The issues they address in the first point were issues which I felt were meant to be addressed by IP6
Doesn't mean that it does so, or does so in a way that DARPA feels is sufficient. In particular, there's no protocol-layer method to restrict access, which was explicitly mentioned in the article. I think some of the stuff they're asking for (on-time, guaranteed delivery over an inherently unreliable network) is impossible, but it may be that a complete change in the way that you look at the problem can help.
Just the talk of "One of the limitations inherent in this approach is that when an application malfunctions, it can affect other programs" made me think they need to look harder at their OS.
The OS isn't going to help. There is no OS on the planet that can solve the issues they're talking about. Even in a protected mode OS there are vulnerabilities between security levels and between processes. Buffer overflows, privledge exploits, etc. are a common problem amongst all OS's and architectures (and if your OS/architecture doesn't have the concept of buffers or privledges then it's too simplistic to actually use -- shoo). Even implementing hardware to prevent execution of non-executable code is insufficient, since all you do then is point at some executable code that can be exploited (e.g. -- buffer overflow to point at system(), and then execute your commands that way).
What's the solution in either case? Hell if I know. That's the entire point of DARPA investigating this -- maybe there are solutions and we just need to spend some time working toward them. Certainly if you told someone in the 1950s about the Internet they'd think you were on crack, that no such thing could come about, but DARPA funded most of the original development there as well (and for largely the same purpose -- military comms).
I believe the point is that if iLife doesn't meet your needs you are then forced to shell out some major $$$ to get something else that does the same thing, but better/more flexibly.
There's simply a dearth of software for the Mac, and it causes some really unusual supply-demand pricing. Sure, OS-X comes with a boatload of software, much of it better than the tools that come with XP, but once you hit the wall on that software there's a much higher price point for the next level up. In Windows there's at least a middle ground between the free or inexpensive stuff and the professional (and highly expensive, just as with Mac) stuff. The small userbase and higher quality builtins of Macs doesn't make writing the mid-level software viable.
instead, I carry a "screw stick" (one of those screwdrivers with four difference phillips and flat heads)
If you're ever looking for a good multi-bit screwdriver, buy a Klein 10-in-1 screwdriver/nut driver. They're only $10, very well made, and really do include pretty much every bit you need on a regular basis, either for around the house use or on a computer. Includes 5/16" and 1/4" Nut Drivers, #1 and #2 Phillips, 1/4" and 3/16" Slotted, #10 and #15 Torx(R), #1 and #2 Square (aka Robertson).
About the only downside is that the shaft is thicker than normal screwdrivers (but that's true for all multi-drivers), which can make it difficult to use in some situations.
No. The loophole in question is not a tax credit, but a tax deduction. And it's not for the full cost of the vehicle either, but "only" about $38,000.
What's that mean? Well, if you're in the 33% Federal tax bracket then you have to pay $12,540 less in taxes. Which certainly cuts down the cost of the H2, but it's hardly "free". Particularly if you have a clue and think about gas mileage (which, because it's a light truck, is not required to be printed, but is in the 6-8 range; about half that of the competition).
It already is illegal. Google on antitrust and tying (actually, better off doing "sherman act tying").
There's a lot of grey area in tying, and it's not a portion of antitrust law that has been enforced very well recently, but this is a pretty clear cut case of Verizon practicing illegal tying.
with this is simply how cheap the US military is getting away with this
Getting away with what? Basic R&D?
So you'd rather have them spend a few billion on a single supplier, who may not be able to deliver anything, and then keep all the technology as classified for an unknown period of time? Yeah, that's a great use of taxpayer money.
Instead, they put out a challenge that allows both public and private industry to participate. Any useful technology could be immediately spun off for commercial use, and considerably less taxpayer funds are used (yes, public universities will use some taxpayer money as well, but it pales in comparison to the alternative).
Oh, and they're still not "getting away" with anything. DARPA doesn't automatically get the technology. If they get a winner then they'll have to negotiate licensing terms.
That's another thing - they only look the part - if a mountain popped up you'd have more chance getting over it by foot than a humvee. They use Tacoma or Silverado chassis and engines
Whoa. Only half true.
The original Hummer/Humvee (Hummer is the civilian version, HMMWV is the military) is a serious off-road vehicle and far surpasses most SUVs and other off-road vehicles in capabilities. It also costs around $125k (civilian version). It'll keep going long after that Range Rover gets stuck or busts its oil casing.
The H2, aka Hummer2, however, is another story entirely. It is, as you say, merely a Tacoma with a different body shell. The original Tacoma wasn't particularly off-road capable and the reshelled version is even less so. But it's only about $60k.
IMO, neither the original nor the bastardized step-son is particularly well suited for general civilian use. But that's me.
Just out of curiosity, how well would the rovers' "route picking" routines cope with this challenge?
Could they complete the course? Possibly.
Could they complete the challenge? No.
The Mars rovers have a top speed of 2 in/s, or 0.11 mph (5 cm/s or 0.18 kph for the more enlightened). This would certainly never complete a 200 mile course in 10 hours.
