Blah blah blah, whatever, if your friend is so important to you have the cell phone ready and call.
Yeah, what a wonderful idea in his time of great stress. Let's deluge him him phone calls, rather than having the convenience of having him post one update to many people. Let's just pretend that this useful 'internet' thingy doesn't exist.
Yes, FB has some value, no it's not important.
Maybe not to you, but as I told the OP, statement like yours are just those of a shallow self centered jackass.
Nothing of value was lost to you maybe. But I've got a news flash, the world doesn't revolve around you.
I've got a friend nearing the end of a difficult pregnancy and who is approaching labor, and Facebook is her husband's primary way of keeping friends and family updated as to her condition. That may not be important to you, but to a bunch of people scattered all across the world - it's important as hell. We care about our friends and family and staying in touch with them, in good times and bad.
You may thing you're k3wl and l33t for going with the Slashdot groupthink as to the value of Facebook, but in reality you're self centered and shallow jackass.
[Sigh, I know this is going to get modded 'flamebait' and 'troll', but it had to be said.]
A US airforce commander, Bomber Harris sent US nuclear bombers on recon flights over the USSR with no way for russians to know wether they were there on a recon flight or an attack.
ROTFLMAO. 'Bomber' Harris was a WWII RAF commander.
Yes they do. But frankly I just think these are some guys trying to make a buck.
Oh, I agree. I was just pointing out that your objection didn't quite hold water.
The nukes in the navy now are at sub bases. The folks on subs are nuts to start with. If Aliens did show up at a sub base crewmen would ask them out for drinks and still not say a word about it. Unless they could shock them.
You do know you're talking to a former sub crewman?:):)
In some cases it makes sense to run tests with "random Joe's" as opposed to personnel that have been read into what is going on so you can see how they react to an unknown situation.
This wouldn't be one of those cases - as the procedures for dealing with a failed weapon are well known, well trained, well tested, etc., etc..
One of the better ways to judge operational effectiveness.
Not without extensive debriefing of the "random joe's" afterwards - which has the side effect of tipping them off to the fact that Something Was Up.
"The weapons malfunctioned": How? they tried to launch them toward a target and they veered off course and detonated nearby causing a horrible but remarkably suppressed nuclear accident?
Even sitting in the silo, you can have malfunctions in the guidance and electrical systems (which are active), or faults in the monitoring systems, or faults in the hydraulic systems (detected by the monitoring system), etc., etc..
Say I want to verify that some anti-nuke weapon system can disable nuclear weapons. Say I've tested it to every extent possible, and now I want to verify its effectiveness against real weapon systems. Do you test it against the enemy and risk an actual nuclear war? Nope, you test it on your own weapons. The US has plenty, so one or two missiles at a time being disabled isn't going to be much of a tactical disadvantage
Your theory is trivially falsified, or at least cast into severe doubt, by the fact that at least one of the 'interventions' took place in the UK and involved what were almost certainly storage sites for gravity bombs.
Next, you have to consider that if the US *did* have such a device - they almost certainly wouldn't test it against deployed operational missiles. They'd use the silos at Vandenberg. (And the control centers would be manned by handpicked personnel rather than random joes in either case.) Not to mention is it completely against the rules to play games with 'live' weapons.
The article discusses alien intervention "running back to the 1940's", and the Navy certainly still has nukes... Even though they've given up most of them, there's still the missile facilities at Bangor and King's Bay.
How did we get into the "combined crew & cargo" paradigm?
Because Congress refused to fund the expensive heavy lift launchers required to support the "separate crew and cargo" paradigm. Without expensive heavy lift launchers to place destinations for a cheap Shuttle into orbit, you end up with an expensive medium lift launcher to carry the destinations into orbit inside the (expensive) Shuttle.
Or, IOW, the "separate crew and cargo" paradigm we're adopting is only possible because the Shuttle has already done the heavy lifting part of the process.
Perhaps it was because of the difficulty in providing unmanned vessels that made it to the specified destination
No, it's because of the hideous expense of supporting a heavy launcher that only launches (at the optimistic best) every year or so, or (more likely) every five years or so.
