This is just another example of how difficult it is to do pure science in a society that for the most part only appreciates the short term gains of applied research or the 'glamour' of scientific publicity stunts.
While I agree that we should definately spend our money wisely, it seems kind of odd that we are allowing a 'one of a kind' observational device (there is no other device available to continue observations in this portion of the EM spectrum) to be put out of service simply because of financial considerations. I guess that just shows how tight things are getting in terms of funding.
The even more frightful question is what will be de-commissioned next. If this program was cut based on a 1 million $ / year funding basis, I'm certain there are other projects that must be close to being as 'uneconomically viable'.
Another point to make in this situation is that NASA has had 2 failed Mars missions in the last year. If they were really concerned with public opinion and whatnot, wouldn't they want to promote the continuing success of this observational device instead of bringing it down - it works!? (a claim that often cannot be made in our current stage of space exploration)
{cynicism}I guess high energy uv cosmic events aren't as interesting as a barren red landscape.{/cynicism}
First the Russians can't afford to keep Mir up and now the Americans are starting to have a funding crisis, what a sad state of affairs.
Hahahaha... I get a kick out of stereotyping contradictions - I think that's the best part of being a nerd in disguise(tm).
I skateboard, snowboard, dj, rave and hang out with a shady assortment of friends...
...as well as study physics, work at an astrophysics institute, play chess, and persue most things 'geeky'.
The best part is usually when you're faced with a new professor and the guy figures you're going to be one of the students that doesn't come to class all term and you end up getting one of the top marks in his class! hahahaha...
If someone is too concerned with what others think of them then in my opinion they have too much time on their hands...
Well, I'm not a doctorate, but I'll take a crack at this one.
In most situations I don't think you would have a galaxy collision at that high of a speed. Since the universe is supposidly expanding, we measure most things as moving away from us with velocities close to c and sometimes for the really far objects many times greater than c (redshift in the light). The concept to note here is that it is the actual space that is expanding, and hence it looks like the galaxies are travelling that much faster. So I guess you probably wouldn't find galaxies colliding at near-c speeds. Maybe if the universe starts to contract it might become more common;)
Now, If you could get two galaxies to approach each other at near the speed of light you would definately have to take relativity into account. What that would entail exactly is far above my head, since it lies in the domain of general relativity (of which I'm not well versed) but suffice to say I wouldn't expect anything less than an interesting situation - one of the interesting problems in physics is the n-body problem, which is just the problem of describing the motion of n different objects under the laws of general relativity. Suffice to say it hasn't been solved for even 3 objects, so I would suggest that relativistic galaxy collisions are probably pretty complicated events.
Like it says in the article, much of this work dates back to '96. If you're really interested in this stuff, check out this page made by one of the profs at the university where I work.
He has worked on simulation programs that model this exact situation - the most interesting is the example showing the collision of our poor galaxy with Andromeda! (It's actually going to happen - don't worry though, it won't be for a long time...)
The gag order is a good thing if you continue to use a fundamentally flawed system.
I guess the point of announcing the results after the poll is closed is to satisfy the publics anxiety as to who the 'winner' is (someone can correct me if I'm wrong or if it is more complicated than this).
All this fellow in B.C. is doing is spreading these results faster and more convieniently than if they were to travel by other means. I agree that this kind of puts a kink in the democratic process but why should it be illegal to do it in one fashion as opposed to another? If the government wanted to remedy this situation properly it could either decide to make all of the vote counting results available the day after the election or else it could announce them at the same time after all the polls have closed across the country (running the polls at the same time everywhere is unreasonable in that there is a 3.5 hour time difference across Canada and this would make it more difficult to vote in one region as opposed to another - everything needs to be uniform to ensure fairness). As per financial reasons and whatnot I do not really see there being that much at stake if the votes are announced the next morning as most financial institutions are closed by the time the polls close anyways. It's not like we'd need to know that candidate X was going to win so that we could flee the country in time before his regime oppressed us.
/. actually had a story on Richard Smalley's new company and their technique a couple of weeks ago in the science section.
While I find all of this nano-buzz interesting, I think people generally attribute too much to it at the current stage in the game. It has enormous potential and it is definately flourishing but I don't think we're close enough to start throwing a big party yet.
I agree with your points, however I believe what she is trying to say is that the net has probably the greatest potential in the history of mankind to facilitate a cultural/socialogical revolution.