The Rovers' visual system is geared to their speed too. The cameras are not running continuously -- the rover stops, takes a picture, determines hazards, moves forward a foot or two, and repeats.
I read that the operator says "go from here to here" and the onboard 'AI' chooses the best route in a 3d visualisation
Not really. The operator explicitly plots the best course for the rover. The onboard route finding is only used to avoid any obstacles that the operator didn't see -- even with 3D photos it can be hard to see that a rock is too big or a ditch too deep. And "too" here is a relatively small distance, although I don't know the particulars. The Mars Rovers really are not all that autonomous.
I can't see any major differences, other than the relative lack of parked cars on Mars (2 pathfinders and a beagle, iirc)
As well as a couple Viking probes, numerous Soviet probes, and debris from all of the above. Not that any of this has any impact on the rovers -- even their own debris isn't close enough to worry about.
And, of course, it's not just parked cars you have to worry about. There will be other moving vehicles to avoid during the course. There are hazards like barbwire and potentially nastier impediments (caltrops would be evil... I doubt any of the vehicles would be able to detect and avoid them either).
There are also 2 or 3 dead gyros on Hubble currently
Two currently. Part of the repair mission would be to fix/replace them. There are 6 gyros on Hubble and 3 are required for proper operation. Useful article here.
And, yes, the gyros are a big problem. The gyro failures are the entire reason that Hubble will fail if not serviced -- the optics and other electronics are working just fine, but they're worthless if you can't hold steady on a target. IIRC, there's only a 15% chance that Hubble will remain functional at all by 2008 without gyro replacement.
The gyros are failing a bit faster than expected, but even at the outset they only had a 4-6 year lifespan. Ongoing maintainence was part of the plan for Hubble.
Well, his still considerably better than this AC's.
The mirror is seriously messed up. It has been corrected with a lens, but the quality is still rather less than it should have had.
And, yet, still better than anything else we have today or will have in the next 20 years. There is no Hubble replacement on the way, and while earth based scopes can replace some of its functionality, they can't replace all of it.
The James Webb scope will have a much larger mirror, much faster camera
And is an IR only telescope. It does not have the range of instruments that Hubble has. In particular, it lacks any realistic UV sensors.
could be put on an orbit to allow evacuating the shuttle crew to Fred
I'm not even going to try and guess what "Fred" is, but JW isn't going to be in an orbit allowing the shuttle to do anything with. The JW Scope is going to be stationed at the L2 point, considerably farther than where the shuttle can go. If something goes wrong with the scope -- thank you for playing, goodnight. It's unserviceable, at least by anything we have now or in the forseeable future. Damn well better not have a problem with failing gyros, mirror irregularities, or anything else. Because if it does then we've put all our eggs in one basket. By the time that JW is launched and in position (late 2010 to 2012) Hubble will be unrepairable. Unless we spend the time, money, and risk on a single shuttle mission to repair and upgrade it.
You'd only need to sample each one about 10x each second.
Exactly what speed are you expecting to be driving here?
At 50 mph a vehicle covers 75 feet every second. You're comfy with driving 7.5 feet before figuring out that there's a boulder, ravine, barb wire (have fun with the laser range finder detecting that btw), or other hazard in the way? Not to mention that the entire concept of "road" is an interesting one, given that this is an off-road course.
GPS isn't going to cut it either -- there's a section of the course that will not have GPS available. You'll have to determine your location independantly at that point, which is a hard problem. You need to be able to measure ground speed and direction very, very precisely.
Really? To anyone? I suspect that non-Western language speakers, like virtually anyone in Asia, might disagree. As well as those with rather esoteric languages like Hungarian.
And as for those who speak languages that are similar to Esperanto (namely any Germanic or Romantic derived language) could learn any given langugage "in just a month or two, to a level allowing excellent communications".
doesn't help face to face
Which is why we have personal translators for that situation, which do exist and do work. You can even get them for civilian use.
Esperanto was dead before it was even born. It doesn't evolve with any civilization and so lacks terminology that comes into usage over time. And, heck, if we want to pick a popular "neutral" language, then Klingon beats Esperanto for number of speakers. Yes. It is that silly.
Re:Cha ching, reloaded.
on
Gates on Spam
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The mail server knows the answer in advance
And how is it going to know the answer in advance?
You either have two choices -- either the mail server does the same computation, which will either bog the hell out of any high volume mail server (if it's trivial for the mail server then why the hell wouldn't the spammers just buy the same class of CPUs?) or do a database lookup (and you think the spammers can't either buy or generate the same database?).
And, frankly, if we're going to completely revise the email system to do this kind of thing (which this involves), then there's better ways of stopping spam, as well as a host of other problems. The problem is that we're not going to revise the entire email system -- it's too entrenched and too costly to do so. We have to come up with something that will work with the current system.
The gov't can do this, but is it possible for a private citizen or public group to initiate proceedings for the revocation of a corporate charter?
