You seem to be unaware that players in AA (base) ball are under the same strictures as players in the Majors - because they're all part of the same organization.
"NASA brought together hundreds of the brightest scientists and engineers in the 1970s to work on the guidance computers that helped the Apollo missions land humans on the moon."
No they didn't. NASA contracted with MIT Instrumentation Laboratory to develop the Apollo guidance systems. (The Instrumentation Laboratory then turned around and based the design on one the USN had paid for - the Polaris guidance computer.) NASA's main contribution was oversight, review, and general bureaucratic paper shuffling. They didn't even program the damn thing - that was done by the Instrumentation Laboratory as well.
Not to mention, it's not really a MSBNC story linked to above - it's an MSBNC rewrite of what amounts to a NASA press release.
That video (and the images in the other link) shows the escape rockets doing the final braking, which means a hybrid system (as has been used many times before), not a propulsive system. Those escape rockets don't have a fraction of a percent of the performance needed for an actual propulsive landing.
Well, the summary claims it - but nowhere in the article is propulsive landing on Mars mentioned.
Not that I believe it probable. The problem with landing heavy payloads to date has been that Mars' atmosphere is too thin to land ballistically/aerodynamically, and it's gravity too high to land propulsively. I don't see offhand that the Dragon's payload is sufficient to overcome this.
Well, the actual plan is develop satellites that can maneuver up to other satellites and fuel them in situ. TFA, as with most science 'journalism' gets it wrong.
Well the iPod is secure, for a good while at least, because of branding and fashion. People don't buy MP3 players, they buy iPods. They are the fashionable thing to own.
Well, no. The The iPod was *the* fashionable thing to own... back in the first part of the last decade. But not anymore. The iPod market is starting to fade - both because people *do* buy MP3 players that aren't iPods, and because phones in general and Apple's own Touch are starting to replace the handheld MP3 player.
Except that over the years the federal government has given away moon rocks as gifts to different countries and people.
No, rocks have never been given to individuals.
So no the federal government does not own every moon rock out there.
Yes, under Federal law (which applies in Alaska as it's part of the US), all rocks brought back by Apollo belong to the Federal government. Transferring custody does not transfer ownership.
But the rock in question doesn't belong to the State of Alaska or any individual or organization within that jurisdiction. The rock belongs to the Federal Government, and hence Federal laws apply and Alaska laws do not.
And Federal Law is pretty clear - the rocks are property of the Federal Government.
"The slow rollout of Google+ has led some to wonder whether Google was trying to create demand through scarcity, but it might just be that the company learned its lesson from the privacy fiasco that was the launch of Google Buzz.
No. I don't think Google is trying to create demand through scarcity. If they are, it's likely to backfire on them, social networks aren't like Gmail. The value of an email system varies with the 'buzz' and is independent of the number of users. The value of a social network however *is* directly dependent on the number of users.
Slashdot and the tech media have mostly concentrated on the tech darlings invited behind the velvet rope, but they missed the fact that widely followed individuals from other fields were invited in early as well. But at least some of those are openly wondering what the value of G+ is to them. There aren't enough people to make it worth their time to use it, and it's badly feature incomplete as compared to Facebook. (E.G. no fan pages, no group pages.)
the reality of "distractions cause accidents" which is not limited to cellphones and gps, the supposed demon in the situation. How did people ever have accidents before gps and cellphones? oh, right.
This is one of the odder bits of backwards logic I've ever heard - and it comes up in every discussion on the topic. You're essentially saying "yeah, these gadgets increase your chance of being in an accident, but its OK to continue using them because we had accidents before they came along". This makes no sense whatsoever. It amounts to saying "let's play Russian Roulette with *two* bullets rather than one".
The reality is that even the radio can cause a distraction/accident. Yet when are we going to address having things we actually enjoy in our car? oh, right. I think this is when people trot out the protect the children argument.
No, it's when people trot out the "apples/oranges" argument.
Google did the same mistake here they've done several times earlier.. They published an unfinished product...
No, they're field testing an unfinished product. It's the reason why it's hard to get an invite.
Not particularly hard, no. I got over a dozen this weekend. Within hours of signing up, I was able to hand out half a dozen of my own.
...on a market that is already established and has the giant pain of trying to get users to move to their service.
They don't seem to be having much difficulty getting users to move to their service. In fact, most of their difficulties lies in slowing down the demand because they can't handle it at this stage of testing, as shown by this particular problem. It's expanding way faster than they want it to, with more than a million users already signed up
If Google wanted to slow down the demand, all they have to do is turn the 'invite' switch off. Google has not done so.
