i conclude that an non-governmental related stock market boom created unsustainable capital gains income for the US. Those numbers were used, however, to promote a tax cut which would not affect the natinoal debt. Add to that additional unanticipated spending on military expenitures without an offset in budgetary decreases or revenue increases and we're back in the red.
Clinton got lucky (that's his trademark, right?). GWB made some popular short-term financial decisions at the expense of long term financial viability. He's no different than every dot.bomb CEO, or most current CEOs for that matter. He's trying to make the books look good THIS quarter, and he'll worry about next quarter in three more months.
Oddly, there seems to be a very small proportion of _truly_ undecided voters this cycle to influence. People either agree with Bush or they don't. Those that don't have no other (effective) choice. I've found strikingly few people who will vote for "anybody" but John Kerry...they all want to vote for Bush for various reasons.
My wife recently remarked that Bush stands for his values unwaiveringly, and he should be respected for that alone. I decided that an argument wasnt't in my best interest, but I would admit she was half right. He _does_ stand for his values, and he's immovable about them. It just so happens that I disagree with almost every ideological stand he takes, so it makes my choice not to vote for him easy. More importantly, I can elimiate voting for a third party because I know the election will be close, and to oppose GW Bush effectively I must regiter a vote for his closet rival, John Kerry. The fact that I know that Bush will never listen to a point of view which does not agree with his makes my choise so easy.
By the way, every American I know is FOR keeping America "safe" and providing good education, and making sure grandma and grandpa can make ends meet. Those aren't ideological stands.
Abortion is. State support (financial or otherwise) of religion is. Keeping America safe by invading every country which may pose a threat is. Spending more money than you make, whether by over-spending or under-charging, is, too. They all have real consequences.
Oh, and I think if we really want to make a military statement, we SHOULD use Nukes more often. Partially because little bombs are so inefficient, but mostly because if you're just crazy enough to use one every once in a while, it keeps everyone on their toes;-)
And why, I must ask, is there so much beaurocracy?
Well, aside from the one-year funding cycle for multi year missions, there is a whole new layer of management who's sole job is to manage the contracts (both technically and adminstratively) which have been essentially required by the congress. It's a foolish waste of money. How can you add contract manangement (on both sides) and pay the contractors more, and still expect to pay less?
An example? Okay, a fresh-out (BS) Aerospace Engineer will come on as a GS-7. The current salary for a GS-7 is $29,037, according to the 2003 General Schedule. The average salary for an Aerospace Engineer I (i.e.: a fresh-out) is $49,062. (according to salary.com)
While I will be the first to admit that the government is not the most efficient in processing benefits and such, they also get a discount on the benefits they provide, so it's probably a wash. Take the salary differentials and expand that by the extra layer of management on BOTH sides of the contract, and I fail to see the economy. Of course, it's a great boon to the industry which lives off the contracts, and there are many rich folks as a result of the contracting. And they will find a way to purchase the continued support for NASA from their congresspeople.
If the press is liberal, they'll call for Lockheed Martin to pay the costs of the failed mission (as they are the ones who both designed and built the craft).
If the press is conservative, they'll question if the agency is truly relevant and capable. They'll also follow the story with a blurb about private companies now having nearly-ready-to-fly, return-to-earth capable vehicles.
When the stories come out...see which one actually happens.
I expect Lockheed Martin to reimburse the governemnt for the failure of their engineers and fabrication plants to perform satisfactorily, or to provide a zero-cost replacement for the lost probe.
And if not them, then CalTech can pony up the benjamins. The fact is, NASA (goverment employees) neither designed nor fabricated the components. They simply let the contract and paid the bills. Then again, that's about all NASA does nowadays anyway...no engineers, designers, or trades are left - they've all be outsourced.
"Lockheed Martin Space Systems, Denver, Colo., designed, built and operates the spacecraft, and is overseeing the capture and return of the Genesos sample capsule."