No idea. The more interesting question, however, is whether or not you could pierce the corporate veil. Particularly Canopy's veil. If there were (as alleged) some underhanded dealings regardin SCO, Canopy, and other Canopy holdings then you could easily pierce the corporate veil.
Once that's done you can pretty easily sue the directors of the companies involved (both SCO and Canopy) and take them to the cleaners. And there's nothing they can do about it -- their personal property would no longer be immune from lawsuits, and between civil and personal lawsuits you could pretty much guarantee that they'll die penniless paupers in prison.
Yes, vindictive. But seeing charlatans and crooks hide behind the corporate veil and get off scott free has gotten beyond tiresome. The various scumbags involved in this particular scheme could, possibly, act as a wake up call to a lot of other companies. Wouldn't that be nice?
what precisely is wrong with Microsoft, or any other company funding another company?
Nothing at all. As long as the funding is done for legal reasons.
Funding another company to sue/defame one (or more) of your competitors and/or groups not using your product is illegal. It's racketering, restraint of trade, etc.
The hard part, of course, is proving it. This memo, even if found to be factual and true in SCO's email system, is insufficient evidence. You would have to find correlating memos from Microsoft, both internally and to Baystar, and from Baystar to SCO. I'm willing to bet that, even if this is all true, that those memos never existed. If you're going to pull this kind of stunt, particularly after being found guilty of being an illegal monopoly, then you ensure there's no paper trail by doing things verbally.
If you're an electrician, you pretty much had to have access to a copy of NEC 99 to get certified in the first place, so it's not really a hugely onerous requirement.
Yes, but it leaves the do-it-yourselfer in the lurch. Saying that you have to comply to a tome of standards (or else the inspector can tell you you're in violation of code, section xyz, and nothing more) without the standards being freely available is BS. Yes, I know, you can get a copy of the NEC for relatively little cost (as low as $40 last time I looked), but it's the principle of the thing. What if the codes cost $400? $4000? Since it's essentially a monopoly (the copyright is owned by a single entity who can set the price) that's being set in place by the government, why shouldn't the codes fall into the public domain just like any other law?
Yes, it costs money to create the codes. There are alternate revenue streams available, primarily from membership dues and the like. It'd still work.
BTW, anyone who does their own electrical work can get by without the NEC. There are some really excellent websites out there that will help you stay within code. Note, however, that some jurisdictions do not allow for DIY electrical work (and given some of the electrical work I've replaced in my own home from prior owners, I really can't blame them).
You can't slurp Yahoo's NBA page, reformat the text, and place it on your own page for profit
And how, exactly, is this different from how things are right now?
Go surf to Yahoo! Sports, scroll to the bottom, click on "Terms of Service". Now go read through section 6. If you're lazy (this is/.) just go look for section 7 and read the preceeding sentence.
Oh hell. You are lazy. Here it is:
Any unauthorized reproduction, publication, further distribution or public exhibition of the materials provided on the Service, in whole or in part, is strictly prohibited.
You're already prohibited from slurping from Yahoo!'s NBA page, or any other page from Yahoo! for that matter. Section 10 is even more clear about this. It's short too. Sure, people may do it, but that doesn't make it legal.
Contract and copyright law already covers what needs to be covered here. This is just another law that overextends existing protections, all to the benefit of a few and the harm of the many.
also, less atmosphere = less friction for the return vehicle
Which means you have to burn a lot more fuel in order to slow down and stop, since you can't use aerobraking or parachutes.
Being out of the atmosphere means you also have absolutely no protection against micrometeorites. On the flipside, you don't have to deal with dust or dust storms.
It cites GCC as an example of how destructive OS can be in that it removed the market for any other type of compiler
What a crock of an "article" that is. It's a group of posts on an OpenBSD mailing list. There is no response to the particular posting made (which, btw, is here, two levels down from what the poster linked to) because the mailing list maintainers shut down the thread as off-topic (appropriately). There are some funny, and valid, points raised by the article you linked to, but "GCC is destructive" isn't one of them.
There are still numerous other C/C++ compilers available. Yes, gcc comes with most distros. So? You can install a different one easily enough. And there are several available -- Intel, Watcomm, Borland, etc. Some are free, some are not. Most outperform gcc in various areas, sometimes in all areas. And, contrary to the post, there is still choice of compilers on Unix -- generally you can choose either the vendor's own compiler or gcc. Which is a vast improvement over the old situation -- you got to use the vendor's compiler. Which usually sucked (they've improved greatly, but we use g++ here because xlC v5 does an amazingly bad job at handling templates).
Yes, some embedded platforms only have gcc available now. Why? Because it's cheaper than rolling your own... it used to be that you had to purchase a compiler for an embedded platform. While this was an additional revenue stream for the company, the cost of building your own compiler, keeping it bug free, updating it to match emerging standards, and providing support vastly outweighed the revenue coming in. Sure, you still have to submit the platform specific code to the gcc-devel group, but it's a lot less work than writing your own. And, of course, gcc provides far better code (stability, speed, and size) than most of the custom compilers.
