Well, I see I have stirred a controversy and a good discussion thread (although I'm still a troll, apparently).
Consider this: As a Canadian, I have grown up never being out of reach of the American Media. Ever. Even when we only got 5 channels, 4 of them were American. I know quite a bit about the US and her culture (stop laughing Europeans). I have many friends and relatives in the US. I really feel I understand your country, being so close. Now, if, despite all of that, I can form a negative opinion about the conduct of the US government (as a large number of your own citizens have, by the looks of the news and this thread), imagine what kind of opinion a poor kid in a Palestinian refugee camp, or one that lived in a poor part of Africa or Malaysia would form. They don't know your country at all. While I can draw the difference between the American poeple and the American government, those people cannot (since most don't live under democratic regimes where the government can change on a regular basis). Thus, they hate all Americans.
They are very leery when the US speaks. Often because they espouse "freedom" and "democracy" on one hand, but support brutal dicators (remember Saddam in the 80's was our friend. Donald Rumsfeld thought so) or lock up people arbitrarily (as at Gitmo - an if they are all terrorists, shouldn't that be proven in a court of law?). So when you grow up with this and try to get out of your miserable life by joining a radical Islamic organization or the Shining Path or similar. Now, are you going to blame for all your troubles? Who's office buildings are you going to be willing to fly airplanes into?
If the US government REALLY wanted to win the war on terror, spend 1/10 of it's war budget in Iraq on medicine to wipe out polio around the world, or tb or any one of the hundreds of preventable, curable child hood diseases that our children never get anymore but kill millions in the rest of the world every year (yes, Bono's idea and I agree). Balance and consider the interests of everyone, not just your own.
Forgive loans to countries that the IMF ruined in the 80's with their "all-strings-attached" loans.
These people are more likely to admire and respect a country and a government that saves their lives with medicines and jobs rather than destroys their homes and infrastructures with bullets and bombs.
And if you want to go after Al-Queda, go after Al-Queda. Find OBL. Find Saddam. Finish the job. Don't do anyhting else until its done.
But don't pretend the war in Iraq has anything to do with freedom and democracy or weapons of mass destruction or support for terrorists. Nobody beleives it anymore. Come clean and move on.
I tried not to be preachy (I know, didn't work) but I genuinely care. The US has some great people and wonderful qualities that the rest of the world should know about. Right now they just see the only superpower running around acting like a bully, then getting upset when someone strikes back or dares question why.
"Fist of all the prisioners mentioned are not PROTECTED by the US Constitution!
You must be a US CITIZEN to expect to exercise these rights. "
Or a member of any other counntry in the world, since most, if not all, of these same rights are guarranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a cornerstone of the UN which the United States helped create and signed in 1947.
However you look at it, the US can't on one hand go to war to bestow these "rights and freedoms" on one set of people and arbitrarily ignore them for another set.
If you are for the US contitution, you are for the ideas and fundementals it represents everywhere, not just the words on a paper.
Have you had a look at your White House lately? Stifling of your rights and freedoms via the various PATRIOT acts, stifling of any dissent as "unpatriotic", arbitrary deportation and detention of thousands your own citizens and the citizens of other countries in order to protected your "freedom" and "way of life" (which, ironically, include freedom of speech, freedom of association and prohibitions against arbitrary arrest and detention without due process of law) sure doesn't sound like the acts of a democracy.
The US went to war in Iraq to bring the Iraqi people freedom, right? Saddam was horrible. Arbitrarily detaining and killing thousands without charge or trial, torturing and killing them and burying them in mass graves. But guess what? The US who rescued the Iraqis from that kind of treament are themselves treating Afghans (and others) the same way. Thousands held in Gitmo without trial or charge, incommunicado and with no hope (unless your Supreme Court does the right thing) of a judicial review, without the opportunity to answer to the "charges". Thousands more being detained in the same way inside the United States. The only difference between Saddam's actions and that of the current US administration is that the US gets it's goons like Syria and Jordan to do it's torture and "disapperances" for it rather than doing the dirty work itself.
Bust my ass down to -1 as a troll if you like. I'm just letting you know what the immpression of the US government is outside the US is. After the Mahar Arar case, not many people up here in the Frozen North trust the US government, either what it says or what it does.
And for the record, this is not about the American people, the ordinary citizens. These are the actions of the US government. I sure hope those people can see the hipocracy of defending freedom by denying to everyone and get rid of Bush and his merry band of facists soon ( BTW, before you think I'm calling people names, look up the meaning of the term "facist" and compare their tactics for gaining power with what you have seen since that weird November day in Florida).
Uhmm, perhaps I'm paronoid, but shouldn't you think twice about getting security advice from John Walker?;)
Seriously, good stuff. Perhaps somebody will come up with an open, secure way like this to replace that behemoth Entrust TruePass (which only runs in browsers that are 3 or 4 releases behind in their Java support - MS JVM but no Java Plugin!).
Re:One way to improve it. Don't use it.
on
Effective XML
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Well, duh, if you are using XML for non-heirarchical data, then your using it wrong.
On the other hand if it looked more like this:
<Records>
<RECORD id =.. NAME=".." ADDRESS=".." AGE = ".."/>
<RECORD id =.. NAME=".." ADDRESS=".." AGE = ".."/>
<RECORD id =.. NAME=".." ADDRESS=".." AGE = ".."/>
<RECORD id =.. NAME=".." ADDRESS=".." AGE = ".."/> </Records>
and if the tag was nested in something else, then xml is appropriate.
At the risk of sounding trite "right tool for the job".
I am currently working on an EDI application where the highly structured and hierarchical nature of our data makes it perfect for xml. Add in good tools and searching capabilities (Like XSLT for transforming the raw structure to something else or XPath for searching it) and you have a very powerful data exchange that is platform and language neutral.
But just as you wouldn't use VB to program kernel modules or device drivers, you wouldn't (and shouldn't) use XML for everything, just because it's cool and new.
I am always amazed by the XML luddites on/. The same folks who insist that obscure languages like Haskell, Dylan or Eifel are "better than ${your language here} why doesn't anybody else use it". will still insist on transmitting and storing data in language and platform dependant binary files or in non-self describing data structures such as:
..\t..\t..
..\t..\t..
..\t..\t..
As for it not being efficient, well that really depends on what you mean by efficient. If you mean that it is slow to read, then you have chosen the wrong parser. Not a fault of the markup itself. Perhaps the design of your document is inefficient. But If you want a way to efficiently exchange self-describing data between applications written on different plaforms in different languages, then use XML.
No, they wouldn't be charged with it if you specifically broadcasting to anyone and the simply recieved it. But if you started bradcasting to AM 540 in reply to the 12:00 newscast (as you MUST do to log into a WiFi access point), you can bet the CRTC (here in Canada) or the FCC or the radio station it self would consider what you are doing illegal.
342 was originally intended to prevent people from listening in to Cell Phone and radio exchanges. So even if you just listened to the exchange between two people, you are breaking the law.
