ISS is a research platform. Flying privately should only be done at great expense as it is since time and space is limited there.
And in other news, thinking of starting Space Flight Auction house. Coming soon to a theatre near you!
No, the ISS is, was, and was always intended to be a corporate welfare platform to keep defense contractors in business during the waning period of the cold war.
As the old joke went, "What is the purpose of the space shuttle? To build the space station! What is the purpose of the space station? To give the space shuttle somewhere to go!"
The real problem with space tourism going to the ISS is that the Russian space agency is getting the money, not the US taxpayers.
If they're allowing biometric authentication as a single factor authentication to clinical data, there's cause for concern. In this case, this is biometric identification, and is still more reliable than punching an ID into a time system.
In healthcare, biometrics are usually used, if at all, as a second factor for authentication. (And that usage is rare because certain demographics have fingerprints that are not reliably read by most scanners.)
That's still a static background, just the camera position and field of view isn't static. The view of the background isn't static, but the background is. If there were moving people in the background, and you wanted to remove someone in between, you've got a problem (because you don't know what the people were doing when they were blocked).
Peter Higgs did the math to show how the particle would behave and what it would ‘act like.’ But that was all on paper; in the meantime, the little bugger has eluded empirical discovery. It was so elusive, that a physicist (Leon Lederman) originally coined it the “Goddamn particle,” in a proposed title to his book on the subject. His publisher persuaded him to re-name it “The God Particle,” and the name has taken off in the public sphere (much to the chagrin of many physicists).
God Damned Editors!
So you're saying its a good thing that Slashdot's editors never do a damn thing?
It is the carriers which are responsible for the locking. The suppliers don't give a rat's tail about whether a phone is locked or not. The carriers make the requests and the suppliers deliver on that request. Suppliers have no dog in the fight over locked vs. unlocked beyond the mild fact that a locked phone will likely stay in the region in which it was procured. But people who relocate and wish to take their phones with them are an insignificant minority.
I get the feeling this is a blame and information deflecting piece intended to point people in directions which are not relevant.
The carriers want the lock to preserve their exclusivity to a device, not to lock the customer in. The manufacturers want the lock because they get kickbacks in exchange for the exclusivity.
I really don't see why phones are locked in the first place. You're already tied to the carrier with a legal contract. There shouldn't need to be a technical measure in place to make sure you don't take the phone to a different carrier. If you try to leave before the contract is over, there's already high fees for breaking the contract. If you choose to not pay those fees, it would probably look bad on your credit rating. After your contract term ends, you should be free to do whatever you want with the phone. Actually, If they now have the system in place to block stolen phones, the major providers could probably place the phones from non-paid contracts on a list where they would refuse to allow the phone be used until the contract is paid in full.
It has nothing to do with the contract with you, it has to do with the contracts they have with the manufacturers. Locking is about tying the handset to the carrier, not you to the carrier.
Example: you could unlock the iPhone as soon as it showed up on other carriers. Even ATT would do it while you were still on contract, if you asked.
Phones that are still on exclusive contracts tend to be non-unlockable.
Unfortunately, most cameraphones and video camcorders are already equipped with IR filter lenses in order to improve color rendition accuracy.
They have a response curve, though. You'd need a LOT of IR to flood it out like that, but you can do it. (You can see the IR flash of a remote in a video camera or digital camera just fine -- the strength is just attenuated enough below what visible light typically is to keep it from screwing up color.)
A better example -- point a digital camera at a wood stove. A burning fire puts out a LOT of IR -- not just the heat-based far IR, but the near IR. The flames end up looking purple.
Why bring down a rocket if it is in normal operation this way? Is it theoretically possible for a launch vehicle to make it all the way to orbit and back? Probably, but it's extremely inefficient! It's a circus trick, by the time the rocket is up in space, it has no fuel left, that's why multistage parts are jettisoned in the first place, the only valuable parts in them for the launch was the fuel and it gets burned up completely for the rocket to get to space.
Yes, by all means, you are in fact more knowledgeable than the experts!
Ignoring all the ridiculous things in that list, your house doesn't have sufficient service to quick charge a car for 160 miles of range in 20 minutes.