Can it be said that Mozilla has in effect done an "Internet explorer" with the open source world?
No. There's still Konquerer and Safari (same codebase), there's Opera (commercial and closed), and several others. Don't like Mozilla? Pick another one.
The reality is, open source only destroys the market for other tools when the other tools are inferior. It may be that, eventually, the open source software is superior in every meaningful way and the other tools slide off into obsolecense. At that point you've reached the commoditization point for that group of software... it's unsurprising that the cheapest solution wins. It happens in every other market after all.
protecting all sperm and egg cells would be a bit awkward
Agreed, particularly since a rather high percentage don't even implant. Even without implantation a fertilized cell will divide, but it'll quickly run out of nutrients and die. The body will clean the cell mass out -- alive or dead -- during menstration since no implantation occurred.
I think that we know quite a bit about human reproduction
Heh. Having gone through the process recently, we know much less than you'd think. Know why pregnant women can't have many drugs? Because we don't know how most drugs affect the fetus. There are some drugs we know are bad, there are some we're pretty sure are ok, and there's the vast majority that we don't have a clue on. A generation ago (1950s-1970s) we knew much less about this and pregnant women were routinely prescribed drugs. Now we know how little we know, so the medical community has taken the standpoint of not prescribing unless absolutely necessary. It's virtually impossible to get prescriptions for many medications if you're pregnant, and even then you're warned that you should take it as little as possible because we're really not sure of the side effects.
We won't even go into the research on hormones and pregnancy or diet and pregnancy...
We certainly know when brain activity begins
Actually we don't, which was one of the points I made in my first post on this thread. Do some Googling for fetal brain development or activity. There's a great deal of research ongoing in this arena.
large fraction of embryos--probably a bit under half--will spontaneously abort due to defects
Yes, I know, and I did cover that by saying "unless there's a problem with the fetus". I'm also quite intimately aware of this fact, since my wife had a miscarraige under a year ago... presumably because of this -- we'll never know. And even though we have a kid on the way (as in, she's due today) it still hurts to think of the other one.
What basis is there to draw such a line?
Precisely... my entire point was that you can't draw such a line, even scientifically, because we just don't know enough about the entire process yet. Realistically, we know very, very little about human reproduction. We've learned a lot in the last century, but as with most science, the more we learn the more we realize how little we know.
Sure an exact demarcation of when an embryo is a baby will never be agreed upon by everyone, but why isn't it an acceptable demarcation to check if the embryo has brain activity?
Which is defined as... ? Honestly, we don't know when that is. Not to mention that it varies from child to child. There are a large number of research papers on this, and while there's some common agreement that there are definite, individual brain wave patterns at a certain point (24 weeks I think), it's not clear that they don't exist prior to that as well.
We use that as a measure to determine if already born people are dead or alive
The obvious difference is that someone already alive goes from a state of thinking to a state of being brain dead. In the case of an embryo the thinking may not have occurred yet, but -- unless there's a problem with the fetus -- it will. It's directly contrary to our experience with brain dead adults, who don't come back once brain dead. The embryo will gain brain activity unless otherwise interrupted.
It isn't based on religion or politics, but instead on science. Seems objective if you ask me.
Which is irrelevant when it comes to religion. It's not about objectivity -- it's about right and wrong. If objectivity came into it at any point then Galileo and Copernicus would never have been heretics and we wouldn't still be debating Evolution vs Creation.
And, for the record, I'm pro-choice... It'd be a nice world where no one ever had to make that choice, but that's a fantasy.
It should be standard practice to store them now from newborns for when stem cell technology matures in the future.
In most major metropolitan areas you can donate cord blood at no cost. As long as you're donating it, that is. If you want to store it for future usage by your child alone then be prepared to pay a good bit of money -- the one price I've seen is $39/mo. When you donate it the universities and research centers will happily pay the fees on your behalf, since they can then use the resulting stem cells for research and what not.
Read more about cord blood donation here (nice FAQ). It's important to note that a barrier to adoption is the cost of the equipment itself.
a US company held a patent on the harvesting(?) of cord blood stem cells, and demanded a license fee which is hampering the introduction of this
A quick Google search appears to show that PharmaStem Theraputics, Inc. holds a patent on this in the US. It was, however, overturned in Europe. If you want more details, feel free to google.
I can see why this work has been done, but there are a number of ways to generate this material that isn't morally suspect
I think the issue is that not all stem cells are created equal. IIRC, the stem cells found in cord blood have already specialized to a certain degree and cannot be used as truely universal cells. Those taken from embryos at an early stage of development, however, can.
Gotta say, this has me all squeemish. I've been pro-choice for a long time now, but my wife is due today (the kiddo, however, seems to have other plans... sigh), and we had a miscarraige before this pregnancy. I can't imagine doing anything like this (the harvesting; we're planning to donate cord blood AFAIK) at the moment.
