See? It's a funny word joke. Nobody really thinks that the plural of box is boxen. It's a pun. Makes people chuckle on the inside.
Lighten up, man! A grammar/spelling flame is one thing, but getting your panties in a twist because of an intentional play on words is really, well, compulsive.
The site I picked was just at random, trying to find numbers on construction injuries. I shoulda put a disclaimer in there.
Bottom line is, life is NOT safe. Exploration is NOT safe. Yes, we should do lots of thinking ahead of time to minimize the risks, but at some point, somebody's got to put their life on the line and GO.
Would I be the one to do it? You bet. Would I want my children to do it? If it was their free, informed choice, absolutely.
Trading human life as a cost of doing business simply isn't good business. However, it is not possible to make a zero-risk workplace. I work weekends in a meat market with all sorts of equipment that could maim me if I were not very careful with it. Is it my boss's responsibility to make certain it is not possible for me to hurt myself? No. Is it his responsibility to exercise due diligence in maintaining a safe workplace and educated employees? Absolutely. And he does.
Space travel is not nearly as dangerous as many people (including NASA) would like us to believe.
1) Do you have any idea how difficult it would be to be harmed by a radioisotope generator, even if the space shuttle DID blow up? The number of people who would "dying of cancer" would be smaller than the number of people who would get hit in the head by the damn thing.
2) Know how many people die building skyscrapers? Let me give you a hint: Annually, it's more than the number of people who have ever died in space. It's larger than the number of people who have GONE into space. Reference. Now, I don't have enough data to give you a per-capita figure, but suffice it to say that there are risks in everything. The astronauts should be fully informed of those risks, and then make a decision as to whether they'll accept them or not.
You had me until you called Seinfeld's four main characters "complex".
Look, I could write a PERL script to be George. All it would have to do is whine and piss me off and grunt and writhe around when I kick it lots of times in the balls. I REALLY hate that character.
I use my PDA (Handspring Visor) daily. I have a program that converts units back and forth, which I use incessantly. That way, I don't have to remember how many PSI in are in 1 Torr or 1 bar or 1 megapascal. It's a wonderful utility that saves my brain from having to remember silly little details like that.
I also use the RPN calculator, so a) I don't have to lug around my HP and b) I don't have to turn my brain around to use algebraic notation on other calcs. I love it.
I also use it to organize myself, by making lists of things that I need (like a grocery list, but for books and movies and such), so I don't have to remember all the authors who I want to check out.
Showtimes is also a superb utility. I never have to look in a newspaper to find movie times. I can do it, instantly, out in the world when my friends and I spontaneously decide "Hey! What's playing tonight?"
Basically, I use it as a swap file for my brain. Anything that's not important for me to memorize, but I do want to have quick and reliable access to, goes in the Handspring. The ability to replicate that data back to "secure" storage (on my PC) is absolutely invaluable. If I do happen to lose/break the thing, I know that 99.44% of the data I had on it is just waiting there for me to go grab another PDA. Try doing that with your Franklin Planner. : )
However, I'm curious as to the motivation for this question of "Do people use PDA's?" I mean, I use mine. I love it. What I can't figure out is why MY experience in any way informs YOUR experience. If you've tried using a PDA, and it doesn't suit you, why do you care if it suits me? I mean, it seems like the only purpose of the question is to reinforce the stereotype that PDAs are just useless status symbols. Me, I don't give a damn about status symbols. My PDA is a tool. The fact that it doesn't have color, or rechargeable battery pack, or a zillion-gigahertz processor, in no way impairs its utility to me.
Now, I think the more INTERESTING question would be the turnover rate for PocketPC versus Palm. I believe that PalmOS is far better at doing basic organizer tasks, and PocketPC is good at doing fancy-schmancy fun toy tasks (whose luster quickly dulls). I'd be willing to wager that more people stop using PocketPCs than stop using Palms, on a per-capita basis.
Palm IIIxe has a backlight. Press and hold the power button.
I know, because I shocked my friend who owns one by showing him how to turn it on.
I've also never lost data during battery replacement. I am in the habit of syncing first, but even so I've never had the batteries out long enough to lose info. I don't know what I'm doin differently, but your experience is different from mine.
Re:Anton Flettner buys a lawn mower!
on
Fanwing Planes?
·
· Score: 1
One of my recurring nightmares of my fluid dynamics class was when the professor came in to issue the final exam. He didn't say anything...just hopped up on the desk, did what you describe, and said "Question 1: What is the angular velocity of the pen's rotation about its long axis?" and gave us a three-beam balance and a ruler.
Great exam question. Too bad I'd forgotten the formula for the Coanda effect. : )
Just in case you're curious, you CAN get lift reliably from a spinning cylinder. It's just terrifically inefficient (in terms of lift to drag ratio) compared to using a moving wing.
Petroleum-fueled light sources work fine. Horses and buggies work fine. Pointy sticks and wet clay work fine.
Since when does YOU thinking an alternative "works fine" make it not OK (or cool or "Good" or whatever) for somebody else to use a different thing?