We can send an unmanned cargo ship into orbit quite easily, without needing all of the protection that a "human cargo" would require. Having a tiny Orion spacecraft bring the people makes a lot more sense.
If it's not safe enough to send humans into orbit, then it doesn't make much sense to trust it with multi billion dollar one of a kind payloads either, does it? Not to mention that the contents of the cargo bay in the Shuttle are far less protected than the contents of the crew compartment. The cargo bay is in vacuum, and only shielded against aerodynamic and vibration effects - which in fact is exactly the same minimum protection provided a payload on a more conventional booster.
I should also point out that it was an Atlas launcher (admittedly a predecessor to the current Atlas V) that has already seen service in the manned spaceflight program for NASA: It put John Glenn into orbit!
That's the equivalent of claiming that's there is no need to perform crash testing on a 2010 Corvette because crash testing was already done on a 1953 Corvette. (To use Slashdot's favored form of analogy.) It should be obvious on it's face that this is a ludicrous claim.
But since it isn't, I should point the almost complete lack of commonality between the Atlas that John Glenn rode and the Atlas V. Different engines, different structures, different staging mechanisms, different electronics, different vibration environment, different acceleration and performance profiles...
Seriously, the argument that these vehicles aren't man-rated is overblown and isn't even a realistic argument here.
When you state that facts are "overblown" and don't "represent a realistic argument", you're pretty much waving the white flag and surrendering - because you're admitting you don't have an argument.
If you are willing to trust sending into orbit billion dollar payloads that represent a million man-hours of effort or more, that is something that at least exceeds the safety margin given for Shuttle launches and is likely to be better.
The Shuttle is one of the safest launch vehicles around based on it's record. Despite all the hype and handwaving about how 'unsafe' it is, the fact is that it's demonstrated safety is not significantly better or worse than any other vehicle currently flying. If you base your argument by a comparison to Shuttle safety, you're either appealing to emotion and ignorance, or you're ignorant yourself.
There may need to be some minor tweaks to finish any honest assessment to make these vehicles man-rated, but that is very trivial compared to what is needed to get a brand-new launcher up to speed and rated for carrying astronauts.
Man rating an existing launcher requires a complete ground up review of it's engineering and a ground up study of it's potential failure modes and the engineering required to bring the safety up to man rating requirements. Man rating a new launcher requires a complete ground up review of it's engineering and a ground up study of it's potential failure modes and the engineering required to bring the safety up to man rating requirements. Or, in other words, wrong again.
The NRO wouldn't have been sending their satellites up on these launchers if they weren't reliable.
These vehicles (Delta IV and Atlas V) are as reliable as the Shuttle - or of anything else flying. So this is a pretty weak argument, pretty much like the rest of your claims.
the fact that the newspaper had links to share a link to the content on facebook or twitter or whatever - and thus should only really be read to have given implied consent to link, not to copy.
Except 90% of the time, when you share a link on Facebook, it copies a fairly large portion of the article into your news feed as well.
Huh? My experience is quite the opposite - 99.99999% of the time you get the article title and maybe four or five sentences maximum worth of content. (And that is in fact what the LVRJ's 'share this' buttons provide.)
It is, as they always say in the lawsuits against P2P operators, all about how you advertise your services.
Correct, and from the responses here on Slashdot, I suspect virtually none have actually gone and checked out the 'advertising'. It doesn't say what you think it says.
If you say "Here is my article, come read it" then you're not implying anything beyond that, but if you say "Here is my article, come read it and share it with all your friends" then the implication is that you're happy for people to take that article and spread it around.
However, the LVRJ is not saying "here's the article, share it with all your friends", they're saying "here's a link, share it with all your friends". There's a huge and important difference there.
No, it means that if you put a button on your site saying "Click here to copy part of this story to your website!", you can't then sue people for copying parts of the story. It would be like YouTube suing people for using the embed links they post.