Slashdot Mirror
The issues they address in the first point were issues which I felt were meant to be addressed by IP6
Doesn't mean that it does so, or does so in a way that DARPA feels is sufficient. In particular, there's no protocol-layer method to restrict access, which was explicitly mentioned in the article. I think some of the stuff they're asking for (on-time, guaranteed delivery over an inherently unreliable network) is impossible, but it may be that a complete change in the way that you look at the problem can help.
Just the talk of "One of the limitations inherent in this approach is that when an application malfunctions, it can affect other programs" made me think they need to look harder at their OS.
The OS isn't going to help. There is no OS on the planet that can solve the issues they're talking about. Even in a protected mode OS there are vulnerabilities between security levels and between processes. Buffer overflows, privledge exploits, etc. are a common problem amongst all OS's and architectures (and if your OS/architecture doesn't have the concept of buffers or privledges then it's too simplistic to actually use -- shoo). Even implementing hardware to prevent execution of non-executable code is insufficient, since all you do then is point at some executable code that can be exploited (e.g. -- buffer overflow to point at system(), and then execute your commands that way).
What's the solution in either case? Hell if I know. That's the entire point of DARPA investigating this -- maybe there are solutions and we just need to spend some time working toward them. Certainly if you told someone in the 1950s about the Internet they'd think you were on crack, that no such thing could come about, but DARPA funded most of the original development there as well (and for largely the same purpose -- military comms).
I believe the point is that if iLife doesn't meet your needs you are then forced to shell out some major $$$ to get something else that does the same thing, but better/more flexibly.
There's simply a dearth of software for the Mac, and it causes some really unusual supply-demand pricing. Sure, OS-X comes with a boatload of software, much of it better than the tools that come with XP, but once you hit the wall on that software there's a much higher price point for the next level up. In Windows there's at least a middle ground between the free or inexpensive stuff and the professional (and highly expensive, just as with Mac) stuff. The small userbase and higher quality builtins of Macs doesn't make writing the mid-level software viable.
instead, I carry a "screw stick" (one of those screwdrivers with four difference phillips and flat heads)
If you're ever looking for a good multi-bit screwdriver, buy a Klein 10-in-1 screwdriver/nut driver. They're only $10, very well made, and really do include pretty much every bit you need on a regular basis, either for around the house use or on a computer. Includes 5/16" and 1/4" Nut Drivers, #1 and #2 Phillips, 1/4" and 3/16" Slotted, #10 and #15 Torx(R), #1 and #2 Square (aka Robertson).
About the only downside is that the shaft is thicker than normal screwdrivers (but that's true for all multi-drivers), which can make it difficult to use in some situations.
No. The loophole in question is not a tax credit, but a tax deduction. And it's not for the full cost of the vehicle either, but "only" about $38,000.
What's that mean? Well, if you're in the 33% Federal tax bracket then you have to pay $12,540 less in taxes. Which certainly cuts down the cost of the H2, but it's hardly "free". Particularly if you have a clue and think about gas mileage (which, because it's a light truck, is not required to be printed, but is in the 6-8 range; about half that of the competition).
It already is illegal. Google on antitrust and tying (actually, better off doing "sherman act tying").
There's a lot of grey area in tying, and it's not a portion of antitrust law that has been enforced very well recently, but this is a pretty clear cut case of Verizon practicing illegal tying.
with this is simply how cheap the US military is getting away with this
Getting away with what? Basic R&D?
So you'd rather have them spend a few billion on a single supplier, who may not be able to deliver anything, and then keep all the technology as classified for an unknown period of time? Yeah, that's a great use of taxpayer money.
Instead, they put out a challenge that allows both public and private industry to participate. Any useful technology could be immediately spun off for commercial use, and considerably less taxpayer funds are used (yes, public universities will use some taxpayer money as well, but it pales in comparison to the alternative).
Oh, and they're still not "getting away" with anything. DARPA doesn't automatically get the technology. If they get a winner then they'll have to negotiate licensing terms.
That's another thing - they only look the part - if a mountain popped up you'd have more chance getting over it by foot than a humvee. They use Tacoma or Silverado chassis and engines
Whoa. Only half true.
The original Hummer/Humvee (Hummer is the civilian version, HMMWV is the military) is a serious off-road vehicle and far surpasses most SUVs and other off-road vehicles in capabilities. It also costs around $125k (civilian version). It'll keep going long after that Range Rover gets stuck or busts its oil casing.
The H2, aka Hummer2, however, is another story entirely. It is, as you say, merely a Tacoma with a different body shell. The original Tacoma wasn't particularly off-road capable and the reshelled version is even less so. But it's only about $60k.
IMO, neither the original nor the bastardized step-son is particularly well suited for general civilian use. But that's me.
Just out of curiosity, how well would the rovers' "route picking" routines cope with this challenge?
Could they complete the course? Possibly.
Could they complete the challenge? No.
The Mars rovers have a top speed of 2 in/s, or 0.11 mph (5 cm/s or 0.18 kph for the more enlightened). This would certainly never complete a 200 mile course in 10 hours.