I've seen suggestions before of having a home charging station; basically a battery pack that is always slow-charging, ready to dump it all into the EV when you need it.
Now you're paying for two battery packs, massively more expensive charging equipment and you still haven't addressed the problem of getting the current into the car.
IMO, though, its a solution to a problem that largely doesn't exist. You can charge a car, with a 6kw level 2 charger, to a hundred miles overnight. Its a rare day that anyone needs more than that for day-to-day driving. While Tesla-style quick charging stations are interesting, they only work as long as there aren't very many Teslas out there.
The real solution is either onboard gas generators (like the Volt) or a cultural shift to Zipcar-like gas rentals for long trips. (Or, frankly, a towable gas generator... if I had a pure EV that worked fine for around town and commuting, but had a towable trailer with a combination of storage space and a generator for when I wanted to go on a long trip, I'd find that very convenient.)
Get these specs and I'm sold: $30k MSRP - without a subsidy 200 mile range seats 4 adults comfortably quick charge to 80% in 20 minutes 10 year unlimited-mile battery replacement warranty (i.e. it will still go 200 miles/charge after 10 years of wear) sufficient public charging stations for unplanned cross-country trips drag coefficient below 0.25
The batteries are just too expensive to go Lithium-Ion and expect it to go the distance.
Might as well put "fully functional replicator for my earl gray tea" and "can do the kessel run in less than twelve parsecs", too.
Ignoring all the ridiculous things in that list, your house doesn't have sufficient service to quick charge a car for 160 miles of range in 20 minutes. If you *extremely* optimistically assumed 3 miles per KWH, you need to pump about 53KWH of electricity into your car. With the charging overhead, its safe to round that up to 60KWH. In 20 minutes, or 180KW. At 240V, that's 750 amps, which is probably 4x what your house has. It also would need something around a 0000 gauge cable to carry the current, which would be solid copper and about a half inch thick -- per conductor.
How many children do you know bear a racial hatred for Western culture that is bred and drilled into them, or are armed with nuclear warheads?
It's exactly that arrogance that they are standing up against, however misplaced their aggressions are.
There's no easy solution here; disarming them is impossible, making peace with them is impossible, talking sense into them is impossible, treading lightly and carrying a big stick seems to be the only safe alternative that doesn't cause us to descend into full military operation against them.
Converting their constituent atoms to a plasma in a few nanoseconds is always an option, though.
The GP is right, though -- while the teeming masses of NK may not understand what is going on, they're also not the ones who can start a war. And the leaders there are plenty westernized, live the high life and know perfectly well that our nuclear arsenal is dramatically more reliable than theirs.
What really annoys me is the absolute limit of what I can do to these bastards is not give them money. There needs to be a way to take money away from companies that deliver exceptionally bad products.
I don't know if it's the developers or dotnet, but I've still never seen a multithreaded dotnet app. That's inexcusable when some of them probably even had a multicore handheld gaming console such as the Nintendo DS in their early years at school.
Its probably just the code you're looking at, or how you're interpreting the code you're seeing. In aggregate, I'd say I very rarely see any software making good use of threading, and its dramatically rarer still to see it implemented correctly. Java code, broadly speaking, I've seen the worst threading-related code in -- probably because it makes it seem easy to use, but doesn't actually do much to make it easy to do correctly.
Its actually gotten markedly better with.NET with the advent of the parallel framework, tasks, and the new async support in C# 4. Its trivial to write multithreaded C# (and, if you don't really know C#, likely hard to spot, too), and its certainly safer. There's also pretty good built-in lock-free concurrency types and things like that.
So much of the.Net ecosystem has moved towards using the newer async patterns, all of which are inherently multithreaded, I doubt there's many C# applications being written that aren't.
The first voyage to the new world wasn't in a canoe (well, not on purpose anyway). We made that trip in large, long range vessels, compared to what we were used to sailing at the time.
And the 'new world' was already populated by indigenous people who got there how? Hovercraft?
I'm going to assume Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson is a much better source than you.
But the point is correct. The gravitational attraction of a spaceship to an asteroid is a weak force. It means you can only a apply a force equal to the weight of the ship on the asteroid. Also, the momentum of the propellant from the rocket pushes against the asteroid, countering the thrust of the rocket. (Unless you direct the rocket away from the asteroid, in which case the rocket escapes from the asteroid.) It's a bad idea.
