As long as it applies to any "copyright holder" then it will pass muster. The trick would be to then see to it that the RIAA or MPAA ends up illegally distributing some kiddies' copyrighted work, at which point that particular kiddie could DDOS the hell out of either organization.
Nahhh... They'll just hire some of the thousands of geeks that have been laid off by companies like WorldCom and Global Crossing. Never believe that you are irreplaceable. That's the first step to getting put on the layoff list. I speak from personal experience.
On point 3, several of the astronauts commented that stars were not visible to the naked eye during lunar day. There was too much light bouncing off the surface. Stars won't appear just because the sky is black. Anyone who believes otherwise should try to find stars in the night sky in a brightly lit parking lot on Earth. The lunar surface is incredibly bright during the day, due to the lack of an atmosphere and a fairly high albedo. That's why they had the sunscreens down on their helmets 90% of the time.
No that this changes the intent of your post in any way, of course. I just thought you might find it interesting.
We wouldn't be looking at a sudden, severe problem without the fraud. If they had honestly reported their earnings along the way, they would never have acquired so many companies and would not have as large a segment of the Internet backbone as they do today.
WCOME was a shell game, a gigantic Ponzi scheme that left a few executives and investors rich and screwed everybody else. More regulation by the SEC would have nipped the problem in the bud.
You don't think we're over regulating the telecom industry or anything, huh?
Puh-lease. WorldCom's financial problems have little to with over-regulation. They are in trouble because they committed F R A U D. Y'know if the accounting industry was more carefully watched, this major implosion might never have happened.
Actually, he majored in video production. I think that explains the Thomas Dolby hairdo. It's all in the book, which has already saved me from three potential disasters in the kitchen.
That's because you piled on lots of shit software you downloaded from shareware sites.
Bzzzt. I've got a machine at work, no non-MS software on it whatsoever. Default desktop background, no screen saver. Won't shut down. face it, Win98 is pile of steaming dung.
Face it, Powell is a half-wit who only got his job because of who his daddy is. Kind of like the President himself. Hoping for rational thought from him is like expecting to see RMS in a Windows XP endorsement deal.
Of course what I can I complain about. It looks like my next Congressman's going to be a fscking Kennedy.
Actually, the real problem might be that it won't stop. Every Win 98 machine I've ever worked on has managed to develop the "Help me, I can't shut down!" syndrome. The best part is the way that Scandisk insults you on re-boot: "if you shut down your machine properly, this wouldn't happen!" Well excuse me Bill. If you wrote an OS that would actually shut down, I wouldn't see that message either!
Sorry, but the last two will be pay-per-view only. Remember that all media sales were banned in '09. After all, if Disney can't turn a profit, the terrorists have already won.
It takes more than desire and a theme song to master the laws of aerodynamics. Here's an example of a bunch of talented and dedicated individuals doing something they've been trained for, and there still was an unexpected failure.
Of course, that's why they do lots of unmanned testing before letting a test pilot with a degree in aeronautical engineering and a few thousand hours of flight time take up the first one.
I would remind people that supersonic aircraft have been built before, so this problem has been "solved" just like the sub-orbital booster problem has been "solved."
I would certainly hope that this ISP blocks NNTP and IRC as well. They can always open traffic to those customers who prove they have a legitimate use for those services as well. Nothing like being morally consistent.
Under this model, it would be better to work under a "that which is not expressly permitted is denied" model. Proxy the HTTP requests to make sure that the customers aren't doing anything illegal, log all the e-mail in case law enforcement wants to take a peek (with a warrant, issued by a rubberstamp, errr judge, of course).
I wonder if the position that these folks are taking leaves them open to prosecution if something illegal does happen on their network? Seems to me that they are no longer common carriers if they are editing their customer's content.
I await word of your successful sub-orbital shot using a scaled up Estes kit. After all, if it's that easy, why don't you do it and put all of the naysayers to rest?
Unfortunately rocket engines don't scale real well. What works in a small $5 kit won't work for a manned sub-orbital, or even worse, orbital rocket. Nor can you build a regeneratively cooled liquid fueled rocket engine and expect to make the parts small enough to drive a tiny rocket.
All of these problems have been solved, of course, by people willing to do the necessary math and engineering studies. Even so, they like to have a few test flights before they man-rate the vehicle. One of the big risks NASA took with the shuttle was the lack of unmanned testing. The Russians weren't willing to accept that kind of risk and flew Buran unmanned first. Early models have this tendency to fail rather spectacularly. That might not be so bad when there's a $20 million satellite on the top, but when there's a human payload involved it smarts. I'd think a lot more of this guy if he was planning at least one full-up unmanned test with enough telemetry installed so he has some chance of knowing what went wrong when it does.
