1. As soon as creationists use actual facts: objectively observable, testable and debatable facts instead of simply pointing at a book and saying "there's the proof" then I will be more than happy to bankroll a Cosmos style show just for them. I don't have the money but I don't think they'll ever have the "goods" so I don't have to worry about raising it either. "WE" the collective have debated the creationist/evolution ideas ad-nauseam and creationists have no new information to bring to the debate. All of their arguments have been debunked and science has provided provable or plausible answers to every question posed to it.
2. Your right to free speech is just that a right. No-one has any obligation to provide time, space or audience for your expression. If you want to produce a show about creationism and can get a network to show it, good for you. Some believe we are all defended from aliens, or a flying spagettin monster; Cosmos has no obligation to offer those opinions either. Look Christians: There are about a billion of you. There are also about a billion Muslims and a billion Hindus and all of you believe that you worship the one true god and know the true meaning of all the ancient texts. You can't all be correct and the most plausible answer is that you are all wrong and there is no god, gods, spirits, or any other super natural powers.
3. The premise of most of religion's dislike of the Big Bang theory is that "nothing can just be, it has to be created". Well, where did you god come from if nothing "just is"? How improbable is it that super intelligent being that exists everywhere all the time(omnipresent) and has total knowledge(omniscient) and control(omnipotent) over every single quark in the entire Universe just spawned in to existence out of nothingness? For all your rants, you have the same problem as science except that science says "we don't know but we're looking really hard". Religion says "your question is stupid" (see item #1).
That's the rub... the museum can rais $250M to install a shuttle exhibit but if you asked those same people to pay that much in taxes that was guaranteed to go to NASA they would balk. Most people labor under the false impression that NASA has a tremendous budget, perhaps almost as large as the military budget when in reality NASA's portion of US spending is about.75% of the total budget (historically it has been as high as 4.5% and is currently about.5%). If the government as a whole could operate as efficiently as NASA does we'd have solved world hunger, provided free healthcare to all Americans, and have free mass transit in every city. Over the SST program lifespan NASA spend about $192B on the entire thing. For comparison: the US Air Force's F-35 program is expected to cost $857B over its life span (figure you need to double that to get to the number we'll actually wind up at). The US spends about $220B on interest payments, so we could re-build the entire SST program for the price of 1 year of interest payments!
The "six figure bolt" was probably a dichotomy of incredibly strong and incredibly explosive. It was designed to hold the shuttle to the tank no-matter-what until the exact moment it needed to stop holding them together and then it needed to not exist, immediately and safely and with 100% reliability. Any bolt holding anything together in a static, simulated display does not need those tolerances or requirements and I'd bet that a $15 grade 8 bolt of similar size would achieve all the holding power and longevity the new project requires. You could just welds and simulate the bolts as well.
Yes. I don't just think that; the science, physical objective testing and blind subjective testing all bear that out. Take the experience of sitting at the console out of the mix and play you a purely analog version of that same recording vs AAC/256 and 99% of people will not know any difference. The remaining 1% will be split 50/50 as to which recording sounds better.
Except that in every objective test the iOS devices show a near 0 THD, nearly flat recency response and a nearly perfect dynamic range. While perhaps "technically better" is the case with the Pono, the simple, physical, physiological and demonstrable fact that 100% of humans can not hear the differences you are taking about in any testing case means the different and "bitterness" is simply snake oil. Right up there with Monster 'monitor interconnects' and speaker isolation stands.
Is Apple's security model for iOS with local passcode (simple or complex), 100% encryption, tracking, auto and remote wipe capability and the device is incapable of being used unless you log it in to it with the proper credentials so the activation server allows it to go past the lock screen whenever you restart it or even re-install the OS on the device.
I'm guessing if I say you should just get an iPhone that you'd complain about the "walled garden" and "overseer status" of Apple, which is of course ironic given that those exact features are what it will take to lock any phone from hackers and thieves. You need to make up your mind... customizable Android based phone or highly secure iPhone.