You might note that other people disagree with you. You might also note that their disagreeing with you in no way infringes on your soverignty.
So...you don't think smartphones are useful? Fine. Me, I'd rather have one display unit, one place to store phone numbers, and one plastic box to carry in my pocket, instead of two.
So do as Zubrin suggests, and tether the crew module to the spent upper stage and spin the whole thing.
This zero-gee dragon is not a showstopper. Zubrin spent the better part of a chapter explaining how this is not nearly as big a deal as anti-space exploration grognards want it to be.
And, while we're at it, define "safely". Exploration isn't a "safe" activity. There are STILL people who will examine the risks and choose to accept them. Why get in their way?
ISS is a waste of NASA's budget. Russia has plenty of experience keeping cosmonauts relatively healthy for long-duration spaceflight. Trying to justify the ISS for "biomedical research" is silly.
Shuttle's a boondoggle for the vast majority of its flights, too. It is not well utilized as a giant delivery van.
There's a plan (that I've advocated before) that doesn't take any Battlestar Galactica on-orbit assembly for getting to Mars. It also has the (optional) facility for flying the whole mission under "spin" gravity, by attaching the crew module to the spent booster rocket via a long tether, and spinning the whole contraption like a bola. Makes navigation a little more interesting, but that's a soluble problem.
http://www.marssociety.org. Check out "Mars Direct".
I take issue with your contention that the technology to get to Mars and return safely does not exist. What parts of the puzzle are missing?
If you're interested in the topic, check out Robert Zubrin's "The Case for Mars", significant fractions of which are available at http://www.marssociety.org for free (beer).
Slashdot Mirror
See, I blurted out "Well, Deanna, that's the last time we let YOU drive."
I think my line was funnier. : )
Simple solution. Don't buy bad video cards. Or Sega consoles. Problem solved.
: )
What's the plural of ox?
That's right. Oxen.
See? It's a funny word joke. Nobody really thinks that the plural of box is boxen. It's a pun. Makes people chuckle on the inside.
Lighten up, man! A grammar/spelling flame is one thing, but getting your panties in a twist because of an intentional play on words is really, well, compulsive.
The site I picked was just at random, trying to find numbers on construction injuries. I shoulda put a disclaimer in there.
Bottom line is, life is NOT safe. Exploration is NOT safe. Yes, we should do lots of thinking ahead of time to minimize the risks, but at some point, somebody's got to put their life on the line and GO.
Would I be the one to do it? You bet. Would I want my children to do it? If it was their free, informed choice, absolutely.
Trading human life as a cost of doing business simply isn't good business. However, it is not possible to make a zero-risk workplace. I work weekends in a meat market with all sorts of equipment that could maim me if I were not very careful with it. Is it my boss's responsibility to make certain it is not possible for me to hurt myself? No. Is it his responsibility to exercise due diligence in maintaining a safe workplace and educated employees? Absolutely. And he does.
Space travel is not nearly as dangerous as many people (including NASA) would like us to believe.
I'm going to pick two nits.
1) Do you have any idea how difficult it would be to be harmed by a radioisotope generator, even if the space shuttle DID blow up? The number of people who would "dying of cancer" would be smaller than the number of people who would get hit in the head by the damn thing.
2) Know how many people die building skyscrapers? Let me give you a hint: Annually, it's more than the number of people who have ever died in space. It's larger than the number of people who have GONE into space. Reference. Now, I don't have enough data to give you a per-capita figure, but suffice it to say that there are risks in everything. The astronauts should be fully informed of those risks, and then make a decision as to whether they'll accept them or not.
Nothing...but you still have to get the fuel there.
Don't be silly. Anybody who disagrees with the parent poster, and has the temerity to express that opinion, is a zealot.
: )
Ummm, because a TV is more complicated than a door? Because doors don't know how to guess at what shows I might like?
Wow, that just seems like a really dumb question to me.
You had me until you called Seinfeld's four main characters "complex".
Look, I could write a PERL script to be George. All it would have to do is whine and piss me off and grunt and writhe around when I kick it lots of times in the balls. I REALLY hate that character.
OK, maybe I shared too much. : )
Yup. Stupid David Foley and the camera...
*chuckle*
I use my PDA (Handspring Visor) daily. I have a program that converts units back and forth, which I use incessantly. That way, I don't have to remember how many PSI in are in 1 Torr or 1 bar or 1 megapascal. It's a wonderful utility that saves my brain from having to remember silly little details like that.
I also use the RPN calculator, so a) I don't have to lug around my HP and b) I don't have to turn my brain around to use algebraic notation on other calcs. I love it.
I also use it to organize myself, by making lists of things that I need (like a grocery list, but for books and movies and such), so I don't have to remember all the authors who I want to check out.
Showtimes is also a superb utility. I never have to look in a newspaper to find movie times. I can do it, instantly, out in the world when my friends and I spontaneously decide "Hey! What's playing tonight?"