Do they not teach basic science in the US anymore? The fact that it would work should be something can be easily proven by anyone who has taken highschool physics. You do realize that rockets don't take off because they're pushing against the ground, right? You just need to move the center of gravity the tiniest amount. When you're traveling a billion or two miles, and you're trying to miss something that is only 13,000km across, you don't need to put a lot of pressure on it, you just need to put a little pressure for a very long time.
I would normally agree but the whole thing sounds preposterous. The gravitational pull of a spaceship is negligible. If you're going to send a spaceship up there and let it "hover" why not just have it actually contact the meteor and use its thrusters to push it out of the way?
The way the universe works doesn't really depend, in any way, upon you finding physics "acceptable".
And a great many people, who clearly are vastly more knowledgeable than you, have done the math and know what they're talking about
First party games can be ported. If they were properly designed that should not be hard. The disk can be used for purchase verification. Sure that costs money, but it also sells consoles. They lost my purchase, and many others. Even worse they delayed more purchases. Instead of getting more early adopters more people will wait to buy the new console.
No one told Sony to switch to x86. They made their bed.
Most people rarely replay games years later.
I'm pretty sure Sony isn't going to be too concerned about losing a sale or two to a tiny minority of people who agree with you.
Slashdot Mirror
ISS is a research platform.
Flying privately should only be done at great expense as it is since time and space is limited there.
And in other news, thinking of starting Space Flight Auction house.
Coming soon to a theatre near you!
No, the ISS is, was, and was always intended to be a corporate welfare platform to keep defense contractors in business during the waning period of the cold war.
As the old joke went, "What is the purpose of the space shuttle? To build the space station! What is the purpose of the space station? To give the space shuttle somewhere to go!"
The real problem with space tourism going to the ISS is that the Russian space agency is getting the money, not the US taxpayers.
Attendance is not a security issue.
If they're allowing biometric authentication as a single factor authentication to clinical data, there's cause for concern. In this case, this is biometric identification, and is still more reliable than punching an ID into a time system.
In healthcare, biometrics are usually used, if at all, as a second factor for authentication. (And that usage is rare because certain demographics have fingerprints that are not reliably read by most scanners.)
Background has to be static for it to work.
Nope
That's still a static background, just the camera position and field of view isn't static. The view of the background isn't static, but the background is. If there were moving people in the background, and you wanted to remove someone in between, you've got a problem (because you don't know what the people were doing when they were blocked).
Peter Higgs did the math to show how the particle would behave and what it would ‘act like.’ But that was all on paper; in the meantime, the little bugger has eluded empirical discovery. It was so elusive, that a physicist (Leon Lederman) originally coined it the “Goddamn particle,” in a proposed title to his book on the subject. His publisher persuaded him to re-name it “The God Particle,” and the name has taken off in the public sphere (much to the chagrin of many physicists).
God Damned Editors!
So you're saying its a good thing that Slashdot's editors never do a damn thing?
It is the carriers which are responsible for the locking. The suppliers don't give a rat's tail about whether a phone is locked or not. The carriers make the requests and the suppliers deliver on that request. Suppliers have no dog in the fight over locked vs. unlocked beyond the mild fact that a locked phone will likely stay in the region in which it was procured. But people who relocate and wish to take their phones with them are an insignificant minority.
I get the feeling this is a blame and information deflecting piece intended to point people in directions which are not relevant.
The carriers want the lock to preserve their exclusivity to a device, not to lock the customer in. The manufacturers want the lock because they get kickbacks in exchange for the exclusivity.
I really don't see why phones are locked in the first place. You're already tied to the carrier with a legal contract. There shouldn't need to be a technical measure in place to make sure you don't take the phone to a different carrier. If you try to leave before the contract is over, there's already high fees for breaking the contract. If you choose to not pay those fees, it would probably look bad on your credit rating. After your contract term ends, you should be free to do whatever you want with the phone. Actually, If they now have the system in place to block stolen phones, the major providers could probably place the phones from non-paid contracts on a list where they would refuse to allow the phone be used until the contract is paid in full.