I say that, since we're all about accountablity, that Lockheed Martin pony up the cash they lost through insufficient engineering. It doesn't matter whether is shipped on time, in budget, with purple wings, whatever - the fact is that it failed. If we pay L-M, it will be an indication that the Federal Government is simply handing checks over to corporations.
On a side note, I happen to know both Alphonzo Diaz and Orlando Figueroa, though I was sufficiently separated from them by management layers that I'm sure they don't remember me. They were both pretty nice guys. It's a shame this didn't work out for them.
So, were you one of the guys who applauded when NASA was foced to outsource as much as possible (incuding engineering) in the 80s and 90s during the "less government is better" years?
If so, then you should lead the charge that the contractors who designed and built this filed mission be required to pony up the $260,000,000 because - let's face it - it's their fault and the taxpayers should be reimbursed for a faulty product. I want my money back.
Because I purchased a ticket to board that vehicle. In return for cash (or its equivalent), they have aggreed to transport me and a set mass/volume of goods from point A to point B. One can argue whether the ticket purchase included a mandatory disclosure of identification and requries the verification of identification prior to boarding, but the recent stink has been goverment driven, not corporate driven. The only exception driven by the airlines has been tracking of frequent flyer awards.
Your statements are true, but misguided. John Howard did not actively promote the terrorists who decided to joy ride a couple of jets into US landmarks and federal buildings, nor did he make Dubya's dad look bad after the US "won" the Iraq/Kuwait war. Australia is not in danger of the US coming in and setting up a military police state (um, I mean, "promoting democracy").
Australia could just say "no" and end the discussion. Why? We (the US) needs good, solid allies just a bit too much now, and Australia can usually be counted on by the US (and England, for that matter) to pony up some support when we call.
For those thinking that Australia has little impact...militarily that may be true, but in mind-share and popular culture they've got a pretty good lock on the US. I'm sure John Kerry would love to claim that Dubya just bombed some kuala bears over a copyright infringement case.
(disclaimer: I'm an American (US flavor), I don't like G.W. Bush, I'm not happy that I have to vote for Kerry to get GWB out, and I'm a bit embarrased to say that I had to look up the australian Prime Ministers name on Google)
Oh, I'm sorry, yo missed the point about minimums, didn't you. It'll be just like seat licensing - $1000 for the first copy, $2000 for ten copies. Your first day will be 90% of the basic subscription, but you can extend it for 364 more days for just 10% more.
Dont' believe everything you read. Any item which can generate a heat source (aka spark) can ingnite a fuel-air mixture. The fact that it doesn't happen every day, or that there are easier ways to ignite gasoline (static electricity, cigarettes) does NOT mean that it can not happen.
Gasoline is very hard to ignite, and will only do so in a very limited concentration range. I bank on these odds everytime I talk on my cell phone, get in and out of a car with cloth seats, or fill up a plastic gasoline container. I don't smoke, so I can rule that one out. Nonetheless, it CAN happen.
With HD media being so cheap, how about loading up your station wagon with HDs?
Besides, the stationwagon has a far higher total capacity throughput than the server. To get a station wagon's full of data, you'd have to swap the media at the front and back end of the I2 link, too.
It's worth noting that buildings are designed for a 2% annual probablilty of exceedance in the case of wind and snow. That's a 50-year storm. It also does not mean that a 51 year storm will destroy a facility. Quite the opposite - because buildings are designed with OTS components, they're not as exact a space hardware - you always pick the "next biggest" structural member, and often design a connection which is significantly oversized simply to make it possible/economical to fabricate. It's also worth noting that for buildings of KSC era, the likely analysis considered a 1.5 factor of safety on the material strengths. ("Modern" analysis puts steel FS in the 1.1 to 1.2 range, but adds 20%-60% onto the load values)
BTW - I've design both space shuttle payload structures and buildings.