No amount of sophistry will change the fact that using my internet connection without my permission or the permission of my service provider is theft.
If this buddy had snuck into your house and ran 20 M of Cat5 out the window to his laptop and used your internet connection, would he be guilty of stealing communication? Yep.
Also, remember, that in order for you to be guilty of a crime you must not only commit the act but you must have intention (mens rhea or guilty mind). So when windows logs you in by mistake without your knowledge, you have not commited a crime. But is you are driving around with a laptop in your car, seeking SSIDs and open access points to surf the net on, I'd say you certain had intent and therefore did commit a crime.
All your points are valid, I suppose. How do you tell the difference? NoCatAuth or NoCatSplash. If you don't get the spalsh screen or the login explicitly granting you access, even with conditions, then the Criminal Code of Canada says you are violating sec 342 and committing theft.
I guess a better analogy would be the house one above where the person that committed the b&e uses your phone to call his dealer (or his wife or his office). Despite a flat rate, he has stolen YOUR telephone service. Now, you (if you even find out about it) might not charge him with theft if he calls his wife or boss, but you sure will if he is calling his dealer....
Whether you agree with it or not, that is the law in Canada. IANAL but I do have an Honours degree in Criminology so I'm quite certain of this.
I lock down my WiFi because I don't want any Tom, Dick or Harry using it. But if even if I don't, I pay for the connection and if you use it without my permission, or the permission of my service provider, you are commiting theft.
Clearly, you do not know the meaning of the phrase:
"Every one who, fraudulently and without colour of right,"
In Canada (and in English Common Law in general) "colour of right" means that you are the owner of something, have the explicit permission of the owner of that thing to use it or are entitled to use it as a result of legislation or regulation. A tow truck driver, for instance, does not have "the colour of right" over your car in order to take it until you have violated a law, or been ordered to tow the car by another legal authority (the police for instance). But even then they don't have the "colour of right" to sell your car or any of it's contents to pay for the tow or the impound fee.
The idea of "the colour of right" is the corner stone for all English Common Law ideas of theft. If you don't have the "colour of right" over something and possess it or are using it, you are commiting theft.
There is no such thing as implicit permission for anything when dealing with "the colour of right". Permission must be explicitly given. For instance, I leave all my doors and windows in my house wide open and all the lights n and some one walks in and steals my TV. Is it just theft or break and enter as well? Because that person did not have the colour of rights to my TV, its clearly theft, but since they also didn't have my explicit permission to be in my house, it's also break and enter.
Yep, even if they didn't actually "break" anything to get in. They don't have the right to be in my home and they entered illegally, it would be considered break and enter. It doesn't matter one bit that all my doors and windows were open. That's what this guy did (among other things).
Now is it as stupid to leave my WiFi connection unsecured as it is to leave all my doors and window open? Sure is, but that in no way makes it less illegal when someone enters my house or uses my connection without my explicit permission (like me telling them to go in or a NoCatSplash page when you log in to my WiFi).
Why is this guy being charged with it? Well, he was caught. Just because a law is on the books doesn't mean it is easily enforced. Just as it is unlikely to catch a burglar who enters my house if I leave my doors and windows open, it is unlikely for the authorities to catch somebody surfing the net on my connections - unless a cop inadvertantly pulls him over with my TV in the back seat or my WiFi connection (or something else) in his hand.
And lets not forget the media sensationalism surrounding this. The guy was caught surfing child porn. Now, even if he had been pulled over driving the wrong way on a one-way street while checking his web-mail on his laptop (instead of what he was doing), it is unlikely that he would have been charged under section 342 and this would not have made it past a few chuckles at the end of CITY TV News at 11.
But of course, he wasn't checking his e-mail so Toronto's finest charged him with everything they could.
I think these are some of the points that are missing from most of the posts here.
Look, I'm not disagreeing with any of your points. Especially concerning El Al and bullet proof doors. I'm quite certain El Al doesn't let passengers carry firearms either. So why don't we do it like El AL?
I guess what it boils down to is that there is simply no way you are going to convincing me that anyone other than a highly-trained Air Marshall should have a firearm on a plane. Period.
So maybe I'm wrong about the bullet hole bringing down the plane - I never claimed to be an aircraft expert. But despite what you seem to indicate, I have fired a few guns in my time. Not at sheet metal, but mostly at deer and moose. I am fully aware of what a bullet can do, and how it disapates its energy etc. I have used guns enough to know that letting a relatively untrained civilian handle one in the confines of an aircraft is just not a good idea. So maybe it won't bring the aircraft down. But it can certainly hurt a lot of people in the passenger cabin, including innocent people or flight crew. And if I were a terrorist, I would get on the plan unarmed, pick out the people who are armed, wait for one of them to have a few drinks and disarm them while they are in the john. Now I'm a terrorist with a gun on an airplane.
sigh I guess you have also missed the point. this is 2003 not 1872. Not everyone needs to be packing to keep you safe. You might even make air travel MORE dangerous. If you are so sure that firing a gun on an aircraft is not dangerous, try it next time your cruising a 32 000 ft. Heck, just knock out a window.
El Al has it right. and they don't allow guns on the aircraft either.
Just so all of you are aware of some things surrounding Kyoto and the National Post up here in Canada. They my help you access this information in context.
1. When Canada ratified the Kyoto agreement last year there was a huge controversy in the country about whether it was based on facts. This was led by the ultra-conservative Premier of Alberta ("Red Nose Ralphy") Ralph Klien. He was supported by many right wing, neo-conservative business people. They tried to claim Kyoto would cost Canadians jobs - it was also going to cost Alberta Oil and some big industies profit, but I'm sure they were more concerned about the jobs. These conservative elements in Canada trotted out a few "scientists" (not climatologists mind you, but a biologist, I beleive...the ones with the fake names on their online petitions) who claim there is no global warming, contrary to the opinion of most mainstream scientists, including most climatologists.
2. The National Post is NOT the populist pap that USA Today is. The National Post is a very conservative, right wing newspaper (formerly owned by Conrad Black, an ultra-conservative icon up here and now owned by Can-West Global, the media company of the late Issy Asper, another conservative icon). To say that the National Post might be supporting an anti-Kyoto agenda is an understatement. They are willing to latch onto anything that might cast doubt on global warming and claim a " pillar of the Kyoto Accord is based on false calculations, incorrect data and an overtly biased selection of climate records." - at the bidding of the bussiness and political interests that support them.
So given that, consider source of this story.
As for the scientific paper cited, well, it's been out for about a week. Why not let the scientific community do what it does best - review the facts and try to verify the data. Perhaps it is the study that contains the errors, not the original. Even if it's correct, it is only one of the hundreds of studies conducted by scientists for the past 20 years that support global warming.
Try a Google searh ans see how many more you can come up with whose evidnce is NOT based on extrapolated climate data from the 1400's....then decide if Kyoto is bogus.
"Pillar" indeed. Kyto is standing on a lot more scientific ground that this study, even if it is correct.