Basically, I use it as a swap file for my brain. Anything that's not important for me to memorize, but I do want to have quick and reliable access to, goes in the Handspring. The ability to replicate that data back to "secure" storage (on my PC) is absolutely invaluable. If I do happen to lose/break the thing, I know that 99.44% of the data I had on it is just waiting there for me to go grab another PDA. Try doing that with your Franklin Planner. : )
However, I'm curious as to the motivation for this question of "Do people use PDA's?" I mean, I use mine. I love it. What I can't figure out is why MY experience in any way informs YOUR experience. If you've tried using a PDA, and it doesn't suit you, why do you care if it suits me? I mean, it seems like the only purpose of the question is to reinforce the stereotype that PDAs are just useless status symbols. Me, I don't give a damn about status symbols. My PDA is a tool. The fact that it doesn't have color, or rechargeable battery pack, or a zillion-gigahertz processor, in no way impairs its utility to me.
Now, I think the more INTERESTING question would be the turnover rate for PocketPC versus Palm. I believe that PalmOS is far better at doing basic organizer tasks, and PocketPC is good at doing fancy-schmancy fun toy tasks (whose luster quickly dulls). I'd be willing to wager that more people stop using PocketPCs than stop using Palms, on a per-capita basis.
Palm IIIxe has a backlight. Press and hold the power button.
I know, because I shocked my friend who owns one by showing him how to turn it on.
I've also never lost data during battery replacement. I am in the habit of syncing first, but even so I've never had the batteries out long enough to lose info. I don't know what I'm doin differently, but your experience is different from mine.
One of my recurring nightmares of my fluid dynamics class was when the professor came in to issue the final exam. He didn't say anything...just hopped up on the desk, did what you describe, and said "Question 1: What is the angular velocity of the pen's rotation about its long axis?" and gave us a three-beam balance and a ruler.
Great exam question. Too bad I'd forgotten the formula for the Coanda effect. : )
Just in case you're curious, you CAN get lift reliably from a spinning cylinder. It's just terrifically inefficient (in terms of lift to drag ratio) compared to using a moving wing.
Um, actually, that'd be cool because we don't like companies to cook their books and defraud people.
If you wish to contend that that is what is required to be successful, then no, I certainly don't like success. However, I don't agree with you.
As far as the rest of the stuff you're ranting about...well, have a nice day.
I agree. I mean, why would you be surprised if you buy a product and MS screws you?
More to the point, I think anybody who buys an xBox is complicit in Microsoft's attempt to extend their monopoly, and I have no sympathy.
I really hope you're right. Because if MS is playing games with their books, the SEC might just eat 'em for dinner.
That'd be cool.
Yeah. Stupid civil rights movement. Take what you are gettin' and be happy about it!
Uh, no.
Petroleum-fueled light sources work fine.
Horses and buggies work fine.
Pointy sticks and wet clay work fine.
Since when does YOU thinking an alternative "works fine" make it not OK (or cool or "Good" or whatever) for somebody else to use a different thing?
You might note that other people disagree with you. You might also note that their disagreeing with you in no way infringes on your soverignty.
So...you don't think smartphones are useful? Fine. Me, I'd rather have one display unit, one place to store phone numbers, and one plastic box to carry in my pocket, instead of two.
As the ancient adage goes, YMMV.
Right.
So do as Zubrin suggests, and tether the crew module to the spent upper stage and spin the whole thing.
This zero-gee dragon is not a showstopper. Zubrin spent the better part of a chapter explaining how this is not nearly as big a deal as anti-space exploration grognards want it to be.
And, while we're at it, define "safely". Exploration isn't a "safe" activity. There are STILL people who will examine the risks and choose to accept them. Why get in their way?
ISS is a waste of NASA's budget. Russia has plenty of experience keeping cosmonauts relatively healthy for long-duration spaceflight. Trying to justify the ISS for "biomedical research" is silly.
Shuttle's a boondoggle for the vast majority of its flights, too. It is not well utilized as a giant delivery van.
There's a plan (that I've advocated before) that doesn't take any Battlestar Galactica on-orbit assembly for getting to Mars. It also has the (optional) facility for flying the whole mission under "spin" gravity, by attaching the crew module to the spent booster rocket via a long tether, and spinning the whole contraption like a bola. Makes navigation a little more interesting, but that's a soluble problem.
http://www.marssociety.org. Check out "Mars Direct".
I take issue with your contention that the technology to get to Mars and return safely does not exist. What parts of the puzzle are missing?
If you're interested in the topic, check out Robert Zubrin's "The Case for Mars", significant fractions of which are available at http://www.marssociety.org for free (beer).
Yeah, listen to it, if you want to go SCREAMING PAINT CHEWING MAD from how INSIPID and HORRIBLE it is.
*pant pant*
OK, so I'm not a Garrison Keillor fan. I guess somebody might think he's funny and/or quaint, but I sure don't.
...or maybe, he really believes in the system, and he is now going to be vigilant in ensuring that it serves The People as well as possible.
Character assassination is a pretty ugly thing, amigo.
Disney will just countersue the poor guy and take away his name.
Gosh, I hope I'm joking.
Or MAYBE nobody's set up a benchmarking suite that works properly on HURD.
No, you're right. Gotta be black helicopters.