It has nothing to do with the contract with you, it has to do with the contracts they have with the manufacturers. Locking is about tying the handset to the carrier, not you to the carrier.
Example: you could unlock the iPhone as soon as it showed up on other carriers. Even ATT would do it while you were still on contract, if you asked.
Phones that are still on exclusive contracts tend to be non-unlockable.
Just wait until countries start pulling out of the EU.
Then we'll have a real currency backwards-compatibility problem!
Good. As a tax paying American, I don't wat to pay for yet another welfare nation. Let China foot the bill.
The irony being that a lot of people in China say the same thing about supporting the American welfare nation ...
Unfortunately, most cameraphones and video camcorders are already equipped with IR filter lenses in order to improve color rendition accuracy.
They have a response curve, though. You'd need a LOT of IR to flood it out like that, but you can do it. (You can see the IR flash of a remote in a video camera or digital camera just fine -- the strength is just attenuated enough below what visible light typically is to keep it from screwing up color.)
A better example -- point a digital camera at a wood stove. A burning fire puts out a LOT of IR -- not just the heat-based far IR, but the near IR. The flames end up looking purple.
Why bring down a rocket if it is in normal operation this way? Is it theoretically possible for a launch vehicle to make it all the way to orbit and back? Probably, but it's extremely inefficient! It's a circus trick, by the time the rocket is up in space, it has no fuel left, that's why multistage parts are jettisoned in the first place, the only valuable parts in them for the launch was the fuel and it gets burned up completely for the rocket to get to space.
Yes, by all means, you are in fact more knowledgeable than the experts!
Ignoring all the ridiculous things in that list, your house doesn't have sufficient service to quick charge a car for 160 miles of range in 20 minutes.
I've seen suggestions before of having a home charging station; basically a battery pack that is always slow-charging, ready to dump it all into the EV when you need it.
Now you're paying for two battery packs, massively more expensive charging equipment and you still haven't addressed the problem of getting the current into the car.
IMO, though, its a solution to a problem that largely doesn't exist. You can charge a car, with a 6kw level 2 charger, to a hundred miles overnight. Its a rare day that anyone needs more than that for day-to-day driving. While Tesla-style quick charging stations are interesting, they only work as long as there aren't very many Teslas out there.
The real solution is either onboard gas generators (like the Volt) or a cultural shift to Zipcar-like gas rentals for long trips. (Or, frankly, a towable gas generator... if I had a pure EV that worked fine for around town and commuting, but had a towable trailer with a combination of storage space and a generator for when I wanted to go on a long trip, I'd find that very convenient.)
Get these specs and I'm sold:
$30k MSRP - without a subsidy
200 mile range
seats 4 adults comfortably
quick charge to 80% in 20 minutes
10 year unlimited-mile battery replacement warranty (i.e. it will still go 200 miles/charge after 10 years of wear)
sufficient public charging stations for unplanned cross-country trips
drag coefficient below 0.25
The batteries are just too expensive to go Lithium-Ion and expect it to go the distance.
Might as well put "fully functional replicator for my earl gray tea" and "can do the kessel run in less than twelve parsecs", too.
Ignoring all the ridiculous things in that list, your house doesn't have sufficient service to quick charge a car for 160 miles of range in 20 minutes. If you *extremely* optimistically assumed 3 miles per KWH, you need to pump about 53KWH of electricity into your car. With the charging overhead, its safe to round that up to 60KWH. In 20 minutes, or 180KW. At 240V, that's 750 amps, which is probably 4x what your house has. It also would need something around a 0000 gauge cable to carry the current, which would be solid copper and about a half inch thick -- per conductor.
People abused vacation days and suddenly companies dropped paid vacation and went PTO.
People abused working from home, companies start dropping telecommuting.
Both are the wrong reaction -- you fire the people who are abusing the system, you don't punish the people who aren't.
How many children do you know bear a racial hatred for Western culture that is bred and drilled into them, or are armed with nuclear warheads?
It's exactly that arrogance that they are standing up against, however misplaced their aggressions are.
There's no easy solution here; disarming them is impossible, making peace with them is impossible, talking sense into them is impossible, treading lightly and carrying a big stick seems to be the only safe alternative that doesn't cause us to descend into full military operation against them.