Many good points, I'll give you that. And will admit that my ignorance in some technical area is showing.
My point about it not being safe for passengers to be armede on aircraft still stands though. Way back up the line, the REAL original poster claimed 9/11 would not have happened if even one of the passengers had been armed. The subsequent poster claimed, in rather angry terms, that this whole thing about "depressurization" was a myth. I tried to debunk that idea by showing on incident where the rapid depressurization caused a catastrophic failure of an aircraft. Now, I might be wrong about a bullet causing such depressurization, but it can still happen and it can be dangerous. I also didn't mention things like bullets damaging vital systems like hydraulics or electrical.
How about this. Instead of arming passengers (or even pilots), how about making it impossible to enter the cabin with locked, bullet proof doors so that hijackers can't commadeer a plane in the first place. Hijackers woould need to resort to "social engineering" to enter the cabin...fake bombs (as they did during 9/11)...threatening to and acutally killing flight crew and passengers (as they did during 9/11).but if they can't get into the cabin, they can't use the plane as a missle. And then the unarmed passengers can retake the plane (as they almost did in 9/11). Give the flight crew the ability to reduce the air pressure and make everyone except themselves unconcious long enough to land the plane (wait, can't they already do that).
There are lots of other options that can be done that would reduce or eliminate the threat of a 9/11 type hijacking before resorting to letting armed civilians on a plane.
As for Aloha Airlines flight 243, that incident is the exception, rather than the rule. Had it not been for the skill of the pilot, that plane would most certainly have gone down.
anyway, nice to have a civil discussion. And I thought this thread was going to get nasty;)
Funny, up here in Canada we have the same thing...more gun ownership, less gun violence. No I'm not sure that the amount of gun ownership is directly related to the amount of violence. Most of our "guns" are for hunting - Lakefield Mossbergs, Remimingtons etc. Given that we are also fairly sparsely populated (I suspect much like the rural South) and have very few handguns owned by citizens, this could explain the similarities between our two areas. Most of our "guns" are not hand guns, but long rifles and shotguns for hunting.
Now consider the Urban areas. I'll bet very few of the "guns" in Detroit (or any other major US. centre), relatively speaking, are hunting rifles. Most are handguns or more exotic weapons, like MAC 10s or military style assault rifles. Unlike in our two areas, most people their do not learn the proper use of a "gun". They are not in the "aim carefully, don't hurt anyone, try to get your {deer,moose,turkey etc} in one shot" mindset. They are in the "grab the gun, point and pull the trigger" mindset. For them the gun is not a tool for a specific purpose(hunting) but means to power. Now, we have strict handgun control here and even in our biggest city, Toronto, which many Canadian's would say has a "gun violence problem", but has no where near the kind of gun violence in major US cities (orders of magnitude lower).
Your a lot more likely to pull a Glauck in anger and use it than to pull out your Winchester 3030...
And while I agree that the choice between rapid depressurization and "certain death at the hands of terrorists" is an easy choice, your logic suffers from too much 20/20 hindsight. At the time of 9/11 most people didn't think that a hijacked aircraft would be used as a missle. They thought (and in some cases were taught) that you could just wait it out and be free when the hijackers landed in Cuba, or Athens or whereever and began trading passengers for "political prisoners" or whatever. You might get killed, but it was far from certain. And if regular citizens were allowed to bring handguns on board, so could the hijackers...they would have had Glaucks or Brownings instead of boxcutters. And they would have been able to carry them on the planes just as they did the box cutters, since most of the 9/11 terrorists used their real names and id's and did not have a "criminal record" or anything else that would have precluded them from carrying guns on board. If they had, they probably would not have been allowed on the planes with the boxcutters in the first place. So now they would be on board with guns and could have certainly made quick work of any regular citizen who may have decided to put up a fight.
Anyway, thanks for your input. It's nice to see some rational discussion involving facts and calm discussion rather than the sensless posturing and screaming that seems to be going on in other threads. I really appreciate your point of view.
True enough about a Glaser penentrating 6mm of plexiglass, if fired at it. I'm guessing then, the primary reason for a Glaser is so that it doesn't pass through a person and penetrate the aircraft skin or window (as a normal 9mm certainly would).
As you are a pilot, please tell me what would happen then, if a bullet penetrated the aircraft at the altitudes a 767 cruises at (and presumably were cruising at on 9/11/2001).
Apart from that, my post was mostly in answer to the parent. This person was quite upset and "screaming" that cabin depressurization was a myth and that it causes no damage to an aircraft. I merely pointed out that air marshalls do, in fact, use different (or "magic") bullets and provided at least one high-profile example of sudden cabin depressurization incapacitating or killling everyone on board an aircraft, resulting in an iminent crash.
I have also seen enough headlines from Detroit to know that precious few regular citizens (those who are NOT police or military) are properly trained in the handling and use of firearms...
Please indicate where this is "all over the media and the internet".
I mean please list well know news organizations and agencies, rather than right-wing, gun-totin', proud-of-my-murderous-outlaw-ancestors NRA apologist sites like http://www.hardylaw.net/.
Because, I'd never heard of the so-called "proof" until I was led to this site earlier today. And considering the source ("an attorney and Waco author"), I still don't believe it.
So please, enlighten me, but try to be fair and unbiased.
They are called Glaser (sp?) Safety Slugs. They are the handgun equivilent of a shotgun shell with SSG (#8). They have considerable stopping power but prevent serious damage from occuring to the skin and window of the aircraft in the event of a miss. They also eliminate the occurence of the ordinance passing throught the vicitm (as many 9MM slugs would do when encountering human soft tissue at close range).
The danger in a bullet penetrating the skin of the aircraft is not that passengers are being sucked out, is that rapid depreasurization at high altitude can cause structural failure of the aircraft, total incapacitation of the passengers AND crew (including death).
Remember Payne Stewart? His death, and that of all the others on board his aircraft was caused by rapid depressuization.
"U.S. Air Force pilots reported that the cockpit windows were obscured by frost. The conditions of the windows are consistent with a loss of pressurization and a subsequent rapid drop of temperature. It is likely that the pilots and occupants may have lost consciousness due to hypoxia, or a lack of oxygen. Between the last communication between the aircraft and air traffic control and the aircraft's final descent, the aircraft was reportedly flying as high as 45,000 feet." (emphasis mine)
Now, perhaps you'd like to reconsider you rant, and implied position that having guns on an aircraft is a good thing...
...is not that some scientists at some univeristy did this. Read "The Demon in the Freezer" or "The Hot Zone" - this kind of thing has been done a few times before. The Austrailians did this a few years ago as part of research to wipe out the mouse population in their country (which was a foriegn species that was introduced and threw off the dlicate balance of nature on an island continent). This is old news.
What is scary is how powerful this is and how easy it is to do.
