From the original article (from NASA, not msnbc.com) "The moon could also provide some creative commercial opportunities: lunar power from solar cells, protected data archives, mining of lunar metals, and research under conditions of low gravity and high vacuum, to name a few."
So, if your data is REALLY vital, you can store your backups in the ULTIMATE offsite data center!
Ever since the Columbia accident, NASA has approached every human flight with extream caution. The article does not say that there is a date roll over issue, it says they don't want to fly with an unknown system responce. This system is not just the launch stack and the orbiter, it is comprised of all the gound support and communications gear. If there is a glitch that crops up while the Shuttle is landing on day 367 and the landing approach hardware is working on day 002, bad things can happen. Why risk the problem? It doesn't cost much to stay on the ground. If they are ready before the 17th, they fly. If they are not ready, they fly a couple of weeks latter.
I am actually surprised that they have a date on the flight computers. If you look at the schedules, everything is based on flight day numbers and T+ times.
A strong government "which acts in the interest of the people" absolves those people of the responsibility of working out the problem on their own. Look at what happened when homosexuals couples tried (and are still trying) to get the same rights as heterosexuals couples. Within weeks of the issue coming to the forefront of the American hype machine there were calls for a constitutional amendment to prevent it. What article of the Constitution gives the federal government the right to restrict who can and cannot enter into a legal union? What "interest of the people" would the government be protecting?
Do you think that policies can unilaterally be applied to someone in NYC that thinks chicken comes in shrink wrap and someone in the Nebraska panhandle that thinks any building taller than the grain elevator is huge represent both of them? With a weak federal government, the local governments would have to step in to fill the void. The advantage of that would be greater access to those that wield the power. Right now the "balance" of power is like an inverted cone. Local governments are at the bottom (city, township, etc.) with very little power as to what happens to those people that elected them to their position. Higher up the cone is the state government with more control over your day to day life but not the one that collects the bills. At the top of course is the federal government. We give them most of our tax dollars, most of the power to decide which of our local projects get funded and now what we can listen to, watch and/or do on the Internet. That doesn't seem very balanced to me.
What if the cone was flipped over? Out local governments would collect taxes to pay for the things that matter most to the people that elected them to that position and pay the state to take care of things like the freeways. Then the states would pay the weak federal government to regulate interstate trade (like the Constitution explicitly gives them power to do) and take care of the nation's defense. Without giving the federal government the big blank check, it is automatically limited in its powers.
Sorry, got a little side tracked there. Back to your statement about corporations needing a strong federal government to regulate them. You are forgetting your most important right of a free market society. The all powerful dollar. If you don't like that company's policies, don't buy their products. At the risk of starting a flame war, I bought a Mac because I thought Microsoft produced a crappy interface, bullied its way over its competitors and used its power to sway the market in its favor. Yes, I know I pay a premium. Yes, I know I don't get every game. YES, I KNOW I ONLY HAVE ONE MOUSE BUTTON! The point is I spent my money (i.e. my vote) with the company (i.e. the party) that best represented what was important to me. Make the corporations earn you dollar the way politicians should earn your vote and that will balance the power they can have on the market.
He's not pining! He's passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! He's expired and gone to meet his maker! He's a stiff! Bereft of life, he rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed him to the perch he'd be pushing up the daisies! His metabolic processes are now history! He's off the twig! He's kicked the bucket, he's shuffled off his mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleeding choir invisible!! THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!
Slashdot Mirror
So, if your data is REALLY vital, you can store your backups in the ULTIMATE offsite data center!
Ever since the Columbia accident, NASA has approached every human flight with extream caution. The article does not say that there is a date roll over issue, it says they don't want to fly with an unknown system responce. This system is not just the launch stack and the orbiter, it is comprised of all the gound support and communications gear. If there is a glitch that crops up while the Shuttle is landing on day 367 and the landing approach hardware is working on day 002, bad things can happen. Why risk the problem? It doesn't cost much to stay on the ground. If they are ready before the 17th, they fly. If they are not ready, they fly a couple of weeks latter.
I am actually surprised that they have a date on the flight computers. If you look at the schedules, everything is based on flight day numbers and T+ times.
Good thing you didn't waste your time "learning about Shakespear"
BTW, you spelled Shakespeare wrong.
A strong government "which acts in the interest of the people" absolves those people of the responsibility of working out the problem on their own. Look at what happened when homosexuals couples tried (and are still trying) to get the same rights as heterosexuals couples. Within weeks of the issue coming to the forefront of the American hype machine there were calls for a constitutional amendment to prevent it. What article of the Constitution gives the federal government the right to restrict who can and cannot enter into a legal union? What "interest of the people" would the government be protecting?
Do you think that policies can unilaterally be applied to someone in NYC that thinks chicken comes in shrink wrap and someone in the Nebraska panhandle that thinks any building taller than the grain elevator is huge represent both of them? With a weak federal government, the local governments would have to step in to fill the void. The advantage of that would be greater access to those that wield the power. Right now the "balance" of power is like an inverted cone. Local governments are at the bottom (city, township, etc.) with very little power as to what happens to those people that elected them to their position. Higher up the cone is the state government with more control over your day to day life but not the one that collects the bills. At the top of course is the federal government. We give them most of our tax dollars, most of the power to decide which of our local projects get funded and now what we can listen to, watch and/or do on the Internet. That doesn't seem very balanced to me.
What if the cone was flipped over? Out local governments would collect taxes to pay for the things that matter most to the people that elected them to that position and pay the state to take care of things like the freeways. Then the states would pay the weak federal government to regulate interstate trade (like the Constitution explicitly gives them power to do) and take care of the nation's defense. Without giving the federal government the big blank check, it is automatically limited in its powers.
Sorry, got a little side tracked there. Back to your statement about corporations needing a strong federal government to regulate them. You are forgetting your most important right of a free market society. The all powerful dollar. If you don't like that company's policies, don't buy their products. At the risk of starting a flame war, I bought a Mac because I thought Microsoft produced a crappy interface, bullied its way over its competitors and used its power to sway the market in its favor. Yes, I know I pay a premium. Yes, I know I don't get every game. YES, I KNOW I ONLY HAVE ONE MOUSE BUTTON! The point is I spent my money (i.e. my vote) with the company (i.e. the party) that best represented what was important to me. Make the corporations earn you dollar the way politicians should earn your vote and that will balance the power they can have on the market.
He's not pining! He's passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! He's expired and gone to meet his maker! He's a stiff! Bereft of life, he rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed him to the perch he'd be pushing up the daisies! His metabolic processes are now history! He's off the twig! He's kicked the bucket, he's shuffled off his mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleeding choir invisible!!
THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!