Ahhh, but the flammable mixture for gasoline and air is confined to a range of 5%-9% (those are really rought numbers, BTW), whereas H2 can be anywhere from 3% to 97% (just a rough). It's hard to get a flammable mixture of gasoline and air under normal fueling conditions - the proof is all the cigarette smoking gas station attendants of the 50s-80s and the few fires caused by them. It's far easier to get a flammable atmosphere with H2.
Yeah, I remember a talk on this (maybe informal) back at the PGI http://www.pgi.org/ convention in the mid 90-s. Talk was about including nitrocellulose casings (to reduce ash fallout) and RFID-like fuses in the shells for burst timing and ignition. A cap would be charged and time delays set via the touchless link.
I just assumed it's been that way for a while, and suprised that this hit as "news".
Pracitcally every family I know of runs as a commune or dictatorship. They're both perfectly good forms of government, they just don't scale partcularly well. Actually, dictatorships scale very well - certainly as well as democracies.
Anyway, to bitch at the mods for drumming up support for a free (beer) wifi network is pissing in the wind. You're on/., where we get hard-ons every time someone posts an OQO press release. We all know that Comcast and Verizon will nip this in the bud. Just smile and chuckle at the youthful, misguided enthusiasm for this project.
Besides, even if it worked, would YOU want to share a 54Mb network with 600,000 other people in the city? Dial up speeds would start looking pretty attractive!
Slashdot Mirror
i conclude that an non-governmental related stock market boom created unsustainable capital gains income for the US. Those numbers were used, however, to promote a tax cut which would not affect the natinoal debt. Add to that additional unanticipated spending on military expenitures without an offset in budgetary decreases or revenue increases and we're back in the red.
Clinton got lucky (that's his trademark, right?). GWB made some popular short-term financial decisions at the expense of long term financial viability. He's no different than every dot.bomb CEO, or most current CEOs for that matter. He's trying to make the books look good THIS quarter, and he'll worry about next quarter in three more months.
Oddly, there seems to be a very small proportion of _truly_ undecided voters this cycle to influence. People either agree with Bush or they don't. Those that don't have no other (effective) choice. I've found strikingly few people who will vote for "anybody" but John Kerry...they all want to vote for Bush for various reasons.
;-)
My wife recently remarked that Bush stands for his values unwaiveringly, and he should be respected for that alone. I decided that an argument wasnt't in my best interest, but I would admit she was half right. He _does_ stand for his values, and he's immovable about them. It just so happens that I disagree with almost every ideological stand he takes, so it makes my choice not to vote for him easy. More importantly, I can elimiate voting for a third party because I know the election will be close, and to oppose GW Bush effectively I must regiter a vote for his closet rival, John Kerry. The fact that I know that Bush will never listen to a point of view which does not agree with his makes my choise so easy.
By the way, every American I know is FOR keeping America "safe" and providing good education, and making sure grandma and grandpa can make ends meet. Those aren't ideological stands.
Abortion is. State support (financial or otherwise) of religion is. Keeping America safe by invading every country which may pose a threat is. Spending more money than you make, whether by over-spending or under-charging, is, too. They all have real consequences.
Oh, and I think if we really want to make a military statement, we SHOULD use Nukes more often. Partially because little bombs are so inefficient, but mostly because if you're just crazy enough to use one every once in a while, it keeps everyone on their toes
c'mon Sandy, baby, loosen up!
And why, I must ask, is there so much beaurocracy?
Well, aside from the one-year funding cycle for multi year missions, there is a whole new layer of management who's sole job is to manage the contracts (both technically and adminstratively) which have been essentially required by the congress. It's a foolish waste of money. How can you add contract manangement (on both sides) and pay the contractors more, and still expect to pay less?