It is powerful because it engineers a new virus or bacterium by mixing genes/DNA from other species to magnify it's effect. It's easy because, although the article doesn't mention it, it can be accomplished by someone with a University level of Biochem knowledge and a $100 USD kit that is sold to undergraduate students. Previouslyu this was ignored because it was thought that to get a really powerful pathogen was difficult so this technique could not be used to make really nasty weapons.
Then they began realizing that not all of the Smallpox stockpile could be acounted for. Then they realized that viruses like AIDS (originally only infected Chimps and other primates)and Ebola (Ebola Zaire, the most deadly strain, mutated to become airborne - but the strain only infected monkeys this time - a strain called Ebola Reston) could mutate and jump the species barrier. Same with prions like BSE (becomes CJD in humans).
Suddenly "mousepox" or "cowpox" seem like they could be very dangerous, if mutated naturally and enhanced artificially. It could become a serious weapon because it is transformed into a Chimera - natural pathogen DNA and DNA from a spoecies it would not normally mix with.
Back in the cold war, the Russians made such a Chimera that as a weapon could have devastaing results. According to Frontline, a Russian bioweapons scientist (who now works for us, thank god...not all of them do) combined Legionella (the bacteria in air conditioners that causes the pnuemonia-like Legionaires Disease) with Myolin. The result was a flu that went away after a few days. You seemed well but then die extremely quickly when your own immune system attacks and destroys the myolinear sheath around you neurons...and because it is in a common bacteria, it is undetectable by a doctor.
Imagine someone creating that combination with a more virulent/contagious pathogen?
That being said, if this is what we are hearing about - a non-contagious, 100% lethal virus at a university - imagine what is being done in secret for "national security" reasons....
All that to say that while I think this kind of research is good if used for treatment and research to prevent them being used as weapons, I also think that it should be done under the auspices of WHO, not the US government or any other government. Have Universities do the reasearch, but do it openly with funding and supervision of scientists and authorities from all over the world. The UN is perfect for this. That way everyone can have warning and everyone can benefit from the research.
Otherwise we risk the start of a biological arms race...and then the whole planet could lose.
You are aware that most of the 9/11 highjackers gained control of the planes by claiming an empy box was a bomb, right? The "box cutters" only came out afterward, to prevent the passengers from rebelling (it almost worked in all cases).
And who needs box cutters? If I buy a first class ticket, not only do I get a seat closer to the cabin with a curtain or door obscuring me from most of the other passangers, but a pretty Flight Attendant with big tits will actually give me a wine glass (made of glass) or a knife, fork and spoon (real not plastic like the peons in coach get) or a metal pen to do my "important business paper work" (a nice platic Bic pen is just as effective, though). I don't need to smuggle any "weapons" on board - the airline will supply me with them!
TSA and the US government (and my Canadian government as well) will spend millions on this kind of technology, instead of making the cabin door on an airliner 2 x as thick and lockable only from the inside. And in the meantime, I can't bring my nail-file, multitool or pen-knife onboard because they might be used as a weapon....
Give me a break.
Re:Once again here is a possible answer...
on
NASA's New Space Wheels
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Actually, I beleive in at least one test flight it got to a couple thousand feet and turned about 85 degrees left then right without an issue. All by remote control too.
My point is, why spend billions on a brand new design, when you can take an already proven design that might need some tweaks and use it. Sure 6 months to go from nothing to the prototype and 2 to 3 years to go from there to the production version might be an exageration, but NASA and the US went a great deal further with spacecraft in the 60's - essentially 0 to the moon in ten years. How hard can it be to go from a working design and prototype to a working production model in this case...even with upgrades?
Once again here is a possible answer...
on
NASA's New Space Wheels
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I don't know why NASA or an areospace company (Macdonnell Douglas, are you listening?) is not considering revitalizing the Delta Clipper. It was a capsule shaped Single Stage to Orbit (SSO), re-useable space vehicle that was actually built and was flying throughout the 1990's until an unfortunate accident destroyed it. Apart from the strut breaking that caused it's destruction (an engineering problem that is likely easily fixed), it performed exceptionally.
Consider the costs of revitalizing this "existing" project compared to re-designing and re-creating a new shuttle from scatch. Which do you think is cheaper? The Delta Clipper allowed for totally controlled flight to and from orbit, a lot safer it seems, than an uncontrolled glider.
This idea seems to have the best of apects of what/.ers and other have been saying - it is a "capsule" so it is more efficient in space and it is a Single Stage to Orbit vehicle with the safety of completely powered landing and flight in the atmosphere. I would expect that Macdonnell Douglas could have a prototype built and flying again in 6 months and that, with enough engineering and money, a production model could be built in 2 to 3 years.
Can the other four say that?
Hell, strap on a new areospike engine and NASA might actually enjoy a few years of spacefaring success, like they used to in the 60's.
I would rather spend those "billions" of taxpayer's dollars on something like this that could help us all, rather than the reported 8 billion per month the US is spending to occupy Iraq.
What are we getting out of that? Dead soldiers and a whole new generation of Muslims who will hate the US enough to fly airplanes into offices towers.
That money spent on better Global Communications, space based energy alternatives, space based medical research and just expanding our knowledge of the universe would do more to bring about peace and understanding than all the Apache helicopers put together. Sharing the wealth and prosperity and all that.
Crazy idea, eh? Ever heard the saying you get more flies with honey than vinegar?
The people here who bellyache about cost and danger and whether it should look like a plane or not, should look at this. It was a very serious contender for the X-33 program. It is a SSTO vehicle which is far more manueverable than the shuttle and far safer. And until an unfortuneate accident in 1997, the US had an actual working model. It is used to carry people into orbit. You want payload? Use a Detla V or an Arriane. You want a reusable work horse for people? Strongly consider reserecting this.
Oh and BTW
Space travel will be dangerous for the forseeable future. People will die. Maybe less people would die if we are more concerned about discovery and science and exploration than about cost. It's going to be expensive, but as one earlier poster pointed out, we are likely to get more out of a few billion spent on space exploration than we do out of the 8 Billion per MONTH spent in Iraq.
The site is clearly using ASP.Net. I suspect that the Windows "requirement" is the result of a poorly trained junior developer who has drunk too deeply of the MS koolaid and thinks.Net on the server MUST mean Windows everywhere. Given the rest of the requirements (including being able to use Netscape 6.x, which doesn't support ActiveX controls) and the fact I was able to easily access the site using Moz 1.4, I suspect that the "Windows Only" requirement is uninformed marketting sludge...after all if Windows is a requirement and EVERYONE (95% of the general populace) has Windows then EVERYONE can use this to vote in the future, right?
As a resident of Ottawa, I can say this is true...really! It's actally rather insightful. From January to March here your only like to see the tip of someone's nose, as the rest of your face is (and should be) covered by parkas, touques, belaclavas or scarves.
Facial recognition biometrics would never be used here for that very reason
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I see I have stirred a controversy and a good discussion thread (although I'm still a troll, apparently).