Rich people don't make money from wages. They make money from investments, dividends, and bond interest. That's why the super rich pay almost no tax (and why C-levels get paid in stock as opposed to salary). In the US we tax income from work, but we do not tax income from wealth.
Which planet do you live on? On my planet (the one Slashdot is located on) my investments, dividends, bond interest, etc... are all taxed.
they are trying to do the same to slashdot as they did to techcrunch or betanews, were you can't find a decent comment in the middle of all the astroturfers
That's been happening on Google and FB related threads on Slashdot for some time now - the fanboys of Google consistently upvote other fanboys and downvote anyone critical, and the reverse for Facebook.
Wow... So much hatred towards google+, despite it starting to shape up as a great product! Have you even used it, or are you just a facebook "relationship manager"?
Wow... so much hatred towards someone holding a view contrary to yours. Are you a Google "relationship manager"?
If you'd use it, you'd see it is very polished, circles are thousand times better than anything fb has
I have used it, and it's neither shaping up as a great product or a thousand times better than anything. It's Buzz with a few hacks on top combined with a piss poor news search engine and a Yahoo! chat clone. Worse yet, the hacks (Circles) make it feel like you're juggling a dozen or more FB or Twitter accounts that happen to share a single login.
As the OP said, this is a typical Google launch - trying to create 'buzz' around a product that far from ready for prime time and far from complete or polished.
What I find odd is that they haven't integrated Buzz.
Actually, what I find odd is that G+ is even *in* beta. It's basically Buzz with extra (and not entirely intuitive) privacy features, a slapdash news search system, and a chatroom loosely hung together.
either someone is full of shit on the radiation hardening, or that's one fucking amazing phone!
To quote a line from a pretty well known movie: There is.... another [possibility that you have overlooked]. Life is rarely black and white and often you look wiser by asking a question rather than making a blanket statement of facts when you lack all relevant information.
These are prototypes and are not used in a mission critical application. Thus they don't need radiation hardened chips and their cost can be minimized. (I.E. pretty much the same answer as has been given many times here on Slashdot for the other commercial grade hardware that has flown over the years.)
The crews of the Challenger and the Columbia might disagree with your assessment of the quality of NASA's work.
No, I don't think the would. Bodies and blood are the cost of working on the cutting edge and expanding the envelope - and the kind of people attracted to that kind of work know that full well.
If I were a crew member, or one of their families, my main emotion would be anger that their sacrifice was wasted and our next steps in space represent a huge step backwards - a retreat towards the illusion of safety and progress.
So ends America's wasteful spending on a program that didn't live up to what was promised. Maybe now space exploration can start heading back on the right direction.
America's space exploration will never head in the right direction - because the Shuttle's budget and body count is a faction of what will be racked up heading in the right direction, and damn fools won't spend money or blood. What's we'll get is what the public really wants.... a 'safe' and 'cheap' Potemkin village.
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to be unaware that players in AA (base) ball are under the same strictures as players in the Majors - because they're all part of the same organization.
"NASA brought together hundreds of the brightest scientists and engineers in the 1970s to work on the guidance computers that helped the Apollo missions land humans on the moon."
No they didn't. NASA contracted with MIT Instrumentation Laboratory to develop the Apollo guidance systems. (The Instrumentation Laboratory then turned around and based the design on one the USN had paid for - the Polaris guidance computer.) NASA's main contribution was oversight, review, and general bureaucratic paper shuffling. They didn't even program the damn thing - that was done by the Instrumentation Laboratory as well.
Not to mention, it's not really a MSBNC story linked to above - it's an MSBNC rewrite of what amounts to a NASA press release.
Generally, I have a higher standard of proof than a press release and a CGI video.
That video (and the images in the other link) shows the escape rockets doing the final braking, which means a hybrid system (as has been used many times before), not a propulsive system. Those escape rockets don't have a fraction of a percent of the performance needed for an actual propulsive landing.
Well, the summary claims it - but nowhere in the article is propulsive landing on Mars mentioned.
Not that I believe it probable. The problem with landing heavy payloads to date has been that Mars' atmosphere is too thin to land ballistically/aerodynamically, and it's gravity too high to land propulsively. I don't see offhand that the Dragon's payload is sufficient to overcome this.
Well, the actual plan is develop satellites that can maneuver up to other satellites and fuel them in situ. TFA, as with most science 'journalism' gets it wrong.
Generally, I don't. I have a life.