An example? Okay, a fresh-out (BS) Aerospace Engineer will come on as a GS-7. The current salary for a GS-7 is $29,037, according to the 2003 General Schedule. The average salary for an Aerospace Engineer I (i.e.: a fresh-out) is $49,062. (according to salary.com)
While I will be the first to admit that the government is not the most efficient in processing benefits and such, they also get a discount on the benefits they provide, so it's probably a wash. Take the salary differentials and expand that by the extra layer of management on BOTH sides of the contract, and I fail to see the economy. Of course, it's a great boon to the industry which lives off the contracts, and there are many rich folks as a result of the contracting. And they will find a way to purchase the continued support for NASA from their congresspeople.
If the press is liberal, they'll call for Lockheed Martin to pay the costs of the failed mission (as they are the ones who both designed and built the craft).
If the press is conservative, they'll question if the agency is truly relevant and capable. They'll also follow the story with a blurb about private companies now having nearly-ready-to-fly, return-to-earth capable vehicles.
When the stories come out...see which one actually happens.
I expect Lockheed Martin to reimburse the governemnt for the failure of their engineers and fabrication plants to perform satisfactorily, or to provide a zero-cost replacement for the lost probe.
And if not them, then CalTech can pony up the benjamins. The fact is, NASA (goverment employees) neither designed nor fabricated the components. They simply let the contract and paid the bills. Then again, that's about all NASA does nowadays anyway...no engineers, designers, or trades are left - they've all be outsourced.
From the medial package:
"Lockheed Martin Space Systems, Denver, Colo., designed, built and operates the spacecraft, and is overseeing the capture and return of the Genesos sample capsule."
I say that, since we're all about accountablity, that Lockheed Martin pony up the cash they lost through insufficient engineering. It doesn't matter whether is shipped on time, in budget, with purple wings, whatever - the fact is that it failed. If we pay L-M, it will be an indication that the Federal Government is simply handing checks over to corporations.
On a side note, I happen to know both Alphonzo Diaz and Orlando Figueroa, though I was sufficiently separated from them by management layers that I'm sure they don't remember me. They were both pretty nice guys. It's a shame this didn't work out for them.
So, were you one of the guys who applauded when NASA was foced to outsource as much as possible (incuding engineering) in the 80s and 90s during the "less government is better" years?
If so, then you should lead the charge that the contractors who designed and built this filed mission be required to pony up the $260,000,000 because - let's face it - it's their fault and the taxpayers should be reimbursed for a faulty product. I want my money back.
Of course he has a wife. Somebody in that house has to make money to afford all those toys!
Because I purchased a ticket to board that vehicle. In return for cash (or its equivalent), they have aggreed to transport me and a set mass/volume of goods from point A to point B. One can argue whether the ticket purchase included a mandatory disclosure of identification and requries the verification of identification prior to boarding, but the recent stink has been goverment driven, not corporate driven. The only exception driven by the airlines has been tracking of frequent flyer awards.
60% leaves more than enough to ruin your day. Don't worry, they'll find a way around it...it's they're full time job, and Allah commands it.
You'd do the same if your god spoke to you.
Your statements are true, but misguided. John Howard did not actively promote the terrorists who decided to joy ride a couple of jets into US landmarks and federal buildings, nor did he make Dubya's dad look bad after the US "won" the Iraq/Kuwait war. Australia is not in danger of the US coming in and setting up a military police state (um, I mean, "promoting democracy").
Australia could just say "no" and end the discussion. Why? We (the US) needs good, solid allies just a bit too much now, and Australia can usually be counted on by the US (and England, for that matter) to pony up some support when we call.
For those thinking that Australia has little impact...militarily that may be true, but in mind-share and popular culture they've got a pretty good lock on the US. I'm sure John Kerry would love to claim that Dubya just bombed some kuala bears over a copyright infringement case.
(disclaimer: I'm an American (US flavor), I don't like G.W. Bush, I'm not happy that I have to vote for Kerry to get GWB out, and I'm a bit embarrased to say that I had to look up the australian Prime Ministers name on Google)
Post and architectural fly-through on /.?
That's like asking him to pull your finger. Only the foolish, horribly masochistic, or hopelessly naive would fall for that one.