Consider this: As a Canadian, I have grown up never being out of reach of the American Media. Ever. Even when we only got 5 channels, 4 of them were American. I know quite a bit about the US and her culture (stop laughing Europeans). I have many friends and relatives in the US. I really feel I understand your country, being so close. Now, if, despite all of that, I can form a negative opinion about the conduct of the US government (as a large number of your own citizens have, by the looks of the news and this thread), imagine what kind of opinion a poor kid in a Palestinian refugee camp, or one that lived in a poor part of Africa or Malaysia would form. They don't know your country at all. While I can draw the difference between the American poeple and the American government, those people cannot (since most don't live under democratic regimes where the government can change on a regular basis). Thus, they hate all Americans.
They are very leery when the US speaks. Often because they espouse "freedom" and "democracy" on one hand, but support brutal dicators (remember Saddam in the 80's was our friend. Donald Rumsfeld thought so) or lock up people arbitrarily (as at Gitmo - an if they are all terrorists, shouldn't that be proven in a court of law?). So when you grow up with this and try to get out of your miserable life by joining a radical Islamic organization or the Shining Path or similar. Now, are you going to blame for all your troubles? Who's office buildings are you going to be willing to fly airplanes into?
If the US government REALLY wanted to win the war on terror, spend 1/10 of it's war budget in Iraq on medicine to wipe out polio around the world, or tb or any one of the hundreds of preventable, curable child hood diseases that our children never get anymore but kill millions in the rest of the world every year (yes, Bono's idea and I agree). Balance and consider the interests of everyone, not just your own.
Forgive loans to countries that the IMF ruined in the 80's with their "all-strings-attached" loans.
These people are more likely to admire and respect a country and a government that saves their lives with medicines and jobs rather than destroys their homes and infrastructures with bullets and bombs.
And if you want to go after Al-Queda, go after Al-Queda. Find OBL. Find Saddam. Finish the job. Don't do anyhting else until its done.
But don't pretend the war in Iraq has anything to do with freedom and democracy or weapons of mass destruction or support for terrorists. Nobody beleives it anymore. Come clean and move on.
I tried not to be preachy (I know, didn't work) but I genuinely care. The US has some great people and wonderful qualities that the rest of the world should know about. Right now they just see the only superpower running around acting like a bully, then getting upset when someone strikes back or dares question why.
See my sig:
"Fist of all the prisioners mentioned are not PROTECTED by the US Constitution!
You must be a US CITIZEN to expect to exercise these rights. "
Or a member of any other counntry in the world, since most, if not all, of these same rights are guarranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a cornerstone of the UN which the United States helped create and signed in 1947.
However you look at it, the US can't on one hand go to war to bestow these "rights and freedoms" on one set of people and arbitrarily ignore them for another set.
If you are for the US contitution, you are for the ideas and fundementals it represents everywhere, not just the words on a paper.
Have you had a look at your White House lately? Stifling of your rights and freedoms via the various PATRIOT acts, stifling of any dissent as "unpatriotic", arbitrary deportation and detention of thousands your own citizens and the citizens of other countries in order to protected your "freedom" and "way of life" (which, ironically, include freedom of speech, freedom of association and prohibitions against arbitrary arrest and detention without due process of law) sure doesn't sound like the acts of a democracy.
The US went to war in Iraq to bring the Iraqi people freedom, right? Saddam was horrible. Arbitrarily detaining and killing thousands without charge or trial, torturing and killing them and burying them in mass graves. But guess what? The US who rescued the Iraqis from that kind of treament are themselves treating Afghans (and others) the same way. Thousands held in Gitmo without trial or charge, incommunicado and with no hope (unless your Supreme Court does the right thing) of a judicial review, without the opportunity to answer to the "charges". Thousands more being detained in the same way inside the United States. The only difference between Saddam's actions and that of the current US administration is that the US gets it's goons like Syria and Jordan to do it's torture and "disapperances" for it rather than doing the dirty work itself.
Bust my ass down to -1 as a troll if you like. I'm just letting you know what the immpression of the US government is outside the US is. After the Mahar Arar case, not many people up here in the Frozen North trust the US government, either what it says or what it does.
And for the record, this is not about the American people, the ordinary citizens. These are the actions of the US government. I sure hope those people can see the hipocracy of defending freedom by denying to everyone and get rid of Bush and his merry band of facists soon ( BTW, before you think I'm calling people names, look up the meaning of the term "facist" and compare their tactics for gaining power with what you have seen since that weird November day in Florida).
Uhmm, perhaps I'm paronoid, but shouldn't you think twice about getting security advice from John Walker? ;)
Seriously, good stuff. Perhaps somebody will come up with an open, secure way like this to replace that behemoth Entrust TruePass (which only runs in browsers that are 3 or 4 releases behind in their Java support - MS JVM but no Java Plugin!).
Well, duh, if you are using XML for non-heirarchical data, then your using it wrong.
.. NAME=".." ADDRESS=".." AGE = ".."/> .. NAME=".." ADDRESS=".." AGE = ".."/> .. NAME=".." ADDRESS=".." AGE = ".."/> .. NAME=".." ADDRESS=".." AGE = ".."/>
/. The same folks who insist that obscure languages like Haskell, Dylan or Eifel are "better than ${your language here} why doesn't anybody else use it". will still insist on transmitting and storing data in language and platform dependant binary files or in non-self describing data structures such as:
..\t..\t..
..\t..\t..
..\t..\t..
On the other hand if it looked more like this:
<Records>
<RECORD id =
<RECORD id =
<RECORD id =
<RECORD id =
</Records>
and if the tag was nested in something else, then xml is appropriate.
At the risk of sounding trite "right tool for the job".
I am currently working on an EDI application where the highly structured and hierarchical nature of our data makes it perfect for xml. Add in good tools and searching capabilities (Like XSLT for transforming the raw structure to something else or XPath for searching it) and you have a very powerful data exchange that is platform and language neutral.
But just as you wouldn't use VB to program kernel modules or device drivers, you wouldn't (and shouldn't) use XML for everything, just because it's cool and new.
I am always amazed by the XML luddites on
As for it not being efficient, well that really depends on what you mean by efficient. If you mean that it is slow to read, then you have chosen the wrong parser. Not a fault of the markup itself. Perhaps the design of your document is inefficient. But If you want a way to efficiently exchange self-describing data between applications written on different plaforms in different languages, then use XML.
Or come up with something better.
No, they wouldn't be charged with it if you specifically broadcasting to anyone and the simply recieved it. But if you started bradcasting to AM 540 in reply to the 12:00 newscast (as you MUST do to log into a WiFi access point), you can bet the CRTC (here in Canada) or the FCC or the radio station it self would consider what you are doing illegal.
342 was originally intended to prevent people from listening in to Cell Phone and radio exchanges. So even if you just listened to the exchange between two people, you are breaking the law.
No amount of sophistry will change the fact that using my internet connection without my permission or the permission of my service provider is theft.
If this buddy had snuck into your house and ran 20 M of Cat5 out the window to his laptop and used your internet connection, would he be guilty of stealing communication? Yep.