The way I see it is that such a secure setup could never happen with the Android system: No manufacturer wants to run stock Android as there would be little competitive differentiation. Since all Android installs are different you can't easily implement the activation server model or OS level encryption, plus who would do it? Carriers would want to raise prices to offer the service, manufacturers don't want to support phones for longer than it takes to sell them and Google doesn't seem to think security is a priority for the OS. Who's left?
The liquid floating around in the helmet would have eventually drowned him. Doing nothing was 100% certain death; the liquid water was effectively toxic. Drinking the liquid (which may have been toxic) would have prevented the drowning and provided more time to evacuate him to the interior of ISS. If the liquid were poisonous, medical attention could then be rendered and an evacuation to Earth would be possible.
This is similar to being stranded in the wild: it is always better to drink even smelly water than to die of dehydration. You will most likely be found and returned to civilization before any toxic effect or biological infection from the water you drink would cause any serious health risks. Not drinking could cause your death in a few hours, toxic water would usually take at least a few days to a week to kill you (if you remain untreated).
This of course ignoring the entire question of HOW to drink the water.
If I were NASA I'd take a two-step approach to the issue:
1. Fix the damed leaks. 2. Install a large hydroscopic surface area water/air separator inside the helmet with a straw within reach of the astronaut's mouth. In emergency you can breath through the straw.
Regardless of this issue, it is apparent that the astronauts need an external "man down" signaling device they can activate from muscle memory. The device needs to alert on each of: the comms frequency, visually (flashing light) and on some other dedicated emergency radio frequency with detectors both within the station as well as on Earth.
They ignore obviously risk laden malfunctions and events until someone is killed or put in serious jeopardy in a public manner. If this astronaut had not almost drowned the issue would still be getting ignored.
Time, and time again NASA managers ignore risk and push the "go" mentality. I can't think of a single death or significant injury/risk in the NASA programs where the end result of investigation was "well, it was an unforeseeable accident". Each and every case I recall there were engineers saying "there's a problem we need to fix" and managers just kept ignoring it. From Gemini and Apollo through the SST and now the ISS; this is a disease at the core of NASA that needs to be sterilized.
My TDI VW Golf holds 16gals and gets about 40MPG for 640 mile range. At 75MPH. The Tesla's range drops to closer to 200 miles at 70MPH. Their web site won't even let you choose 75MPH as a calculation for range; why not?
Funny how Tesla doesn't tell you how many hours they spent actually charging so you can compare it against the driving time. They only fall back to quoting the marketing talking point of "50% charge in 20 minutes" from a super charging station. 75+ minutes to get to 100%.
Let's just ignore that and assume that charging is linear and 1hr from empty to full charge and that a full charge gets you 300 miles(assuming the 80kWh battery option) at 55mph as the Tesla marketing materials claim.
How does a weekend getaway look for a 650 mile drive?
650mi / 55 mph = 12 hours of driving and need 2 charge stops (2 hours) A total of 14 hours of travel time and an average speed of 46.5mph
If you drive at a more common 70mph** on such a trip instead of the anemic 55mph and your range is 240 miles 650 / 70mph = 9 hours of driving and need 3 charge stops (3 hours) A total of 12 hours of driving and and average speed of 54mph
**Tesla's web site won't even let you choose 75MPH as a calculation for range despite that being the standard rural speed limit on many Interstate highways. http://www.teslamotors.com/goe...
Remember: those numbers are the most optimistic range and charging estimates from the Tesla web site. More realistic charge times are about 50% longer if you go to 100% each charge) If you don't have access to a 120kW SuperCharger, don't have the 80kWh battery and don't have the dual onboard charger options then charging times increase significantly. A residential 240V 40A charging station takes 9 hours to charge to 300 miles of range!
Use a gasoline fuel engine based car and you'll spend about 10 minutes refueling. Diesel will probably make the round trip without refueling. A 9 hour trip takes... about 9 hours.