As you mentioned, it's not the net itself that is going to bring about these changes. A material object never caused a revolution, it was allways the changing ideas and opinions of the general public. The reason why the net is so profound in our current situation is that revolutions are based on ideas and widespread proliferation of ideas to the general public is now possible. It's all about educating the masses, and since (as described in the article) the current trend is an increase in the use of the net for information gathering (news, personal research, communicating, etc.) it only makes sense that it will develop into a new staging ground for public opinions and whatnot.
I believe that this is a crucial aspect in the current debates over what the net should be and how it should be regulated. The more that current authorities regulate the web, the better they can maintain their agendas and entrench themselves in this new 'communications tool', thereby preventing it from facilitating their downfall. It's happened in history before, and with dire consequences.
Therefore, as soon as a company mentions Linux in a positive way, regardless of how insignificant, the slashdot.org crowd throws a virtual equivalent of Mardi Gras.
Allright! Woohoo!
It's time to get the party started! Linux rules!
I say slashdot implements a user jpg option so that we can all show off our costumes!
If you cut yourself off so resolutely from any involvement in the society of your school, and take refuge in activities which are almost completely solitary, should you be surprised that you're treated like an outcast?
I believe that most people who are outcasts don't really care what other people think of them since they are often above the notion of appearances, however, it is one thing to be left alone and quite another to be ridiculed, harassed and taunted on a daily basis. While I agree that being a genuine loner doesn't lend itself well to social situations, I think it should hardly be used as a reason to make someone a target.
Being treated like an outcast never surprised me, it just made me sad to know that people could be so shallow when I wanted nothing more than to be left alone to do what I wanted to. You shouldn't have to embrace the society of your school or fit into any social framework to be given equal respect as a human being.
It's kind of funny in a way... So many people on/. uphold the notion of freedom of information, the open-source methodology and the right to use shady programs like Napster, but when it comes down to simply using a publicly posted comment in a book there seems to be somewhat of an uproar about 'ownership' - not to mention the fact that the profits are going to charity.
I guess it's probably not the same people that merit these things that are making the noise, but it's still an interesting take on the situation.
Unfortunately I don't think we're going to get away from the shedding of tanks concept until we can engineer a thrust mechanism that can provide enough power to overcome the gravitational potential of the earth without having to utilize a significant amount of fuel.
I imagine this is the basis of the new breed of 'space-jets' that are currently being considered, but even if they are successful in producing these vehicles they would still have to use the old rocket-booster style mechanism to launch equipment and whatnot due to mass considerations.
Another thing that might come into play is the re-entry dynamics of a significantly larger vehicle (one that did not dispose of it's fuel containers), not to mention the fact that the containers are dropped when they run out of fuel so that you don't have to carry needless mass.
One thing that amazes me is that NASA used to paint the main booster and this contributed to over 600 extra pounds! That's enough to probably add at least 3 more people and their required resources (food, water, etc) to the launch. I haven't done the calculations, but I imagine that dropping the boosters significantly decreases the amount of fuel you need in the first place.
I think that real promise lies in some of the novel launch mechanisms that are being proposed. I don't have the links at hand but two of the most interesting are a rotor system that gets up to the higher atmosphere before firing thrusters and a laser induced 'flying saucer' that focuses the laser energy to explode the air underneath it for thrust.
As for getting hit with space debris, I don't know if there is really much that can be done - it seems more like a game of russian roulette in any situation. 'Space is big' and I think they're counting on the statistics to save them from unfortunate accidents.
I guess when it comes down to it the whole point of the matter is whether or not one can draw these parallels between conventional media equivalents.
I totally agree that your examples would draw this type of response, however one of the key things is that this is the internet - and with the internet we have a situation where there are many different groups attempting to gain control of how it evolves.
The true importance of this current debate is really in determining whether or not the internet will soon succumb to corporations (kind of like t.v... I have pity for the public access stations) or whether it will still remain by and large under public governing.
I guess if you view the internet as being the same as any other kind of media then you will definately have to side with the corporations, but for many people it means quite a bit more than an advertising and ecommerce tool - in which case the property of the internet shouldn't be distributed based on old conventions but rather on a level basis.
I think the key thing to note about these two different launch vehicles is that they are used with two very different principles in mind.
The Russian space program is highly modular in that they use different lauch vehicles to deliver their cosmonauts as opposed to their equipement. The nice thing with this is that it optimizes your expenses in that if you just want to send up men, you do so, and if you want to send up just a space station module and some satellites, you do that independantly. It also allows you to make your vehicles much less complex as you only have to deal with a restricted set of neccessary tasks that the launch system needs to satisfy.