Also, remember, that in order for you to be guilty of a crime you must not only commit the act but you must have intention (mens rhea or guilty mind). So when windows logs you in by mistake without your knowledge, you have not commited a crime. But is you are driving around with a laptop in your car, seeking SSIDs and open access points to surf the net on, I'd say you certain had intent and therefore did commit a crime.
All your points are valid, I suppose. How do you tell the difference? NoCatAuth or NoCatSplash. If you don't get the spalsh screen or the login explicitly granting you access, even with conditions, then the Criminal Code of Canada says you are violating sec 342 and committing theft.
I guess a better analogy would be the house one above where the person that committed the b&e uses your phone to call his dealer (or his wife or his office). Despite a flat rate, he has stolen YOUR telephone service. Now, you (if you even find out about it) might not charge him with theft if he calls his wife or boss, but you sure will if he is calling his dealer....
Whether you agree with it or not, that is the law in Canada. IANAL but I do have an Honours degree in Criminology so I'm quite certain of this.
I lock down my WiFi because I don't want any Tom, Dick or Harry using it. But if even if I don't, I pay for the connection and if you use it without my permission, or the permission of my service provider, you are commiting theft.
Clearly, you do not know the meaning of the phrase:
"Every one who, fraudulently and without colour of right,"
In Canada (and in English Common Law in general) "colour of right" means that you are the owner of something, have the explicit permission of the owner of that thing to use it or are entitled to use it as a result of legislation or regulation. A tow truck driver, for instance, does not have "the colour of right" over your car in order to take it until you have violated a law, or been ordered to tow the car by another legal authority (the police for instance). But even then they don't have the "colour of right" to sell your car or any of it's contents to pay for the tow or the impound fee.
The idea of "the colour of right" is the corner stone for all English Common Law ideas of theft. If you don't have the "colour of right" over something and possess it or are using it, you are commiting theft.
There is no such thing as implicit permission for anything when dealing with "the colour of right". Permission must be explicitly given. For instance, I leave all my doors and windows in my house wide open and all the lights n and some one walks in and steals my TV. Is it just theft or break and enter as well? Because that person did not have the colour of rights to my TV, its clearly theft, but since they also didn't have my explicit permission to be in my house, it's also break and enter.
Yep, even if they didn't actually "break" anything to get in. They don't have the right to be in my home and they entered illegally, it would be considered break and enter. It doesn't matter one bit that all my doors and windows were open. That's what this guy did (among other things).
Now is it as stupid to leave my WiFi connection unsecured as it is to leave all my doors and window open? Sure is, but that in no way makes it less illegal when someone enters my house or uses my connection without my explicit permission (like me telling them to go in or a NoCatSplash page when you log in to my WiFi).
Why is this guy being charged with it? Well, he was caught. Just because a law is on the books doesn't mean it is easily enforced. Just as it is unlikely to catch a burglar who enters my house if I leave my doors and windows open, it is unlikely for the authorities to catch somebody surfing the net on my connections - unless a cop inadvertantly pulls him over with my TV in the back seat or my WiFi connection (or something else) in his hand.
And lets not forget the media sensationalism surrounding this. The guy was caught surfing child porn. Now, even if he had been pulled over driving the wrong way on a one-way street while checking his web-mail on his laptop (instead of what he was doing), it is unlikely that he would have been charged under section 342 and this would not have made it past a few chuckles at the end of CITY TV News at 11.
But of course, he wasn't checking his e-mail so Toronto's finest charged him with everything they could.
I think these are some of the points that are missing from most of the posts here.
BTW, that is the way you spell "colour"...:)
Look, I'm not disagreeing with any of your points. Especially concerning El Al and bullet proof doors. I'm quite certain El Al doesn't let passengers carry firearms either. So why don't we do it like El AL?
I guess what it boils down to is that there is simply no way you are going to convincing me that anyone other than a highly-trained Air Marshall should have a firearm on a plane. Period.
So maybe I'm wrong about the bullet hole bringing down the plane - I never claimed to be an aircraft expert. But despite what you seem to indicate, I have fired a few guns in my time. Not at sheet metal, but mostly at deer and moose. I am fully aware of what a bullet can do, and how it disapates its energy etc. I have used guns enough to know that letting a relatively untrained civilian handle one in the confines of an aircraft is just not a good idea. So maybe it won't bring the aircraft down. But it can certainly hurt a lot of people in the passenger cabin, including innocent people or flight crew. And if I were a terrorist, I would get on the plan unarmed, pick out the people who are armed, wait for one of them to have a few drinks and disarm them while they are in the john. Now I'm a terrorist with a gun on an airplane.
sigh I guess you have also missed the point. this is 2003 not 1872. Not everyone needs to be packing to keep you safe. You might even make air travel MORE dangerous. If you are so sure that firing a gun on an aircraft is not dangerous, try it next time your cruising a 32 000 ft. Heck, just knock out a window.
El Al has it right. and they don't allow guns on the aircraft either.
Just so all of you are aware of some things surrounding Kyoto and the National Post up here in Canada. They my help you access this information in context.
1. When Canada ratified the Kyoto agreement last year there was a huge controversy in the country about whether it was based on facts. This was led by the ultra-conservative Premier of Alberta ("Red Nose Ralphy") Ralph Klien. He was supported by many right wing, neo-conservative business people. They tried to claim Kyoto would cost Canadians jobs - it was also going to cost Alberta Oil and some big industies profit, but I'm sure they were more concerned about the jobs. These conservative elements in Canada trotted out a few "scientists" (not climatologists mind you, but a biologist, I beleive...the ones with the fake names on their online petitions) who claim there is no global warming, contrary to the opinion of most mainstream scientists, including most climatologists.
2. The National Post is NOT the populist pap that USA Today is. The National Post is a very conservative, right wing newspaper (formerly owned by Conrad Black, an ultra-conservative icon up here and now owned by Can-West Global, the media company of the late Issy Asper, another conservative icon). To say that the National Post might be supporting an anti-Kyoto agenda is an understatement. They are willing to latch onto anything that might cast doubt on global warming and claim a " pillar of the Kyoto Accord is based on false calculations, incorrect data and an overtly biased selection of climate records." - at the bidding of the bussiness and political interests that support them.
So given that, consider source of this story.
As for the scientific paper cited, well, it's been out for about a week. Why not let the scientific community do what it does best - review the facts and try to verify the data. Perhaps it is the study that contains the errors, not the original. Even if it's correct, it is only one of the hundreds of studies conducted by scientists for the past 20 years that support global warming.
Try a Google searh ans see how many more you can come up with whose evidnce is NOT based on extrapolated climate data from the 1400's....then decide if Kyoto is bogus.
"Pillar" indeed. Kyto is standing on a lot more scientific ground that this study, even if it is correct.
Many good points, I'll give you that. And will admit that my ignorance in some technical area is showing.