The Tesla S is a nice, all-electric short distance commuter car. Why can't they just leave it at that and stop trying to prove that you can take cross-country trips with it even when all the most optimistic numbers say it just doesn't work unless you don't care when you get to your destination?
Most laws are written such that the monitor needs to be able to receive and/or send content. GPS doesn't receive or send content and can only use the data within itself. Legally it is the same as a paper map as a "driver aid" As soon as your device can communicate you fall under these laws. Using your iPhone for nav could get you nabbed as it can send/receive data.
Minor correction: You do need a payment method to open the iTunes Store account. After 24 hours you may remove the payment method from the account, but the CC is a form of identity and age verification in the process.
The settlement is regarding in-app purchases, not App purchases.
Here's why there's not automatic 15 minute window to get refunds for those: Apple has not way of knowing if you USED the in-app purchase or not.
Why's it matter? You're playing a game and need Sword of Wonderment +5 to kill Malchan. You can in-app purchase it for $1.29 or go spend an hour earning it in a quest. You're lazy so you buy the Sword of Wonderment +5, kill Malchan and then claim a refund for the $1.29 you spent on the Sword of Wonderment +5. Substitute bags of coins, bigger engine, red sneakers or any other item in any other game that does this sort of thing.
In that environment, what is the incentive for developers to continue to offer free or low-cost games?
Babies are united in the idea that once they get a lollypop, that lollypop should not be taken away from them. Try and there will be screaming. Remember: ever time a baby looses a lollypop, the terrorists win.
What I'm talking about is that this isn't a gun control issue. This, like so many shootings before it, is a mental health issue.
People jumped all over the NYT for saying this was raising the debate over cellphone use in theaters. People started calling that stupid as it was "obvious" that this was really a gun control debate. I'm saying both those camps are stupid: This is raises the bar of the discussion of the failed healthcare system in this country. When we have a population that can snap so easily as to kill another person over such a minor incident: we need to get our heads straightened out.
Well the duty of a police officer is generally: to protect and serve. What most people don't understand is that they don't protect and serve the people individually, the police protect and serve the laws and institutions of the government of their jurisdiction. The police are there to help the government maintain control of the society as the laws define it. Generally that means the police show up after crimes or other offenses, gather evidence, arrest suspects and present them to the prosecuting attourney for prosecution/trial; or cite them for a civil infraction. The police have no legal responsibility to protect you, or me, as a an individual person.
My point about the shooter is that he started complaining to the texting guy, apparently because the texting process was bothering/interrupting his enjoyment of what was on the screen. If the shooter was truly interested in seeing the presentation then his best course of action would have been to wait for the texting to stop, relocate or wait for a theater employee to resolve the situation. If his goal was to see a film then discharging a firearm in the theater was diametrically opposed to his interests. People don't, in a rational mindset, act in anything other their own self interest. Mark my words: we're going to find out this guy had some mental/psychological issues that triggered this incident.
Right... the old testament is the Jewish book. Christians are supposed to be all about the "new" post-12 step program god who was all about peace and love. The whole IDEA of Christianity is that christ (Jesus) came to Earth to reform us and teach us the new ways. No true Christian should be clinging to the OT to justify violence.
I just don't understand how the shooter thought that discharging a firearm inside a crowded movie theater was in any way going to aid in his effort to quietly watch the previews and later feature presentation. In what possible way was shooting another patron NOT going to stop the projection, evacuate the theater and end up with the shooter at least detained if not arrested and in jail for the next few hours?
Did he really think: "Well, if I just shoot this one guy then we can get on with the rest of the film?
There must be some mental instability lurking in there somewhere: anger/rage issues, delusions, drug use, etc.
Naa, we needed one more shooter to shoot the first shooter thinking that another mass-shooting was about to happen. THAT would have been a justified shoot to me.