The American program has rested on creating a highly flexible orbiter that can satisfy both of these major space tasks (delivery of men and materials). While it takes a more complicated system and more resources to do so, they can concentrate more on perfecting this one vehicle.
Bear in mind that I'm generalizing the situation, as I know that the there have been other vehicles and whatnot, but if you were to compare these two vehicles I believe that their main difference lies in the purpose for which they were built.
I think it will be interesting to see how things unfold in the future, perhaps NASA should be looking at a 'smaller, cheaper' strategy all accross the board. Another thing that may bring new aspects to the table is the fledgling Chinese space program, and although they are depending heavily on the Russian program it will be interesting to see if they can implement a new methodology.
The only way we're going to find out what's best is by exploring all of the different options, and although I think one would be hard pressed to say that this method is better than that one at the current stage of the game, it definately helps to have a diverse program so that we can explore the options.
Re:Funding problems are the Feds/NASA's fault.
on
6 New Mars Missions
·
· Score: 3
Companies like Lockheed and Boeing are allready part of these missions. They are hired as contractors to help construct the spacecraft and whatnot. The problem with privatizing the space industry is that it would require a large capital investment with acceptance for a high probability of failure.
NASA is staffed by the best in the field. If you look at their hiring boards and whatnot almost anything to do with the space program requires that you have your doctorate - and they have thousands of these people working for them, day in, day out. Often the public is just sent out the figures for how much 'a' mission is going to cost but no-one realizes just how many people and how much time coordinate the entire venture.
Private industry in space is pretty much limited right now to telecommunications - and even at that they fail on a much larger basis. You think NASA is bad, you should see how often you get a firecracker out of a multi-million dollar satellite launch. The scary thing is that these satellites are allways insured, usually at well over 50% of what they cost in the first place! In terms of complexity these private launches are nothing compared to sending probes to other planets.
I guess what I'm trying to get down to saying is that for a private industry to get into space exploration it would require a monumental investment and a lot of guts. Maybe if a driving force for private space exploration existed you would see something, but I don't think there is a reason to go private that will outweigh the costs.
I guess that's why it takes the richest nation in the world to collectively put money into it, if everyone chips in a bit and the loss occurs at least it won't result in a catastrophe for the people involved.
Both of your descriptions are accurate, it is just that you are describing different things. The parent post is talking about an object that is allready in a stable orbit. In that case if you increase the tangential component of your velocity you would move into a higher orbit. What you are describing is the tangential velocity required to maintain a stable orbit, which is also true.
Just because something doesn't make sense at first doesn't mean that it is wrong, maybe you just haven't wrapped your head around it properly.
Well, so much for NASA's latest rhetoric. Later on today they are going to announce their proposed 2005 Mars Mission that is going to be a throwback to the old days. Supposidly they're giving up on cheap hardware and going back to the heavy duty gear. Ah well, it's kind of sad to see something like NEAR work so well and at the same time have 2 failures in the last year. Maybe NASA should be more careful in who they pick as their contractors - it sounds like you guys did a really good job.
No doubt about it! People that have short comings due to something will rarely have the ability to 'fess up' to their problems. How many alcoholics believe they don't have a problem? It's one thing to hear someones opinion, but a 'scientific' study rarely ever simply asks people how they feel (unless it's a psych study).
While I've been using the net for probably the last 5 years I can't say that I've found much of the web useful, I use it as a tool for information uptake, not to supplement my social life.
How do you think the authors of this study would handle the following situation:
In our first year at university, our residence house (about 45 people) was hooked up to the school's T1 and we had a local network. Needless to say, we spent quite a great deal of time online, some of us more than others (It was sick in a way - I know people who would spend over 90 hours a week online without really doing much of anything constructive). Well, needless to say, it probably cut in on everyones party time, but the majority of people who spent all this time online failed that year. I'm serious, I can run off at least 5 of my immediate friends. While I wouldn't attribute their failure to the net, I would definately say that it supplemented their outlooks on wasting time, as well as preventing most of them from ever meeting anyone else in the residence community (probably not a bad thing - but I guess it can be considered as a social hindrance). The sad thing is that all of the people who failed would definately never say that the net had any negative affect on their lives, even though it was the main implement by which they wasted a year of their lives (from an academic standpoint).