;)
My point about it not being safe for passengers to be armede on aircraft still stands though. Way back up the line, the REAL original poster claimed 9/11 would not have happened if even one of the passengers had been armed. The subsequent poster claimed, in rather angry terms, that this whole thing about "depressurization" was a myth. I tried to debunk that idea by showing on incident where the rapid depressurization caused a catastrophic failure of an aircraft. Now, I might be wrong about a bullet causing such depressurization, but it can still happen and it can be dangerous. I also didn't mention things like bullets damaging vital systems like hydraulics or electrical.
How about this. Instead of arming passengers (or even pilots), how about making it impossible to enter the cabin with locked, bullet proof doors so that hijackers can't commadeer a plane in the first place. Hijackers woould need to resort to "social engineering" to enter the cabin...fake bombs (as they did during 9/11)...threatening to and acutally killing flight crew and passengers (as they did during 9/11).but if they can't get into the cabin, they can't use the plane as a missle. And then the unarmed passengers can retake the plane (as they almost did in 9/11). Give the flight crew the ability to reduce the air pressure and make everyone except themselves unconcious long enough to land the plane (wait, can't they already do that).
There are lots of other options that can be done that would reduce or eliminate the threat of a 9/11 type hijacking before resorting to letting armed civilians on a plane.
As for Aloha Airlines flight 243, that incident is the exception, rather than the rule. Had it not been for the skill of the pilot, that plane would most certainly have gone down.
anyway, nice to have a civil discussion. And I thought this thread was going to get nasty
Funny, up here in Canada we have the same thing...more gun ownership, less gun violence. No I'm not sure that the amount of gun ownership is directly related to the amount of violence. Most of our "guns" are for hunting - Lakefield Mossbergs, Remimingtons etc. Given that we are also fairly sparsely populated (I suspect much like the rural South) and have very few handguns owned by citizens, this could explain the similarities between our two areas. Most of our "guns" are not hand guns, but long rifles and shotguns for hunting.
Now consider the Urban areas. I'll bet very few of the "guns" in Detroit (or any other major US. centre), relatively speaking, are hunting rifles. Most are handguns or more exotic weapons, like MAC 10s or military style assault rifles. Unlike in our two areas, most people their do not learn the proper use of a "gun". They are not in the "aim carefully, don't hurt anyone, try to get your {deer,moose,turkey etc} in one shot" mindset. They are in the "grab the gun, point and pull the trigger" mindset. For them the gun is not a tool for a specific purpose(hunting) but means to power. Now, we have strict handgun control here and even in our biggest city, Toronto, which many Canadian's would say has a "gun violence problem", but has no where near the kind of gun violence in major US cities (orders of magnitude lower).
Your a lot more likely to pull a Glauck in anger and use it than to pull out your Winchester 3030...
And while I agree that the choice between rapid depressurization and "certain death at the hands of terrorists" is an easy choice, your logic suffers from too much 20/20 hindsight. At the time of 9/11 most people didn't think that a hijacked aircraft would be used as a missle. They thought (and in some cases were taught) that you could just wait it out and be free when the hijackers landed in Cuba, or Athens or whereever and began trading passengers for "political prisoners" or whatever. You might get killed, but it was far from certain. And if regular citizens were allowed to bring handguns on board, so could the hijackers...they would have had Glaucks or Brownings instead of boxcutters. And they would have been able to carry them on the planes just as they did the box cutters, since most of the 9/11 terrorists used their real names and id's and did not have a "criminal record" or anything else that would have precluded them from carrying guns on board. If they had, they probably would not have been allowed on the planes with the boxcutters in the first place. So now they would be on board with guns and could have certainly made quick work of any regular citizen who may have decided to put up a fight.
Anyway, thanks for your input. It's nice to see some rational discussion involving facts and calm discussion rather than the sensless posturing and screaming that seems to be going on in other threads. I really appreciate your point of view.
Thanks.
Well, I never claimed to be an expert, I was only responding to the parent post with direct contradictions of his claims.
;)
If what you say is true, I guess it's not good to have any kind of gun on an aircraft and depressurization cause by gunfire is a very real danger...
Thanks for the help
True enough about a Glaser penentrating 6mm of plexiglass, if fired at it. I'm guessing then, the primary reason for a Glaser is so that it doesn't pass through a person and penetrate the aircraft skin or window (as a normal 9mm certainly would).
As you are a pilot, please tell me what would happen then, if a bullet penetrated the aircraft at the altitudes a 767 cruises at (and presumably were cruising at on 9/11/2001).
Apart from that, my post was mostly in answer to the parent. This person was quite upset and "screaming" that cabin depressurization was a myth and that it causes no damage to an aircraft. I merely pointed out that air marshalls do, in fact, use different (or "magic") bullets and provided at least one high-profile example of sudden cabin depressurization incapacitating or killling everyone on board an aircraft, resulting in an iminent crash.
I have also seen enough headlines from Detroit to know that precious few regular citizens (those who are NOT police or military) are properly trained in the handling and use of firearms...
Please indicate where this is "all over the media and the internet".
I mean please list well know news organizations and agencies, rather than right-wing, gun-totin', proud-of-my-murderous-outlaw-ancestors NRA apologist sites like http://www.hardylaw.net/.
Because, I'd never heard of the so-called "proof" until I was led to this site earlier today. And considering the source ("an attorney and Waco author"), I still don't believe it.
So please, enlighten me, but try to be fair and unbiased.
Yes, Air marshals do have "magic bullets".
They are called Glaser (sp?) Safety Slugs. They are the handgun equivilent of a shotgun shell with SSG (#8). They have considerable stopping power but prevent serious damage from occuring to the skin and window of the aircraft in the event of a miss. They also eliminate the occurence of the ordinance passing throught the vicitm (as many 9MM slugs would do when encountering human soft tissue at close range).
The danger in a bullet penetrating the skin of the aircraft is not that passengers are being sucked out, is that rapid depreasurization at high altitude can cause structural failure of the aircraft, total incapacitation of the passengers AND crew (including death).
Remember Payne Stewart? His death, and that of all the others on board his aircraft was caused by rapid depressuization.
From http://www.airsafe.com/stewart.htm
"U.S. Air Force pilots reported that the cockpit windows were obscured by frost. The conditions of the windows are consistent with a loss of pressurization and a subsequent rapid drop of temperature. It is likely that the pilots and occupants may have lost consciousness due to hypoxia, or a lack of oxygen. Between the last communication between the aircraft and air traffic control and the aircraft's final descent, the aircraft was reportedly flying as high as 45,000 feet." (emphasis mine)
Now, perhaps you'd like to reconsider you rant, and implied position that having guns on an aircraft is a good thing...
...is not that some scientists at some univeristy did this. Read "The Demon in the Freezer" or "The Hot Zone" - this kind of thing has been done a few times before. The Austrailians did this a few years ago as part of research to wipe out the mouse population in their country (which was a foriegn species that was introduced and threw off the dlicate balance of nature on an island continent). This is old news.
What is scary is how powerful this is and how easy it is to do.