Slashdot Mirror
1. As soon as creationists use actual facts: objectively observable, testable and debatable facts instead of simply pointing at a book and saying "there's the proof" then I will be more than happy to bankroll a Cosmos style show just for them. I don't have the money but I don't think they'll ever have the "goods" so I don't have to worry about raising it either. "WE" the collective have debated the creationist/evolution ideas ad-nauseam and creationists have no new information to bring to the debate. All of their arguments have been debunked and science has provided provable or plausible answers to every question posed to it.
2. Your right to free speech is just that a right. No-one has any obligation to provide time, space or audience for your expression. If you want to produce a show about creationism and can get a network to show it, good for you. Some believe we are all defended from aliens, or a flying spagettin monster; Cosmos has no obligation to offer those opinions either. Look Christians: There are about a billion of you. There are also about a billion Muslims and a billion Hindus and all of you believe that you worship the one true god and know the true meaning of all the ancient texts. You can't all be correct and the most plausible answer is that you are all wrong and there is no god, gods, spirits, or any other super natural powers.
3. The premise of most of religion's dislike of the Big Bang theory is that "nothing can just be, it has to be created". Well, where did you god come from if nothing "just is"? How improbable is it that super intelligent being that exists everywhere all the time(omnipresent) and has total knowledge(omniscient) and control(omnipotent) over every single quark in the entire Universe just spawned in to existence out of nothingness? For all your rants, you have the same problem as science except that science says "we don't know but we're looking really hard". Religion says "your question is stupid" (see item #1).
That's the rub... the museum can rais $250M to install a shuttle exhibit but if you asked those same people to pay that much in taxes that was guaranteed to go to NASA they would balk. .75% of the total budget (historically it has been as high as 4.5% and is currently about .5%). If the government as a whole could operate as efficiently as NASA does we'd have solved world hunger, provided free healthcare to all Americans, and have free mass transit in every city.
Most people labor under the false impression that NASA has a tremendous budget, perhaps almost as large as the military budget when in reality NASA's portion of US spending is about
Over the SST program lifespan NASA spend about $192B on the entire thing. For comparison: the US Air Force's F-35 program is expected to cost $857B over its life span (figure you need to double that to get to the number we'll actually wind up at).
The US spends about $220B on interest payments, so we could re-build the entire SST program for the price of 1 year of interest payments!
The "six figure bolt" was probably a dichotomy of incredibly strong and incredibly explosive. It was designed to hold the shuttle to the tank no-matter-what until the exact moment it needed to stop holding them together and then it needed to not exist, immediately and safely and with 100% reliability.
Any bolt holding anything together in a static, simulated display does not need those tolerances or requirements and I'd bet that a $15 grade 8 bolt of similar size would achieve all the holding power and longevity the new project requires. You could just welds and simulate the bolts as well.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/app...
Yes. I don't just think that; the science, physical objective testing and blind subjective testing all bear that out. Take the experience of sitting at the console out of the mix and play you a purely analog version of that same recording vs AAC/256 and 99% of people will not know any difference. The remaining 1% will be split 50/50 as to which recording sounds better.
Except that in every objective test the iOS devices show a near 0 THD, nearly flat recency response and a nearly perfect dynamic range. While perhaps "technically better" is the case with the Pono, the simple, physical, physiological and demonstrable fact that 100% of humans can not hear the differences you are taking about in any testing case means the different and "bitterness" is simply snake oil. Right up there with Monster 'monitor interconnects' and speaker isolation stands.
Is Apple's security model for iOS with local passcode (simple or complex), 100% encryption, tracking, auto and remote wipe capability and the device is incapable of being used unless you log it in to it with the proper credentials so the activation server allows it to go past the lock screen whenever you restart it or even re-install the OS on the device.
I'm guessing if I say you should just get an iPhone that you'd complain about the "walled garden" and "overseer status" of Apple, which is of course ironic given that those exact features are what it will take to lock any phone from hackers and thieves. You need to make up your mind... customizable Android based phone or highly secure iPhone.