In the end though, I'd just like to add that I don't think the net is evil, the people using it are make their own problems. All I'm pointing out is that this study seems to be fundamentally flawed.
That is probably the most insightful thing I've read all day (Mod it up!). It would definately open up many more possibilities.
I'm afraid that something like this might be a long time coming in our political system though. Seeing as this type of system would seriously damage the amount of power that the two major parties would have they would probably fight against it tooth and nail.
I guess implementation would have to change as well - it would be hard to read everyones numbers on the ballots, but if the election booths were digital and run on an isolated system you could have everyone go to the booth once, just type in their numbers (the system could regulate it so that they adhered to the rules) and it would be calculated and done with in no time. Mind you that we would have to have an extremely secure and fail-proof system, but it would probably be safer than the archaic ballot counting system we're using now anyways!
I'm sorry about seeming confrontational, it just seemed that you were implying that you would have to 'give up' your vote for Nader to vote for Gore.
I agree that that isn't the way to go, but if you switch with someone else who intended to vote Gore then wouldn't you still make your contribution to the Green party while at the same time providing an effort to keep Bush out? I guess it comes down to whether or not you want to just look for the long term gains of voting 3rd party or to also try to minimize the short term damage of having a Rep. president - I agree that there isn't much difference between the 2 major parties but IMO the democrats are still more favorable than the republicans.
Maybe it would make a bit more sense if you read the article.
It talks mainly about how people in swing states voting for Nader could 'trade' their vote with people in Republican won states (by means of the honour system) that want to vote for Gore. That way, Gore might win the swing states, screwing Bush, and Nader will still get the 5% he needs to get official party status for the Greens. It is significant in that it could be done with relative ease over the internet.
I for one am particularly impressed by this idea, and although I would vote for Nadar (I'm a dual citizen, living outside the country), I would happily trade my vote so that Gore could make it in instead of Bush. All this would do is shift the votes to the swing states where they are really needed. It's voting strategy at it's best - now if only people could get organized enough to implement it.
Hmmm. I don't think that would be stealing from a bank in that the account is the property of the individual - while the bank technically owns the money that is provided through the account, it ends up being the user of the account who has to pay the bank for the service. If someone rips off the number, generally the bank takes the fall - that's part of the security in a credit card, however, most of the time (I'm guessing here - would anyone have the stats on convicted credit card number theft? - might give some future criminals incentive to look to less dangerous activities) they track it down and really screw the person who did it. So in the end I don't think they ever lose money on it otherwise there wouldn't be so many people trying to jam the damn cards down your throat.
Another thing to consider with respect to this article is that enforcing this law would do nothing to stop people who really wanted to from stealing CC numbers, and it would reduce the number of people who would honestly look for chinks in the armor. There's no point in making useless laws, let alone detrimental ones.
No doubt about it. If you kill off the chance for the average joe to persue his hobby all you will be left with is the 'allowed' folks (administrators, etc) and the real criminals who don't give a damn about laws either way. One of the things about having an open system with no laws is that faults show up much more readily when the entire (h/cr)acking community is involved.
Laws like this are so rediculous in that they are fuelled by people who think they have their interests in the right place but they don't even begin to realize the situation. Law enforcement is feeling overwhelmed - give me a break, like one of the comments in the article said, no one has ever stolen money from a bank (that we know of) over the net. Maybe they should be worrying about real, tangible criminal activities instead of a bunch of 15 year old script kids up to nothing but mischief. It's all about power in the end I guess, and the authorities that be just can't stand not being at the top of the net ladder.
This thing only weighs 700 kg (1540 lbs).
Can you imagine driving over a large suspension bridge on a windy day? I often travel over the Mackinac Bridge in Michigan and even in a relatively light combustion engine car it can be a tense situation - never mind just driving down the highway at 70 mph on a windy day. In the shelter of the city it wouldn't be that bad (unless you live in Chicago I suppose;) but I could see there being some serious traction problems at high speed on the highways, not too mention during cold/icey conditions. Does anyone have any ideas? I wonder if you could fit it with a foil or something for high speeds? I guess that would reduce efficiency, but it might be the only way to keep it on the road.
I was discussing this yesterday when my friend brought up the same point.
How about having an 'abstain' option on your vote card? That way we could truly gauge just how pathetic our candidates are instead of assuming that everyone was lazy. This would also resolve the problem with fining people who won't vote.
There is nothing wrong with not picking - just make sure you let everyone know why, otherwise you will not have done anything for the process.