The Rovers' visual system is geared to their speed too. The cameras are not running continuously -- the rover stops, takes a picture, determines hazards, moves forward a foot or two, and repeats.
I read that the operator says "go from here to here" and the onboard 'AI' chooses the best route in a 3d visualisation
Not really. The operator explicitly plots the best course for the rover. The onboard route finding is only used to avoid any obstacles that the operator didn't see -- even with 3D photos it can be hard to see that a rock is too big or a ditch too deep. And "too" here is a relatively small distance, although I don't know the particulars. The Mars Rovers really are not all that autonomous.
I can't see any major differences, other than the relative lack of parked cars on Mars (2 pathfinders and a beagle, iirc)
As well as a couple Viking probes, numerous Soviet probes, and debris from all of the above. Not that any of this has any impact on the rovers -- even their own debris isn't close enough to worry about.
And, of course, it's not just parked cars you have to worry about. There will be other moving vehicles to avoid during the course. There are hazards like barbwire and potentially nastier impediments (caltrops would be evil... I doubt any of the vehicles would be able to detect and avoid them either).
There are also 2 or 3 dead gyros on Hubble currently
Two currently. Part of the repair mission would be to fix/replace them. There are 6 gyros on Hubble and 3 are required for proper operation. Useful article here.
And, yes, the gyros are a big problem. The gyro failures are the entire reason that Hubble will fail if not serviced -- the optics and other electronics are working just fine, but they're worthless if you can't hold steady on a target. IIRC, there's only a 15% chance that Hubble will remain functional at all by 2008 without gyro replacement.
The gyros are failing a bit faster than expected, but even at the outset they only had a 4-6 year lifespan. Ongoing maintainence was part of the plan for Hubble.
You have a short memory.
Well, his still considerably better than this AC's.
The mirror is seriously messed up. It has been corrected with a lens, but the quality is still rather less than it should have had.
And, yet, still better than anything else we have today or will have in the next 20 years. There is no Hubble replacement on the way, and while earth based scopes can replace some of its functionality, they can't replace all of it.
The James Webb scope will have a much larger mirror, much faster camera
And is an IR only telescope. It does not have the range of instruments that Hubble has. In particular, it lacks any realistic UV sensors.
could be put on an orbit to allow evacuating the shuttle crew to Fred
I'm not even going to try and guess what "Fred" is, but JW isn't going to be in an orbit allowing the shuttle to do anything with. The JW Scope is going to be stationed at the L2 point, considerably farther than where the shuttle can go. If something goes wrong with the scope -- thank you for playing, goodnight. It's unserviceable, at least by anything we have now or in the forseeable future. Damn well better not have a problem with failing gyros, mirror irregularities, or anything else. Because if it does then we've put all our eggs in one basket. By the time that JW is launched and in position (late 2010 to 2012) Hubble will be unrepairable. Unless we spend the time, money, and risk on a single shuttle mission to repair and upgrade it.
does anyone else think it's scary how many military sponsors are on _all_ entrant's web pages?
Er... why? After all, this is funded by DARPA for the express purpose of military use. Did you expect to see Greenpeace sponsoring them?
You'd only need to sample each one about 10x each second.
Exactly what speed are you expecting to be driving here?
At 50 mph a vehicle covers 75 feet every second. You're comfy with driving 7.5 feet before figuring out that there's a boulder, ravine, barb wire (have fun with the laser range finder detecting that btw), or other hazard in the way? Not to mention that the entire concept of "road" is an interesting one, given that this is an off-road course.
GPS isn't going to cut it either -- there's a section of the course that will not have GPS available. You'll have to determine your location independantly at that point, which is a hard problem. You need to be able to measure ground speed and direction very, very precisely.
Esperanto can be taught in just a month or two
Really? To anyone? I suspect that non-Western language speakers, like virtually anyone in Asia, might disagree. As well as those with rather esoteric languages like Hungarian.
And as for those who speak languages that are similar to Esperanto (namely any Germanic or Romantic derived language) could learn any given langugage "in just a month or two, to a level allowing excellent communications".
doesn't help face to face
Which is why we have personal translators for that situation, which do exist and do work. You can even get them for civilian use.
Esperanto was dead before it was even born. It doesn't evolve with any civilization and so lacks terminology that comes into usage over time. And, heck, if we want to pick a popular "neutral" language, then Klingon beats Esperanto for number of speakers. Yes. It is that silly.
The mail server knows the answer in advance
And how is it going to know the answer in advance?
You either have two choices -- either the mail server does the same computation, which will either bog the hell out of any high volume mail server (if it's trivial for the mail server then why the hell wouldn't the spammers just buy the same class of CPUs?) or do a database lookup (and you think the spammers can't either buy or generate the same database?).
And, frankly, if we're going to completely revise the email system to do this kind of thing (which this involves), then there's better ways of stopping spam, as well as a host of other problems. The problem is that we're not going to revise the entire email system -- it's too entrenched and too costly to do so. We have to come up with something that will work with the current system.