It is powerful because it engineers a new virus or bacterium by mixing genes/DNA from other species to magnify it's effect. It's easy because, although the article doesn't mention it, it can be accomplished by someone with a University level of Biochem knowledge and a $100 USD kit that is sold to undergraduate students. Previouslyu this was ignored because it was thought that to get a really powerful pathogen was difficult so this technique could not be used to make really nasty weapons.
Then they began realizing that not all of the Smallpox stockpile could be acounted for. Then they realized that viruses like AIDS (originally only infected Chimps and other primates)and Ebola (Ebola Zaire, the most deadly strain, mutated to become airborne - but the strain only infected monkeys this time - a strain called Ebola Reston) could mutate and jump the species barrier. Same with prions like BSE (becomes CJD in humans).
Suddenly "mousepox" or "cowpox" seem like they could be very dangerous, if mutated naturally and enhanced artificially. It could become a serious weapon because it is transformed into a Chimera - natural pathogen DNA and DNA from a spoecies it would not normally mix with.
Back in the cold war, the Russians made such a Chimera that as a weapon could have devastaing results. According to Frontline, a Russian bioweapons scientist (who now works for us, thank god...not all of them do) combined Legionella (the bacteria in air conditioners that causes the pnuemonia-like Legionaires Disease) with Myolin. The result was a flu that went away after a few days. You seemed well but then die extremely quickly when your own immune system attacks and destroys the myolinear sheath around you neurons...and because it is in a common bacteria, it is undetectable by a doctor.
Imagine someone creating that combination with a more virulent/contagious pathogen?
That being said, if this is what we are hearing about - a non-contagious, 100% lethal virus at a university - imagine what is being done in secret for "national security" reasons....
All that to say that while I think this kind of research is good if used for treatment and research to prevent them being used as weapons, I also think that it should be done under the auspices of WHO, not the US government or any other government. Have Universities do the reasearch, but do it openly with funding and supervision of scientists and authorities from all over the world. The UN is perfect for this. That way everyone can have warning and everyone can benefit from the research.
Otherwise we risk the start of a biological arms race...and then the whole planet could lose.
You are aware that most of the 9/11 highjackers gained control of the planes by claiming an empy box was a bomb, right? The "box cutters" only came out afterward, to prevent the passengers from rebelling (it almost worked in all cases).
And who needs box cutters? If I buy a first class ticket, not only do I get a seat closer to the cabin with a curtain or door obscuring me from most of the other passangers, but a pretty Flight Attendant with big tits will actually give me a wine glass (made of glass) or a knife, fork and spoon (real not plastic like the peons in coach get) or a metal pen to do my "important business paper work" (a nice platic Bic pen is just as effective, though). I don't need to smuggle any "weapons" on board - the airline will supply me with them!
TSA and the US government (and my Canadian government as well) will spend millions on this kind of technology, instead of making the cabin door on an airliner 2 x as thick and lockable only from the inside. And in the meantime, I can't bring my nail-file, multitool or pen-knife onboard because they might be used as a weapon....
Give me a break.
Actually, I beleive in at least one test flight it got to a couple thousand feet and turned about 85 degrees left then right without an issue. All by remote control too.
My point is, why spend billions on a brand new design, when you can take an already proven design that might need some tweaks and use it. Sure 6 months to go from nothing to the prototype and 2 to 3 years to go from there to the production version might be an exageration, but NASA and the US went a great deal further with spacecraft in the 60's - essentially 0 to the moon in ten years. How hard can it be to go from a working design and prototype to a working production model in this case...even with upgrades?
From a post I did about 3 weeks ago:
/.ers and other have been saying - it is a "capsule" so it is more efficient in space and it is a Single Stage to Orbit vehicle with the safety of completely powered landing and flight in the atmosphere. I would expect that Macdonnell Douglas could have a prototype built and flying again in 6 months and that, with enough engineering and money, a production model could be built in 2 to 3 years.
I don't know why NASA or an areospace company (Macdonnell Douglas, are you listening?) is not considering revitalizing the Delta Clipper. It was a capsule shaped Single Stage to Orbit (SSO), re-useable space vehicle that was actually built and was flying throughout the 1990's until an unfortunate accident destroyed it. Apart from the strut breaking that caused it's destruction (an engineering problem that is likely easily fixed), it performed exceptionally.
Consider the costs of revitalizing this "existing" project compared to re-designing and re-creating a new shuttle from scatch. Which do you think is cheaper? The Delta Clipper allowed for totally controlled flight to and from orbit, a lot safer it seems, than an uncontrolled glider.
This idea seems to have the best of apects of what
Can the other four say that?
Hell, strap on a new areospike engine and NASA might actually enjoy a few years of spacefaring success, like they used to in the 60's.
Just a thought...
I would rather spend those "billions" of taxpayer's dollars on something like this that could help us all, rather than the reported 8 billion per month the US is spending to occupy Iraq.
What are we getting out of that? Dead soldiers and a whole new generation of Muslims who will hate the US enough to fly airplanes into offices towers.
That money spent on better Global Communications, space based energy alternatives, space based medical research and just expanding our knowledge of the universe would do more to bring about peace and understanding than all the Apache helicopers put together. Sharing the wealth and prosperity and all that.
Crazy idea, eh? Ever heard the saying you get more flies with honey than vinegar?
Remember this?
The people here who bellyache about cost and danger and whether it should look like a plane or not, should look at this. It was a very serious contender for the X-33 program. It is a SSTO vehicle which is far more manueverable than the shuttle and far safer. And until an unfortuneate accident in 1997, the US had an actual working model. It is used to carry people into orbit. You want payload? Use a Detla V or an Arriane. You want a reusable work horse for people? Strongly consider reserecting this.
Oh and BTW
Space travel will be dangerous for the forseeable future. People will die. Maybe less people would die if we are more concerned about discovery and science and exploration than about cost. It's going to be expensive, but as one earlier poster pointed out, we are likely to get more out of a few billion spent on space exploration than we do out of the 8 Billion per MONTH spent in Iraq.
There. I feel better now.
Yeah but they'll be the last ones down. They could be up there for weeks....
Notice the little ".aspx" at the end of the URL?
.Net on the server MUST mean Windows everywhere. Given the rest of the requirements (including being able to use Netscape 6.x, which doesn't support ActiveX controls) and the fact I was able to easily access the site using Moz 1.4, I suspect that the "Windows Only" requirement is uninformed marketting sludge...after all if Windows is a requirement and EVERYONE (95% of the general populace) has Windows then EVERYONE can use this to vote in the future, right?
The site is clearly using ASP.Net. I suspect that the Windows "requirement" is the result of a poorly trained junior developer who has drunk too deeply of the MS koolaid and thinks
Yeah, I know.....
Flamebait?
As a resident of Ottawa, I can say this is true...really! It's actally rather insightful. From January to March here your only like to see the tip of someone's nose, as the rest of your face is (and should be) covered by parkas, touques, belaclavas or scarves.
Facial recognition biometrics would never be used here for that very reason