Things like SoundForge run a couple hundred dollars, and therefore only businesses or professionals could use it.
This has got to be one the lamest arguments I've ever heard. Gee, Your Honor, I wanted to try making jewelry as a hobby, but since gold is several hundred dollars an ounce, only businesses and professionals can afford it. So it wasn't really theft, you see? After all, we didn't steal any aluminum. Everybody can afford that!
The software vendors of the packages in question have fixed a price. You and I can't afford it. Therefore we have several choices before us:
Do without.
Find an alternative. (This could include finding cheaper software, writing a replacement, or paying someone to write a replacement.)
Steal it.
Don't romanticize the third alternative. If they are charging too much for the software, they'll lower prices or go out of business, as long as competition is allowed in the market.
If i've paid for the bandwidth, why am I not allowed to shove it over WiFi and have a few mates use it?
Perhaps because the contract you signed specifically said this practice was verbotten? In most of these cases, that's exactly what's happened. I chose a DSL provider who was both slower and more expensive than my cable company specifically because the contract didn't have a server ban, only a re-sale ban in it.
In other words, you didn't pay for the service as you are using it. If you wanted a simple bandwith provider with no restrictions, you should have shopped around for one.
I cited ferrite core as one small example of the huge amount of obsolete or no longer manufactured components in the Saturn design. There are literally thousands more. By the time you found replacements, the testing burden would be the same as that of a new rocket.
Russian technology has been very effective at lifting to near-Earth and geosychnronous orbits. I would note that they never completed a rocket that could deliver a manned spacecraft to the moon and land. N-1 kept blowing up on the pad, largely due to the fact that the design bureau in charge of engines (which was seperate from Korolev's outfit) refused to spend their limited funds on big engines and insisted on using something like 40 little ones in the first stage. With that many opportunities for failure, something always seemed to go wrong.
It seems that most of the Russian success in cheap lift comes from a very pragmatic decision they made years ago. They simply kept building and improving the existing design. This kept the factories open and slowly drove down costs.
We didn't do that. We abandoned the Saturn tech and moved to the Shuttle. It's too late to undo that decision. It's to avoid something like that happening again that I suggested using technologies from existing programs to develop a new vehicle.
The single biggest improvement in converting mass into thrust since the design of Saturn is a much better understanding of cryogenic fuels and of combustion instability, which has allowed the design of engines that far exceed the capacity of Saturn's. At the point of it's development, the Space Shuttle Main Engine was the most efficient design in the world.
The only problem is that it might not be big enough to lift a long-duration mission. (Lord knows the Saturn V was too puny in that regard as well.) Engine design is complicated, and you can't just make a little rocket bigger and expect it to work.
I still think that we're going to run out of material before we run out of people.
Actually, I agree. I just think it's a hell of a lot farther off than the current crowd of alarmists are saying. No one has ever been able to define the "carrying capacity" of the Earth. Probably because it's a moving target. We couldn't maintain the current population with pre-Green Revolution agriculture.
And as someone else noted up-thread, Malthus "proved" it would happen in his lifetime. It didn't. We get this every so often, and I generally file it with the "Christ is coming back and the world is going to end next year, so you better repent now" freaks. Same thing, different words.
ENIAC worked too, but no one wants to port Quake to it.
The Saturns were built in the late 60s, using late 60s technology, including such things as ferrite core RAM and ROM in the guidance systems. Not only that, the factories that produced to those rockets are gone. They've been moved to other projects or closed since 1972 at the latest.
We can't build a Saturn V for less than it would cost to design a new rocket from scratch. Why try to shoehorn 30-40 year old technology into the project? It makes more sense to see what we can utilize from rockets that are being built today, like Arianne, Proton, Delta and the Shuttle. Those factories are still operating.
Also, I would guess that the physics of combustion instability is an order of magnitude more difficult than a multi-threaded OS. Don't assume that CS is the end-all and be-all of hard problems. Difficult things are described as "rocket science" for a reason. Pick up any book on the development of the Apollo spacecraft if you don't believe me.
PS: Liquid nitrogen is non-reactive and has no rocket applications that I'm aware of. Perhaps you meant Hydrogen? Also, the first stage of the Saturn V burned Kerosene as it's main propellant because in 1960s we couldn't build big LH engines. I think the Russians still use a Kersosene first stage in the Proton, in fact.
