include better welds and a lower energy-to-orbit factor.
Re:Drop the Space station, fund this kind of stuff
on
NASA and AI Testing
·
· Score: 1
There is a certain undeniable problem about life on earth - every species is NOT sustainable. Humans are not going to figure out a way to decrease the human population, so eventually we will run out of resources and there will be mass starvation, etc. That is, unless another species wipes us out first - Insects anyone? Long after humans (and other animals) have disappeared from earth, the insects will still thrive.
So, if we want to ensure that the human species, and all the other animal species on earth survive far into the future, it is our RESPONSIBILITY to explore space, and find somewhere else to settle. The space station is but one important part of that space exploration. No other species on earth has the ability to seek out new worlds, and if we as humans don't do it, we are sealing the fate of every living thing on the planet (except for maybe the dominant species, those darned insects). That wouldn't be very responsible, would it?
One can think of that neat story about a guy named Noah and his ark, where he took all the animals of the earth to save them from the flood. We will eventually be flooded by overpopulation, and we'll be in need of an ark.
This may sound like a stupid question, but what if a US citizen was to be logged into a Canadian server while working on code? If the code is always on the canadian server, is it considered "exported" (the data is typed in the US, but is written in Canada)?. What implications does this have, if any?
Unions have served their purpose. We don;t need more unions, we need less of them. They cause more trouble than they're worth. These days, unions are not about fair working conditions, they're about greed, and getting payed more money than you're worth.
It would seem that any large body with a lot at stake (let's use a politician and his/her government as an example) will gamble by saying things that aren't necessarily true (or NOT saying things that are true), in the hopes that the heat will be turned off and things will go back to normal. Some examples from recent history include President Clinton's escapade with Lewinsky, and Premier Clark's [government's] numerous scandals (the ferries, the casino, etc). Until they know there's no turning back, they'll swear that black is white.
Such is the case with Microsoft. While they believed they were still on pretty solid ground they could quietly overlook any shortcomings of their own OS, and form arguments (that may or may not be convincing) to see them coming out on top. They could deny that Linux was a threat because, as far as they were concerned, there was no evidence to support that idea.
A breaking point came where they could no longer deny what was really going on, and unless they were to acknowledge what everybody could see was happening (That Linux does "challenge the industry leader"), they'd look rather silly.
Of course, your guess as to what comes of this is as good as mine. Many Politicians who fib manage to stay (or get back) in office; maybe Microsoft will as well.
But, my vote has been with Linux since kernel 1.2.x, and i'm not changing anytime soon.
It seems pointless to write an article on a topic you don't understand. Unless the point is too say "i'm too ignorant to try and understand". It's people like this that confuse the masses, not the programmers or sysadmins who talk computer jargen. If he's going to take the time to write an article, he should take the time to research his topic. It's easy to understand why he's been trying to understand source code "for 20 years"... i'm trying to figure out how he got a job writing computer columns!
technically, shouldn't inflammable mean "not flammable"? It's the same argument as regardless/irregardless i think. Use whichever. All these english people who get upset because people say irregardless should stop using the word inflammable.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you mean "That's why we need a moon-based factory". Especially when it comes to refining raw materials . o O { metals } for building, say, spaceships, makes sense to do it all on the moon. Benefits of moon manufacturing include better welds and a lower energy-to-orbit factor.
There is a certain undeniable problem about life on earth - every species is NOT sustainable. Humans are not going to figure out a way to decrease the human population, so eventually we will run out of resources and there will be mass starvation, etc. That is, unless another species wipes us out first - Insects anyone? Long after humans (and other animals) have disappeared from earth, the insects will still thrive.
So, if we want to ensure that the human species, and all the other animal species on earth survive far into the future, it is our RESPONSIBILITY to explore space, and find somewhere else to settle. The space station is but one important part of that space exploration. No other species on earth has the ability to seek out new worlds, and if we as humans don't do it, we are sealing the fate of every living thing on the planet (except for maybe the dominant species, those darned insects). That wouldn't be very responsible, would it?
One can think of that neat story about a guy named Noah and his ark, where he took all the animals of the earth to save them from the flood. We will eventually be flooded by overpopulation, and we'll be in need of an ark.
This may sound like a stupid question, but what if a US citizen was to be logged into a Canadian server while working on code? If the code is always on the canadian server, is it considered "exported" (the data is typed in the US, but is written in Canada)?. What implications does this have, if any?
Unions have served their purpose. We don;t need more unions, we need less of them. They cause more trouble than they're worth. These days, unions are not about fair working conditions, they're about greed, and getting payed more money than you're worth.
It would seem that any large body with a lot at stake (let's use a politician and his/her government as an example) will gamble by saying things that aren't necessarily true (or NOT saying things that are true), in the hopes that the heat will be turned off and things will go back to normal. Some examples from recent history include President Clinton's escapade with Lewinsky, and Premier Clark's [government's] numerous scandals (the ferries, the casino, etc). Until they know there's no turning back, they'll swear that black is white.
Such is the case with Microsoft. While they believed they were still on pretty solid ground they could quietly overlook any shortcomings of their own OS, and form arguments (that may or may not be convincing) to see them coming out on top. They could deny that Linux was a threat because, as far as they were concerned, there was no evidence to support that idea.
A breaking point came where they could no longer deny what was really going on, and unless they were to acknowledge what everybody could see was happening (That Linux does "challenge the industry leader"), they'd look rather silly.
Of course, your guess as to what comes of this is as good as mine. Many Politicians who fib manage to stay (or get back) in office; maybe Microsoft will as well.
But, my vote has been with Linux since kernel 1.2.x, and i'm not changing anytime soon.
It seems pointless to write an article on a topic you don't understand. Unless the point is too say "i'm too ignorant to try and understand". It's people like this that confuse the masses, not the programmers or sysadmins who talk computer jargen. If he's going to take the time to write an article, he should take the time to research his topic. It's easy to understand why he's been trying to understand source code "for 20 years"... i'm trying to figure out how he got a job writing computer columns!
technically, shouldn't inflammable mean "not flammable"? It's the same argument as regardless/irregardless i think. Use whichever. All these english people who get upset because people say irregardless should stop using the word inflammable.
:P
Flame away - i am inflammable!