The way I see it is that such a secure setup could never happen with the Android system: No manufacturer wants to run stock Android as there would be little competitive differentiation. Since all Android installs are different you can't easily implement the activation server model or OS level encryption, plus who would do it? Carriers would want to raise prices to offer the service, manufacturers don't want to support phones for longer than it takes to sell them and Google doesn't seem to think security is a priority for the OS. Who's left?
The liquid floating around in the helmet would have eventually drowned him. Doing nothing was 100% certain death; the liquid water was effectively toxic.
Drinking the liquid (which may have been toxic) would have prevented the drowning and provided more time to evacuate him to the interior of ISS. If the liquid were poisonous, medical attention could then be rendered and an evacuation to Earth would be possible.
This is similar to being stranded in the wild: it is always better to drink even smelly water than to die of dehydration. You will most likely be found and returned to civilization before any toxic effect or biological infection from the water you drink would cause any serious health risks. Not drinking could cause your death in a few hours, toxic water would usually take at least a few days to a week to kill you (if you remain untreated).
This of course ignoring the entire question of HOW to drink the water.
If I were NASA I'd take a two-step approach to the issue:
1. Fix the damed leaks.
2. Install a large hydroscopic surface area water/air separator inside the helmet with a straw within reach of the astronaut's mouth. In emergency you can breath through the straw.
Regardless of this issue, it is apparent that the astronauts need an external "man down" signaling device they can activate from muscle memory. The device needs to alert on each of: the comms frequency, visually (flashing light) and on some other dedicated emergency radio frequency with detectors both within the station as well as on Earth.
They ignore obviously risk laden malfunctions and events until someone is killed or put in serious jeopardy in a public manner. If this astronaut had not almost drowned the issue would still be getting ignored.
Time, and time again NASA managers ignore risk and push the "go" mentality. I can't think of a single death or significant injury/risk in the NASA programs where the end result of investigation was "well, it was an unforeseeable accident". Each and every case I recall there were engineers saying "there's a problem we need to fix" and managers just kept ignoring it. From Gemini and Apollo through the SST and now the ISS; this is a disease at the core of NASA that needs to be sterilized.
My TDI VW Golf holds 16gals and gets about 40MPG for 640 mile range. At 75MPH.
The Tesla's range drops to closer to 200 miles at 70MPH. Their web site won't even let you choose 75MPH as a calculation for range; why not?
Funny how Tesla doesn't tell you how many hours they spent actually charging so you can compare it against the driving time. They only fall back to quoting the marketing talking point of "50% charge in 20 minutes" from a super charging station. 75+ minutes to get to 100%.
Let's just ignore that and assume that charging is linear and 1hr from empty to full charge and that a full charge gets you 300 miles(assuming the 80kWh battery option) at 55mph as the Tesla marketing materials claim.
How does a weekend getaway look for a 650 mile drive?
650mi / 55 mph = 12 hours of driving and need 2 charge stops (2 hours)
A total of 14 hours of travel time and an average speed of 46.5mph
If you drive at a more common 70mph** on such a trip instead of the anemic 55mph and your range is 240 miles
650 / 70mph = 9 hours of driving and need 3 charge stops (3 hours)
A total of 12 hours of driving and and average speed of 54mph
**Tesla's web site won't even let you choose 75MPH as a calculation for range despite that being the standard rural speed limit on many Interstate highways.
http://www.teslamotors.com/goe...
Remember: those numbers are the most optimistic range and charging estimates from the Tesla web site. More realistic charge times are about 50% longer if you go to 100% each charge) If you don't have access to a 120kW SuperCharger, don't have the 80kWh battery and don't have the dual onboard charger options then charging times increase significantly. A residential 240V 40A charging station takes 9 hours to charge to 300 miles of range!
Use a gasoline fuel engine based car and you'll spend about 10 minutes refueling. Diesel will probably make the round trip without refueling. A 9 hour trip takes... about 9 hours.
The Tesla S is a nice, all-electric short distance commuter car. Why can't they just leave it at that and stop trying to prove that you can take cross-country trips with it even when all the most optimistic numbers say it just doesn't work unless you don't care when you get to your destination?