Why would we want to? I doubt we could even find most of the electronic parts for the internal guidance mechanisms, and some of the alloys are no longer made as well. By the time you designed and tested the substitutions, you'd have a new rocket anyway. Wouldn't it be cheaper to look at a first stage that used SSMEs instead of F-1s?
We've learned a lot about rocket design since Werher and Co designed the Saturns. We ought to put that knowledge to good use, rather than slavishly implementing past designs.
Meth labs blow up not because there is anything essentially dangerous about meth production
You may have some good ideas about U.S. drug policy, but I'd hate to be your Chem Lab partner, as I've grown relatively fond of my fingers and eyebrows. Meth productoin involves some very volatile compounds, so it does have a very high danger factor.
Chem plants don't routinely blow up, true, but it's not because the processes are not inherently dangerous. It's because the chem companies are rather fanatical about safety (at least DuPont is, I contracted for them for a few years.) Every once and a while you get a Bhopal to remind you of what happens when you're not.
Slashdot Mirror
As long as it applies to any "copyright holder" then it will pass muster. The trick would be to then see to it that the RIAA or MPAA ends up illegally distributing some kiddies' copyrighted work, at which point that particular kiddie could DDOS the hell out of either organization.
In other words, it's extremely common outside of the computer industry.
Nahhh... They'll just hire some of the thousands of geeks that have been laid off by companies like WorldCom and Global Crossing. Never believe that you are irreplaceable. That's the first step to getting put on the layoff list. I speak from personal experience.
I would guess that those photos were taken in the "afternoon" or "morning" periods when the sun wasn't as bright.
No that this changes the intent of your post in any way, of course. I just thought you might find it interesting.
WCOME was a shell game, a gigantic Ponzi scheme that left a few executives and investors rich and screwed everybody else. More regulation by the SEC would have nipped the problem in the bud.
Puh-lease. WorldCom's financial problems have little to with over-regulation. They are in trouble because they committed F R A U D. Y'know if the accounting industry was more carefully watched, this major implosion might never have happened.
Actually, he majored in video production. I think that explains the Thomas Dolby hairdo. It's all in the book, which has already saved me from three potential disasters in the kitchen.
Bzzzt. I've got a machine at work, no non-MS software on it whatsoever. Default desktop background, no screen saver. Won't shut down. face it, Win98 is pile of steaming dung.
Or radically better handwriting recognition!
Of course what I can I complain about. It looks like my next Congressman's going to be a fscking Kennedy.
Actually, the real problem might be that it won't stop. Every Win 98 machine I've ever worked on has managed to develop the "Help me, I can't shut down!" syndrome. The best part is the way that Scandisk insults you on re-boot: "if you shut down your machine properly, this wouldn't happen!" Well excuse me Bill. If you wrote an OS that would actually shut down, I wouldn't see that message either!
Sorry, but the last two will be pay-per-view only. Remember that all media sales were banned in '09. After all, if Disney can't turn a profit, the terrorists have already won.
Of course, that's why they do lots of unmanned testing before letting a test pilot with a degree in aeronautical engineering and a few thousand hours of flight time take up the first one.
I would remind people that supersonic aircraft have been built before, so this problem has been "solved" just like the sub-orbital booster problem has been "solved."
Under this model, it would be better to work under a "that which is not expressly permitted is denied" model. Proxy the HTTP requests to make sure that the customers aren't doing anything illegal, log all the e-mail in case law enforcement wants to take a peek (with a warrant, issued by a rubberstamp, errr judge, of course).
I wonder if the position that these folks are taking leaves them open to prosecution if something illegal does happen on their network? Seems to me that they are no longer common carriers if they are editing their customer's content.
Unfortunately rocket engines don't scale real well. What works in a small $5 kit won't work for a manned sub-orbital, or even worse, orbital rocket. Nor can you build a regeneratively cooled liquid fueled rocket engine and expect to make the parts small enough to drive a tiny rocket.
All of these problems have been solved, of course, by people willing to do the necessary math and engineering studies. Even so, they like to have a few test flights before they man-rate the vehicle. One of the big risks NASA took with the shuttle was the lack of unmanned testing. The Russians weren't willing to accept that kind of risk and flew Buran unmanned first. Early models have this tendency to fail rather spectacularly. That might not be so bad when there's a $20 million satellite on the top, but when there's a human payload involved it smarts. I'd think a lot more of this guy if he was planning at least one full-up unmanned test with enough telemetry installed so he has some chance of knowing what went wrong when it does.