Slashdot Mirror
While I agree that we should definately spend our money wisely, it seems kind of odd that we are allowing a 'one of a kind' observational device (there is no other device available to continue observations in this portion of the EM spectrum) to be put out of service simply because of financial considerations. I guess that just shows how tight things are getting in terms of funding.
The even more frightful question is what will be de-commissioned next. If this program was cut based on a 1 million $ / year funding basis, I'm certain there are other projects that must be close to being as 'uneconomically viable'.
Another point to make in this situation is that NASA has had 2 failed Mars missions in the last year. If they were really concerned with public opinion and whatnot, wouldn't they want to promote the continuing success of this observational device instead of bringing it down - it works!? (a claim that often cannot be made in our current stage of space exploration)
{cynicism}I guess high energy uv cosmic events aren't as interesting as a barren red landscape.{/cynicism}
First the Russians can't afford to keep Mir up and now the Americans are starting to have a funding crisis, what a sad state of affairs.
I skateboard, snowboard, dj, rave and hang out with a shady assortment of friends...
The best part is usually when you're faced with a new professor and the guy figures you're going to be one of the students that doesn't come to class all term and you end up getting one of the top marks in his class! hahahaha...
If someone is too concerned with what others think of them then in my opinion they have too much time on their hands...
In most situations I don't think you would have a galaxy collision at that high of a speed. Since the universe is supposidly expanding, we measure most things as moving away from us with velocities close to c and sometimes for the really far objects many times greater than c (redshift in the light). The concept to note here is that it is the actual space that is expanding, and hence it looks like the galaxies are travelling that much faster. So I guess you probably wouldn't find galaxies colliding at near-c speeds. Maybe if the universe starts to contract it might become more common ;)
Now, If you could get two galaxies to approach each other at near the speed of light you would definately have to take relativity into account. What that would entail exactly is far above my head, since it lies in the domain of general relativity (of which I'm not well versed) but suffice to say I wouldn't expect anything less than an interesting situation - one of the interesting problems in physics is the n-body problem, which is just the problem of describing the motion of n different objects under the laws of general relativity. Suffice to say it hasn't been solved for even 3 objects, so I would suggest that relativistic galaxy collisions are probably pretty complicated events.
He has worked on simulation programs that model this exact situation - the most interesting is the example showing the collision of our poor galaxy with Andromeda! (It's actually going to happen - don't worry though, it won't be for a long time...)
I guess the point of announcing the results after the poll is closed is to satisfy the publics anxiety as to who the 'winner' is (someone can correct me if I'm wrong or if it is more complicated than this).
All this fellow in B.C. is doing is spreading these results faster and more convieniently than if they were to travel by other means. I agree that this kind of puts a kink in the democratic process but why should it be illegal to do it in one fashion as opposed to another? If the government wanted to remedy this situation properly it could either decide to make all of the vote counting results available the day after the election or else it could announce them at the same time after all the polls have closed across the country (running the polls at the same time everywhere is unreasonable in that there is a 3.5 hour time difference across Canada and this would make it more difficult to vote in one region as opposed to another - everything needs to be uniform to ensure fairness). As per financial reasons and whatnot I do not really see there being that much at stake if the votes are announced the next morning as most financial institutions are closed by the time the polls close anyways. It's not like we'd need to know that candidate X was going to win so that we could flee the country in time before his regime oppressed us.
While I find all of this nano-buzz interesting, I think people generally attribute too much to it at the current stage in the game. It has enormous potential and it is definately flourishing but I don't think we're close enough to start throwing a big party yet.
As you mentioned, it's not the net itself that is going to bring about these changes. A material object never caused a revolution, it was allways the changing ideas and opinions of the general public. The reason why the net is so profound in our current situation is that revolutions are based on ideas and widespread proliferation of ideas to the general public is now possible. It's all about educating the masses, and since (as described in the article) the current trend is an increase in the use of the net for information gathering (news, personal research, communicating, etc.) it only makes sense that it will develop into a new staging ground for public opinions and whatnot.
I believe that this is a crucial aspect in the current debates over what the net should be and how it should be regulated. The more that current authorities regulate the web, the better they can maintain their agendas and entrench themselves in this new 'communications tool', thereby preventing it from facilitating their downfall. It's happened in history before, and with dire consequences.
Allright! Woohoo!
It's time to get the party started! Linux rules!