Oh, I'm sorry, yo missed the point about minimums, didn't you. It'll be just like seat licensing - $1000 for the first copy, $2000 for ten copies. Your first day will be 90% of the basic subscription, but you can extend it for 364 more days for just 10% more.
I read all the links, and I'm pretty sure they were all in english, but I didn't understand a word of it. No wonder all the mathematicians are nuts.
(I wonder if this is what some of my non-engineering clients think of my work sometimes)
Actually, he probably meant EMI/RFI, which is a constant problem.
Dont' believe everything you read. Any item which can generate a heat source (aka spark) can ingnite a fuel-air mixture. The fact that it doesn't happen every day, or that there are easier ways to ignite gasoline (static electricity, cigarettes) does NOT mean that it can not happen.
Gasoline is very hard to ignite, and will only do so in a very limited concentration range. I bank on these odds everytime I talk on my cell phone, get in and out of a car with cloth seats, or fill up a plastic gasoline container. I don't smoke, so I can rule that one out. Nonetheless, it CAN happen.
With HD media being so cheap, how about loading up your station wagon with HDs?
Besides, the stationwagon has a far higher total capacity throughput than the server. To get a station wagon's full of data, you'd have to swap the media at the front and back end of the I2 link, too.
The shuttle's were designed around a 1 in 35 failure rate.
The facilities were designed around a 50 year storm (1 in 50 annual failure rate).
By the SS logic, the buildings were overdesigned.
It's worth noting that buildings are designed for a 2% annual probablilty of exceedance in the case of wind and snow. That's a 50-year storm. It also does not mean that a 51 year storm will destroy a facility. Quite the opposite - because buildings are designed with OTS components, they're not as exact a space hardware - you always pick the "next biggest" structural member, and often design a connection which is significantly oversized simply to make it possible/economical to fabricate. It's also worth noting that for buildings of KSC era, the likely analysis considered a 1.5 factor of safety on the material strengths. ("Modern" analysis puts steel FS in the 1.1 to 1.2 range, but adds 20%-60% onto the load values)
BTW - I've design both space shuttle payload structures and buildings.
Ahhh, but the flammable mixture for gasoline and air is confined to a range of 5%-9% (those are really rought numbers, BTW), whereas H2 can be anywhere from 3% to 97% (just a rough). It's hard to get a flammable mixture of gasoline and air under normal fueling conditions - the proof is all the cigarette smoking gas station attendants of the 50s-80s and the few fires caused by them. It's far easier to get a flammable atmosphere with H2.
"Qubit? What's a Qubit?"
.
.
.
"How long can you tread water?"
(sorry, BC just hit me, and I had to share it with the group. Yes, its cubit, and it's 45.72cm according to google, but _I_ thought it was funny)
Yeah, I remember a talk on this (maybe informal) back at the PGI http://www.pgi.org/ convention in the mid 90-s. Talk was about including nitrocellulose casings (to reduce ash fallout) and RFID-like fuses in the shells for burst timing and ignition. A cap would be charged and time delays set via the touchless link.
I just assumed it's been that way for a while, and suprised that this hit as "news".
Hmmm...looks like we have a new poll idea coming up:
When you say you like your women like you like your coffee, you mean:
Strong and Black
Bitter
Ground up and kept in the freezer
.
.
.
CowboyNeal
Pracitcally every family I know of runs as a commune or dictatorship. They're both perfectly good forms of government, they just don't scale partcularly well. Actually, dictatorships scale very well - certainly as well as democracies.
/., where we get hard-ons every time someone posts an OQO press release. We all know that Comcast and Verizon will nip this in the bud. Just smile and chuckle at the youthful, misguided enthusiasm for this project.
Anyway, to bitch at the mods for drumming up support for a free (beer) wifi network is pissing in the wind. You're on
Besides, even if it worked, would YOU want to share a 54Mb network with 600,000 other people in the city? Dial up speeds would start looking pretty attractive!