This has got to be one the lamest arguments I've ever heard. Gee, Your Honor, I wanted to try making jewelry as a hobby, but since gold is several hundred dollars an ounce, only businesses and professionals can afford it. So it wasn't really theft, you see? After all, we didn't steal any aluminum. Everybody can afford that!
The software vendors of the packages in question have fixed a price. You and I can't afford it. Therefore we have several choices before us:
Don't romanticize the third alternative. If they are charging too much for the software, they'll lower prices or go out of business, as long as competition is allowed in the market.
Perhaps because the contract you signed specifically said this practice was verbotten? In most of these cases, that's exactly what's happened. I chose a DSL provider who was both slower and more expensive than my cable company specifically because the contract didn't have a server ban, only a re-sale ban in it.
In other words, you didn't pay for the service as you are using it. If you wanted a simple bandwith provider with no restrictions, you should have shopped around for one.
Russian technology has been very effective at lifting to near-Earth and geosychnronous orbits. I would note that they never completed a rocket that could deliver a manned spacecraft to the moon and land. N-1 kept blowing up on the pad, largely due to the fact that the design bureau in charge of engines (which was seperate from Korolev's outfit) refused to spend their limited funds on big engines and insisted on using something like 40 little ones in the first stage. With that many opportunities for failure, something always seemed to go wrong.
It seems that most of the Russian success in cheap lift comes from a very pragmatic decision they made years ago. They simply kept building and improving the existing design. This kept the factories open and slowly drove down costs.
We didn't do that. We abandoned the Saturn tech and moved to the Shuttle. It's too late to undo that decision. It's to avoid something like that happening again that I suggested using technologies from existing programs to develop a new vehicle.
The single biggest improvement in converting mass into thrust since the design of Saturn is a much better understanding of cryogenic fuels and of combustion instability, which has allowed the design of engines that far exceed the capacity of Saturn's. At the point of it's development, the Space Shuttle Main Engine was the most efficient design in the world.
The only problem is that it might not be big enough to lift a long-duration mission. (Lord knows the Saturn V was too puny in that regard as well.) Engine design is complicated, and you can't just make a little rocket bigger and expect it to work.
Actually, I agree. I just think it's a hell of a lot farther off than the current crowd of alarmists are saying. No one has ever been able to define the "carrying capacity" of the Earth. Probably because it's a moving target. We couldn't maintain the current population with pre-Green Revolution agriculture.
And as someone else noted up-thread, Malthus "proved" it would happen in his lifetime. It didn't. We get this every so often, and I generally file it with the "Christ is coming back and the world is going to end next year, so you better repent now" freaks. Same thing, different words.
ENIAC worked too, but no one wants to port Quake to it.
The Saturns were built in the late 60s, using late 60s technology, including such things as ferrite core RAM and ROM in the guidance systems. Not only that, the factories that produced to those rockets are gone. They've been moved to other projects or closed since 1972 at the latest.
We can't build a Saturn V for less than it would cost to design a new rocket from scratch. Why try to shoehorn 30-40 year old technology into the project? It makes more sense to see what we can utilize from rockets that are being built today, like Arianne, Proton, Delta and the Shuttle. Those factories are still operating.
Also, I would guess that the physics of combustion instability is an order of magnitude more difficult than a multi-threaded OS. Don't assume that CS is the end-all and be-all of hard problems. Difficult things are described as "rocket science" for a reason. Pick up any book on the development of the Apollo spacecraft if you don't believe me.
PS: Liquid nitrogen is non-reactive and has no rocket applications that I'm aware of. Perhaps you meant Hydrogen? Also, the first stage of the Saturn V burned Kerosene as it's main propellant because in 1960s we couldn't build big LH engines. I think the Russians still use a Kersosene first stage in the Proton, in fact.
That you can't leave class without your pal, SuperFly.
We've learned a lot about rocket design since Werher and Co designed the Saturns. We ought to put that knowledge to good use, rather than slavishly implementing past designs.
You may have some good ideas about U.S. drug policy, but I'd hate to be your Chem Lab partner, as I've grown relatively fond of my fingers and eyebrows. Meth productoin involves some very volatile compounds, so it does have a very high danger factor.
Chem plants don't routinely blow up, true, but it's not because the processes are not inherently dangerous. It's because the chem companies are rather fanatical about safety (at least DuPont is, I contracted for them for a few years.) Every once and a while you get a Bhopal to remind you of what happens when you're not.