The gov't can do this, but is it possible
for a private citizen or public group to initiate proceedings for the revocation of a corporate charter?
No idea. The more interesting question, however, is whether or not you could pierce the corporate veil. Particularly Canopy's veil. If there were (as alleged) some underhanded dealings regardin SCO, Canopy, and other Canopy holdings then you could easily pierce the corporate veil.
Once that's done you can pretty easily sue the directors of the companies involved (both SCO and Canopy) and take them to the cleaners. And there's nothing they can do about it -- their personal property would no longer be immune from lawsuits, and between civil and personal lawsuits you could pretty much guarantee that they'll die penniless paupers in prison.
Yes, vindictive. But seeing charlatans and crooks hide behind the corporate veil and get off scott free has gotten beyond tiresome. The various scumbags involved in this particular scheme could, possibly, act as a wake up call to a lot of other companies. Wouldn't that be nice?
Oh well.. it's a nice dream at least.
what precisely is wrong with Microsoft, or any other company funding another company?
Nothing at all. As long as the funding is done for legal reasons.
Funding another company to sue/defame one (or more) of your competitors and/or groups not using your product is illegal. It's racketering, restraint of trade, etc.
The hard part, of course, is proving it. This memo, even if found to be factual and true in SCO's email system, is insufficient evidence. You would have to find correlating memos from Microsoft, both internally and to Baystar, and from Baystar to SCO. I'm willing to bet that, even if this is all true, that those memos never existed. If you're going to pull this kind of stunt, particularly after being found guilty of being an illegal monopoly, then you ensure there's no paper trail by doing things verbally.
If you're an electrician, you pretty much had to have access to a copy of NEC 99 to get certified in the first place, so it's not really a hugely onerous requirement.
Yes, but it leaves the do-it-yourselfer in the lurch. Saying that you have to comply to a tome of standards (or else the inspector can tell you you're in violation of code, section xyz, and nothing more) without the standards being freely available is BS. Yes, I know, you can get a copy of the NEC for relatively little cost (as low as $40 last time I looked), but it's the principle of the thing. What if the codes cost $400? $4000? Since it's essentially a monopoly (the copyright is owned by a single entity who can set the price) that's being set in place by the government, why shouldn't the codes fall into the public domain just like any other law?
Yes, it costs money to create the codes. There are alternate revenue streams available, primarily from membership dues and the like. It'd still work.
BTW, anyone who does their own electrical work can get by without the NEC. There are some really excellent websites out there that will help you stay within code. Note, however, that some jurisdictions do not allow for DIY electrical work (and given some of the electrical work I've replaced in my own home from prior owners, I really can't blame them).
And how, exactly, is this different from how things are right now?
Go surf to Yahoo! Sports, scroll to the bottom, click on "Terms of Service". Now go read through section 6. If you're lazy (this is
Oh hell. You are lazy. Here it is:
You're already prohibited from slurping from Yahoo!'s NBA page, or any other page from Yahoo! for that matter. Section 10 is even more clear about this. It's short too. Sure, people may do it, but that doesn't make it legal.
Contract and copyright law already covers what needs to be covered here. This is just another law that overextends existing protections, all to the benefit of a few and the harm of the many.
Well, if you believe the ads run by cable companies then the mere mention of water should cause your signal to go out.
also, less atmosphere = less friction for the return vehicle
Which means you have to burn a lot more fuel in order to slow down and stop, since you can't use aerobraking or parachutes.
Being out of the atmosphere means you also have absolutely no protection against micrometeorites. On the flipside, you don't have to deal with dust or dust storms.
It cites GCC as an example of how destructive OS can be in that it removed the market for any other type of compiler
What a crock of an "article" that is. It's a group of posts on an OpenBSD mailing list. There is no response to the particular posting made (which, btw, is here, two levels down from what the poster linked to) because the mailing list maintainers shut down the thread as off-topic (appropriately). There are some funny, and valid, points raised by the article you linked to, but "GCC is destructive" isn't one of them.
There are still numerous other C/C++ compilers available. Yes, gcc comes with most distros. So? You can install a different one easily enough. And there are several available -- Intel, Watcomm, Borland, etc. Some are free, some are not. Most outperform gcc in various areas, sometimes in all areas. And, contrary to the post, there is still choice of compilers on Unix -- generally you can choose either the vendor's own compiler or gcc. Which is a vast improvement over the old situation -- you got to use the vendor's compiler. Which usually sucked (they've improved greatly, but we use g++ here because xlC v5 does an amazingly bad job at handling templates).
Yes, some embedded platforms only have gcc available now. Why? Because it's cheaper than rolling your own... it used to be that you had to purchase a compiler for an embedded platform. While this was an additional revenue stream for the company, the cost of building your own compiler, keeping it bug free, updating it to match emerging standards, and providing support vastly outweighed the revenue coming in. Sure, you still have to submit the platform specific code to the gcc-devel group, but it's a lot less work than writing your own. And, of course, gcc provides far better code (stability, speed, and size) than most of the custom compilers.