I say slashdot implements a user jpg option so that we can all show off our costumes!
I believe that most people who are outcasts don't really care what other people think of them since they are often above the notion of appearances, however, it is one thing to be left alone and quite another to be ridiculed, harassed and taunted on a daily basis. While I agree that being a genuine loner doesn't lend itself well to social situations, I think it should hardly be used as a reason to make someone a target.
Being treated like an outcast never surprised me, it just made me sad to know that people could be so shallow when I wanted nothing more than to be left alone to do what I wanted to. You shouldn't have to embrace the society of your school or fit into any social framework to be given equal respect as a human being.
I guess it's probably not the same people that merit these things that are making the noise, but it's still an interesting take on the situation.
I imagine this is the basis of the new breed of 'space-jets' that are currently being considered, but even if they are successful in producing these vehicles they would still have to use the old rocket-booster style mechanism to launch equipment and whatnot due to mass considerations.
Another thing that might come into play is the re-entry dynamics of a significantly larger vehicle (one that did not dispose of it's fuel containers), not to mention the fact that the containers are dropped when they run out of fuel so that you don't have to carry needless mass.
One thing that amazes me is that NASA used to paint the main booster and this contributed to over 600 extra pounds! That's enough to probably add at least 3 more people and their required resources (food, water, etc) to the launch. I haven't done the calculations, but I imagine that dropping the boosters significantly decreases the amount of fuel you need in the first place.
I think that real promise lies in some of the novel launch mechanisms that are being proposed. I don't have the links at hand but two of the most interesting are a rotor system that gets up to the higher atmosphere before firing thrusters and a laser induced 'flying saucer' that focuses the laser energy to explode the air underneath it for thrust.
As for getting hit with space debris, I don't know if there is really much that can be done - it seems more like a game of russian roulette in any situation. 'Space is big' and I think they're counting on the statistics to save them from unfortunate accidents.
I totally agree that your examples would draw this type of response, however one of the key things is that this is the internet - and with the internet we have a situation where there are many different groups attempting to gain control of how it evolves.
The true importance of this current debate is really in determining whether or not the internet will soon succumb to corporations (kind of like t.v... I have pity for the public access stations) or whether it will still remain by and large under public governing.
I guess if you view the internet as being the same as any other kind of media then you will definately have to side with the corporations, but for many people it means quite a bit more than an advertising and ecommerce tool - in which case the property of the internet shouldn't be distributed based on old conventions but rather on a level basis.
The Russian space program is highly modular in that they use different lauch vehicles to deliver their cosmonauts as opposed to their equipement. The nice thing with this is that it optimizes your expenses in that if you just want to send up men, you do so, and if you want to send up just a space station module and some satellites, you do that independantly. It also allows you to make your vehicles much less complex as you only have to deal with a restricted set of neccessary tasks that the launch system needs to satisfy.
The American program has rested on creating a highly flexible orbiter that can satisfy both of these major space tasks (delivery of men and materials). While it takes a more complicated system and more resources to do so, they can concentrate more on perfecting this one vehicle.
Bear in mind that I'm generalizing the situation, as I know that the there have been other vehicles and whatnot, but if you were to compare these two vehicles I believe that their main difference lies in the purpose for which they were built.
I think it will be interesting to see how things unfold in the future, perhaps NASA should be looking at a 'smaller, cheaper' strategy all accross the board. Another thing that may bring new aspects to the table is the fledgling Chinese space program, and although they are depending heavily on the Russian program it will be interesting to see if they can implement a new methodology.
The only way we're going to find out what's best is by exploring all of the different options, and although I think one would be hard pressed to say that this method is better than that one at the current stage of the game, it definately helps to have a diverse program so that we can explore the options.
NASA is staffed by the best in the field. If you look at their hiring boards and whatnot almost anything to do with the space program requires that you have your doctorate - and they have thousands of these people working for them, day in, day out. Often the public is just sent out the figures for how much 'a' mission is going to cost but no-one realizes just how many people and how much time coordinate the entire venture.
Private industry in space is pretty much limited right now to telecommunications - and even at that they fail on a much larger basis. You think NASA is bad, you should see how often you get a firecracker out of a multi-million dollar satellite launch. The scary thing is that these satellites are allways insured, usually at well over 50% of what they cost in the first place! In terms of complexity these private launches are nothing compared to sending probes to other planets.