Converting their constituent atoms to a plasma in a few nanoseconds is always an option, though.
The GP is right, though -- while the teeming masses of NK may not understand what is going on, they're also not the ones who can start a war. And the leaders there are plenty westernized, live the high life and know perfectly well that our nuclear arsenal is dramatically more reliable than theirs.
What really annoys me is the absolute limit of what I can do to these bastards is not give them money. There needs to be a way to take money away from companies that deliver exceptionally bad products.
Why? How does it impact you, if you don't buy it?
I don't know if it's the developers or dotnet, but I've still never seen a multithreaded dotnet app. That's inexcusable when some of them probably even had a multicore handheld gaming console such as the Nintendo DS in their early years at school.
Its probably just the code you're looking at, or how you're interpreting the code you're seeing. In aggregate, I'd say I very rarely see any software making good use of threading, and its dramatically rarer still to see it implemented correctly. Java code, broadly speaking, I've seen the worst threading-related code in -- probably because it makes it seem easy to use, but doesn't actually do much to make it easy to do correctly.
Its actually gotten markedly better with .NET with the advent of the parallel framework, tasks, and the new async support in C# 4. Its trivial to write multithreaded C# (and, if you don't really know C#, likely hard to spot, too), and its certainly safer. There's also pretty good built-in lock-free concurrency types and things like that.
So much of the .Net ecosystem has moved towards using the newer async patterns, all of which are inherently multithreaded, I doubt there's many C# applications being written that aren't.
The first voyage to the new world wasn't in a canoe (well, not on purpose anyway). We made that trip in large, long range vessels, compared to what we were used to sailing at the time.
And the 'new world' was already populated by indigenous people who got there how? Hovercraft?
They walked.
Do they not teach Newton's third law in your country, or has it been repealed for your convenience?
Yes, and even Newton could've figured out how a rocket works.
I'm going to assume Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson is a much better source than you.
But the point is correct. The gravitational attraction of a spaceship to an asteroid is a weak force. It means you can only a apply a force equal to the weight of the ship on the asteroid. Also, the momentum of the propellant from the rocket pushes against the asteroid, countering the thrust of the rocket. (Unless you direct the rocket away from the asteroid, in which case the rocket escapes from the asteroid.) It's a bad idea.
Do they not teach basic science in the US anymore? The fact that it would work should be something can be easily proven by anyone who has taken highschool physics. You do realize that rockets don't take off because they're pushing against the ground, right? You just need to move the center of gravity the tiniest amount. When you're traveling a billion or two miles, and you're trying to miss something that is only 13,000km across, you don't need to put a lot of pressure on it, you just need to put a little pressure for a very long time.
I would normally agree but the whole thing sounds preposterous. The gravitational pull of a spaceship is negligible. If you're going to send a spaceship up there and let it "hover" why not just have it actually contact the meteor and use its thrusters to push it out of the way?
The way the universe works doesn't really depend, in any way, upon you finding physics "acceptable".
And a great many people, who clearly are vastly more knowledgeable than you, have done the math and know what they're talking about
First party games can be ported. If they were properly designed that should not be hard. The disk can be used for purchase verification. Sure that costs money, but it also sells consoles. They lost my purchase, and many others. Even worse they delayed more purchases. Instead of getting more early adopters more people will wait to buy the new console.
No one told Sony to switch to x86. They made their bed.
Most people rarely replay games years later.
I'm pretty sure Sony isn't going to be too concerned about losing a sale or two to a tiny minority of people who agree with you.
Those systems used clearly incompatible cartridges. All games are now on CD/DVD/Bluray which are formats that are largely compatible. .
You realize its not shining a light through the disk and magically projecting the pretty pictures on your TV, right?
ever tried to lick a cryo valve?
did you see "dumb and dumber" where the guy's tongue gets stuck to the ice?
I triple dog dare you!
Selling questionable software at the dotcom boom and spinning a lot of flashy tech and buzzwords - when are this guy's 15 mins of fame over?
If he pulls off even half of what he's trying to pull off? Julius Caeser probably has more to worry about in that regard.
Pollute the groundwater in a third world country!
That's what everyone else does with them.