Can it be said that Mozilla has in effect done an "Internet explorer" with the open source world?
No. There's still Konquerer and Safari (same codebase), there's Opera (commercial and closed), and several others. Don't like Mozilla? Pick another one.
The reality is, open source only destroys the market for other tools when the other tools are inferior. It may be that, eventually, the open source software is superior in every meaningful way and the other tools slide off into obsolecense. At that point you've reached the commoditization point for that group of software... it's unsurprising that the cheapest solution wins. It happens in every other market after all.
protecting all sperm and egg cells would be a bit awkward
Agreed, particularly since a rather high percentage don't even implant. Even without implantation a fertilized cell will divide, but it'll quickly run out of nutrients and die. The body will clean the cell mass out -- alive or dead -- during menstration since no implantation occurred.
I think that we know quite a bit about human reproduction
Heh. Having gone through the process recently, we know much less than you'd think. Know why pregnant women can't have many drugs? Because we don't know how most drugs affect the fetus. There are some drugs we know are bad, there are some we're pretty sure are ok, and there's the vast majority that we don't have a clue on. A generation ago (1950s-1970s) we knew much less about this and pregnant women were routinely prescribed drugs. Now we know how little we know, so the medical community has taken the standpoint of not prescribing unless absolutely necessary. It's virtually impossible to get prescriptions for many medications if you're pregnant, and even then you're warned that you should take it as little as possible because we're really not sure of the side effects.
We won't even go into the research on hormones and pregnancy or diet and pregnancy...
We certainly know when brain activity begins
Actually we don't, which was one of the points I made in my first post on this thread. Do some Googling for fetal brain development or activity. There's a great deal of research ongoing in this arena.
large fraction of embryos--probably a bit under half--will spontaneously abort due to defects
Yes, I know, and I did cover that by saying "unless there's a problem with the fetus". I'm also quite intimately aware of this fact, since my wife had a miscarraige under a year ago... presumably because of this -- we'll never know. And even though we have a kid on the way (as in, she's due today) it still hurts to think of the other one.
What basis is there to draw such a line?
Precisely... my entire point was that you can't draw such a line, even scientifically, because we just don't know enough about the entire process yet. Realistically, we know very, very little about human reproduction. We've learned a lot in the last century, but as with most science, the more we learn the more we realize how little we know.
Sure an exact demarcation of when an embryo is a baby will never be agreed upon by everyone, but why isn't it an acceptable demarcation to check if the embryo has brain activity?
Which is defined as... ? Honestly, we don't know when that is. Not to mention that it varies from child to child. There are a large number of research papers on this, and while there's some common agreement that there are definite, individual brain wave patterns at a certain point (24 weeks I think), it's not clear that they don't exist prior to that as well.
We use that as a measure to determine if already born people are dead or alive
The obvious difference is that someone already alive goes from a state of thinking to a state of being brain dead. In the case of an embryo the thinking may not have occurred yet, but -- unless there's a problem with the fetus -- it will. It's directly contrary to our experience with brain dead adults, who don't come back once brain dead. The embryo will gain brain activity unless otherwise interrupted.
It isn't based on religion or politics, but instead on science. Seems objective if you ask me.
Which is irrelevant when it comes to religion. It's not about objectivity -- it's about right and wrong. If objectivity came into it at any point then Galileo and Copernicus would never have been heretics and we wouldn't still be debating Evolution vs Creation.
And, for the record, I'm pro-choice... It'd be a nice world where no one ever had to make that choice, but that's a fantasy.
It should be standard practice to store them now from newborns for when stem cell technology matures in the future.
In most major metropolitan areas you can donate cord blood at no cost. As long as you're donating it, that is. If you want to store it for future usage by your child alone then be prepared to pay a good bit of money -- the one price I've seen is $39/mo. When you donate it the universities and research centers will happily pay the fees on your behalf, since they can then use the resulting stem cells for research and what not.
Read more about cord blood donation here (nice FAQ). It's important to note that a barrier to adoption is the cost of the equipment itself.
a US company held a patent on the harvesting(?) of cord blood stem cells, and demanded a license fee which is hampering the introduction of this
A quick Google search appears to show that PharmaStem Theraputics, Inc. holds a patent on this in the US. It was, however, overturned in Europe. If you want more details, feel free to google.
I can see why this work has been done, but there are a number of ways to generate this material that isn't morally suspect
I think the issue is that not all stem cells are created equal. IIRC, the stem cells found in cord blood have already specialized to a certain degree and cannot be used as truely universal cells. Those taken from embryos at an early stage of development, however, can.
Gotta say, this has me all squeemish. I've been pro-choice for a long time now, but my wife is due today (the kiddo, however, seems to have other plans... sigh), and we had a miscarraige before this pregnancy. I can't imagine doing anything like this (the harvesting; we're planning to donate cord blood AFAIK) at the moment.