No, Slashdot is Frankenstein's monster.
There is much wrong with this article.
Geeks today aren't what they used to be.
Not the cobbled together monster!
No, #2 excludes them from the offence
Most laws are written such that the monitor needs to be able to receive and/or send content. GPS doesn't receive or send content and can only use the data within itself. Legally it is the same as a paper map as a "driver aid"
As soon as your device can communicate you fall under these laws. Using your iPhone for nav could get you nabbed as it can send/receive data.
All the officers in the Phoenix metro area are on BMW or Honda bikes. Mostly BMW. Small, fast, maneuverable and reliable.
Minor correction:
You do need a payment method to open the iTunes Store account. After 24 hours you may remove the payment method from the account, but the CC is a form of identity and age verification in the process.
The settlement is regarding in-app purchases, not App purchases.
Here's why there's not automatic 15 minute window to get refunds for those: Apple has not way of knowing if you USED the in-app purchase or not.
Why's it matter? You're playing a game and need Sword of Wonderment +5 to kill Malchan. You can in-app purchase it for $1.29 or go spend an hour earning it in a quest. You're lazy so you buy the Sword of Wonderment +5, kill Malchan and then claim a refund for the $1.29 you spent on the Sword of Wonderment +5.
Substitute bags of coins, bigger engine, red sneakers or any other item in any other game that does this sort of thing.
In that environment, what is the incentive for developers to continue to offer free or low-cost games?
Babies are united in the idea that once they get a lollypop, that lollypop should not be taken away from them. Try and there will be screaming.
Remember: ever time a baby looses a lollypop, the terrorists win.
What I'm talking about is that this isn't a gun control issue. This, like so many shootings before it, is a mental health issue.
People jumped all over the NYT for saying this was raising the debate over cellphone use in theaters. People started calling that stupid as it was "obvious" that this was really a gun control debate.
I'm saying both those camps are stupid: This is raises the bar of the discussion of the failed healthcare system in this country. When we have a population that can snap so easily as to kill another person over such a minor incident: we need to get our heads straightened out.
Well the duty of a police officer is generally: to protect and serve. What most people don't understand is that they don't protect and serve the people individually, the police protect and serve the laws and institutions of the government of their jurisdiction.
The police are there to help the government maintain control of the society as the laws define it. Generally that means the police show up after crimes or other offenses, gather evidence, arrest suspects and present them to the prosecuting attourney for prosecution/trial; or cite them for a civil infraction. The police have no legal responsibility to protect you, or me, as a an individual person.
My point about the shooter is that he started complaining to the texting guy, apparently because the texting process was bothering/interrupting his enjoyment of what was on the screen. If the shooter was truly interested in seeing the presentation then his best course of action would have been to wait for the texting to stop, relocate or wait for a theater employee to resolve the situation. If his goal was to see a film then discharging a firearm in the theater was diametrically opposed to his interests.
People don't, in a rational mindset, act in anything other their own self interest.
Mark my words: we're going to find out this guy had some mental/psychological issues that triggered this incident.
Right... the old testament is the Jewish book. Christians are supposed to be all about the "new" post-12 step program god who was all about peace and love.
The whole IDEA of Christianity is that christ (Jesus) came to Earth to reform us and teach us the new ways. No true Christian should be clinging to the OT to justify violence.
I just don't understand how the shooter thought that discharging a firearm inside a crowded movie theater was in any way going to aid in his effort to quietly watch the previews and later feature presentation.
In what possible way was shooting another patron NOT going to stop the projection, evacuate the theater and end up with the shooter at least detained if not arrested and in jail for the next few hours?
Did he really think: "Well, if I just shoot this one guy then we can get on with the rest of the film?
There must be some mental instability lurking in there somewhere: anger/rage issues, delusions, drug use, etc.
Naa, we needed one more shooter to shoot the first shooter thinking that another mass-shooting was about to happen. THAT would have been a justified shoot to me.