Well, no. The The iPod was *the* fashionable thing to own... back in the first part of the last decade. But not anymore. The iPod market is starting to fade - both because people *do* buy MP3 players that aren't iPods, and because phones in general and Apple's own Touch are starting to replace the handheld MP3 player.
No, rocks have never been given to individuals.
Yes, under Federal law (which applies in Alaska as it's part of the US), all rocks brought back by Apollo belong to the Federal government. Transferring custody does not transfer ownership.
[[Citation needed]]
But the rock in question doesn't belong to the State of Alaska or any individual or organization within that jurisdiction. The rock belongs to the Federal Government, and hence Federal laws apply and Alaska laws do not.
And Federal Law is pretty clear - the rocks are property of the Federal Government.
From the summary:
No. I don't think Google is trying to create demand through scarcity. If they are, it's likely to backfire on them, social networks aren't like Gmail. The value of an email system varies with the 'buzz' and is independent of the number of users. The value of a social network however *is* directly dependent on the number of users.
Slashdot and the tech media have mostly concentrated on the tech darlings invited behind the velvet rope, but they missed the fact that widely followed individuals from other fields were invited in early as well. But at least some of those are openly wondering what the value of G+ is to them. There aren't enough people to make it worth their time to use it, and it's badly feature incomplete as compared to Facebook. (E.G. no fan pages, no group pages.)
This is one of the odder bits of backwards logic I've ever heard - and it comes up in every discussion on the topic. You're essentially saying "yeah, these gadgets increase your chance of being in an accident, but its OK to continue using them because we had accidents before they came along". This makes no sense whatsoever. It amounts to saying "let's play Russian Roulette with *two* bullets rather than one".
No, it's when people trot out the "apples/oranges" argument.
Your claim was that it was not taxed - now you claim it is taxed.
And "smart money" doesn't mean "rich" either.
Not particularly hard, no. I got over a dozen this weekend. Within hours of signing up, I was able to hand out half a dozen of my own.
If Google wanted to slow down the demand, all they have to do is turn the 'invite' switch off. Google has not done so.
If that were true - then why has nobody been able to show him wrong?
Wrong. There are dozens of posts handwaving and blowing smoke, indulging in ad hominem attacks and general Google fanboyism.
Which planet do you live on? On my planet (the one Slashdot is located on) my investments, dividends, bond interest, etc... are all taxed.
That's been happening on Google and FB related threads on Slashdot for some time now - the fanboys of Google consistently upvote other fanboys and downvote anyone critical, and the reverse for Facebook.
Wow... so much hatred towards someone holding a view contrary to yours. Are you a Google "relationship manager"?
I have used it, and it's neither shaping up as a great product or a thousand times better than anything. It's Buzz with a few hacks on top combined with a piss poor news search engine and a Yahoo! chat clone. Worse yet, the hacks (Circles) make it feel like you're juggling a dozen or more FB or Twitter accounts that happen to share a single login.
As the OP said, this is a typical Google launch - trying to create 'buzz' around a product that far from ready for prime time and far from complete or polished.
You wouldn't have posted the drivel you did.
What I find odd is that they haven't integrated Buzz.
Actually, what I find odd is that G+ is even *in* beta. It's basically Buzz with extra (and not entirely intuitive) privacy features, a slapdash news search system, and a chatroom loosely hung together.
A Facebook killer it isn't.
Of all the posts on the Shuttle I have ever read on Slashdot, yours has to be roughly the most clueless ever.
To quote a line from a pretty well known movie: There is.... another [possibility that you have overlooked]. Life is rarely black and white and often you look wiser by asking a question rather than making a blanket statement of facts when you lack all relevant information.
These are prototypes and are not used in a mission critical application. Thus they don't need radiation hardened chips and their cost can be minimized. (I.E. pretty much the same answer as has been given many times here on Slashdot for the other commercial grade hardware that has flown over the years.)
NASA tried mightily - but NASA can only do what Congress and the Administration allow it do.
All of them.
No, I don't think the would. Bodies and blood are the cost of working on the cutting edge and expanding the envelope - and the kind of people attracted to that kind of work know that full well.
If I were a crew member, or one of their families, my main emotion would be anger that their sacrifice was wasted and our next steps in space represent a huge step backwards - a retreat towards the illusion of safety and progress.
America's space exploration will never head in the right direction - because the Shuttle's budget and body count is a faction of what will be racked up heading in the right direction, and damn fools won't spend money or blood. What's we'll get is what the public really wants.... a 'safe' and 'cheap' Potemkin village.