I guess what I'm trying to get down to saying is that for a private industry to get into space exploration it would require a monumental investment and a lot of guts. Maybe if a driving force for private space exploration existed you would see something, but I don't think there is a reason to go private that will outweigh the costs.
I guess that's why it takes the richest nation in the world to collectively put money into it, if everyone chips in a bit and the loss occurs at least it won't result in a catastrophe for the people involved.
Both of your descriptions are accurate, it is just that you are describing different things. The parent post is talking about an object that is allready in a stable orbit. In that case if you increase the tangential component of your velocity you would move into a higher orbit. What you are describing is the tangential velocity required to maintain a stable orbit, which is also true.
Just because something doesn't make sense at first doesn't mean that it is wrong, maybe you just haven't wrapped your head around it properly.
While I've been using the net for probably the last 5 years I can't say that I've found much of the web useful, I use it as a tool for information uptake, not to supplement my social life.
How do you think the authors of this study would handle the following situation:
In our first year at university, our residence house (about 45 people) was hooked up to the school's T1 and we had a local network. Needless to say, we spent quite a great deal of time online, some of us more than others (It was sick in a way - I know people who would spend over 90 hours a week online without really doing much of anything constructive). Well, needless to say, it probably cut in on everyones party time, but the majority of people who spent all this time online failed that year. I'm serious, I can run off at least 5 of my immediate friends. While I wouldn't attribute their failure to the net, I would definately say that it supplemented their outlooks on wasting time, as well as preventing most of them from ever meeting anyone else in the residence community (probably not a bad thing - but I guess it can be considered as a social hindrance). The sad thing is that all of the people who failed would definately never say that the net had any negative affect on their lives, even though it was the main implement by which they wasted a year of their lives (from an academic standpoint).
In the end though, I'd just like to add that I don't think the net is evil, the people using it are make their own problems. All I'm pointing out is that this study seems to be fundamentally flawed.
I'm afraid that something like this might be a long time coming in our political system though. Seeing as this type of system would seriously damage the amount of power that the two major parties would have they would probably fight against it tooth and nail.
I guess implementation would have to change as well - it would be hard to read everyones numbers on the ballots, but if the election booths were digital and run on an isolated system you could have everyone go to the booth once, just type in their numbers (the system could regulate it so that they adhered to the rules) and it would be calculated and done with in no time. Mind you that we would have to have an extremely secure and fail-proof system, but it would probably be safer than the archaic ballot counting system we're using now anyways!
I agree that that isn't the way to go, but if you switch with someone else who intended to vote Gore then wouldn't you still make your contribution to the Green party while at the same time providing an effort to keep Bush out? I guess it comes down to whether or not you want to just look for the long term gains of voting 3rd party or to also try to minimize the short term damage of having a Rep. president - I agree that there isn't much difference between the 2 major parties but IMO the democrats are still more favorable than the republicans.
It talks mainly about how people in swing states voting for Nader could 'trade' their vote with people in Republican won states (by means of the honour system) that want to vote for Gore. That way, Gore might win the swing states, screwing Bush, and Nader will still get the 5% he needs to get official party status for the Greens. It is significant in that it could be done with relative ease over the internet.
I for one am particularly impressed by this idea, and although I would vote for Nadar (I'm a dual citizen, living outside the country), I would happily trade my vote so that Gore could make it in instead of Bush. All this would do is shift the votes to the swing states where they are really needed. It's voting strategy at it's best - now if only people could get organized enough to implement it.
Give me a break.
Just remember there's M2 - hopefully people use it.
Another thing to consider with respect to this article is that enforcing this law would do nothing to stop people who really wanted to from stealing CC numbers, and it would reduce the number of people who would honestly look for chinks in the armor. There's no point in making useless laws, let alone detrimental ones.
Laws like this are so rediculous in that they are fuelled by people who think they have their interests in the right place but they don't even begin to realize the situation. Law enforcement is feeling overwhelmed - give me a break, like one of the comments in the article said, no one has ever stolen money from a bank (that we know of) over the net. Maybe they should be worrying about real, tangible criminal activities instead of a bunch of 15 year old script kids up to nothing but mischief. It's all about power in the end I guess, and the authorities that be just can't stand not being at the top of the net ladder.
How about having an 'abstain' option on your vote card? That way we could truly gauge just how pathetic our candidates are instead of assuming that everyone was lazy. This would also resolve the problem with fining people who won't vote.
There is nothing wrong with not picking - just make sure you let everyone know why, otherwise you will not have done anything for the process.