Not quite - there's different kinds of 'copying'. Putting a button on your site does give implicit permission to copy that portion of the story provided by the button - it does not give implicit permission to cut-and-paste the entire story. (Usually such buttons only provide a teaser and a link, and the LVJR's buttons adhere to this custom.) I'm hoping the judge recognizes the difference.
Fair use plays into this as well. Unless it falls under one of the exemptions, then by copying the entire article to your website (whether or not you provide a link) you've violated the LVJR's copyrights.
The amount of gasoline consumed is directly proportional to the weight being carried.
A common misconception. Since her Suburban weighs around 5000 pounds the extra 2 pounds of my game or book make no measurable difference in the gasoline consumption. Put another way: Whether I carry 1 person or 4 persons in my car, I still get 35mpg regardless.
Just because your crude methods of measuring miles per gallon are unable to discern a difference, does not mean a difference does not exist. (Not to mention that if you always get 35MPG, that alone should raise a warning flag as to correctness of your calculations and method of measurement.)
Without independent observation and analysis, in either the Persian Gulf or the Gulf of Mexico, who has any idea of what's really happening?
Not that you care what's really happening - as your reply makes it clear your mind is already made up. Unless the 'independent' analysis agrees with your existing bias, you'll just claim it to be a product of the "petro-military complex".
Yeah, a step forward for keeping their business models from dying off, thus preventing them from having to actually work to come up with new ones.
First you have to demonstrate that their business model is flawed or failed. Your belief that you should not have to respect existing copyright laws does not constitute such a demonstration.
"The planes of the future will offer an unparalleled, unobstructed view of the wonders of the five continents -- where you will be able see the pyramids or the Eiffel Tower through the transparent floor of the aircraft"
That's fine - during the.000001% of the flight spent near the Pyramids or the Eiffel Tower and at a low enough altitude to make them out. That view of the Atlantic while crossing it isn't going to be too impressive though.
The postwoman is already driving past my house every day. It takes no extra gasoline for her to carry that latest Amazon book or Electronic Boutique game with her.
The amount of gasoline consumed is directly proportional to the weight being carried. So, yes it does take extra gasoline even though she is driving past your house every day. And if she is actually 'driving past' (as opposed to 'stopping at') your house every day, then making that stop consumes additional gasoline as she must accelerate back to speed after stopping.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, what a wonderful idea in his time of great stress. Let's deluge him him phone calls, rather than having the convenience of having him post one update to many people. Let's just pretend that this useful 'internet' thingy doesn't exist.
Maybe not to you, but as I told the OP, statement like yours are just those of a shallow self centered jackass.
Nothing of value was lost to you maybe. But I've got a news flash, the world doesn't revolve around you.
I've got a friend nearing the end of a difficult pregnancy and who is approaching labor, and Facebook is her husband's primary way of keeping friends and family updated as to her condition. That may not be important to you, but to a bunch of people scattered all across the world - it's important as hell. We care about our friends and family and staying in touch with them, in good times and bad.
You may thing you're k3wl and l33t for going with the Slashdot groupthink as to the value of Facebook, but in reality you're self centered and shallow jackass.
[Sigh, I know this is going to get modded 'flamebait' and 'troll', but it had to be said.]
Normal people don't volunteer to climb into a sewer pipe built by the lowest bidder and deliberately sink... :) :)
Pretty much. :)
ROTFLMAO. 'Bomber' Harris was a WWII RAF commander.
You forgot an actual reply... :)
Oh, I agree. I was just pointing out that your objection didn't quite hold water.
You do know you're talking to a former sub crewman? :) :)
Being a billionaire means you have billions of dollars worth of assets, the debt or lack thereof of a company you work for is utterly irrelevant.
This wouldn't be one of those cases - as the procedures for dealing with a failed weapon are well known, well trained, well tested, etc., etc..
Not without extensive debriefing of the "random joe's" afterwards - which has the side effect of tipping them off to the fact that Something Was Up.
Even sitting in the silo, you can have malfunctions in the guidance and electrical systems (which are active), or faults in the monitoring systems, or faults in the hydraulic systems (detected by the monitoring system), etc., etc..
One need not appear wise to whore karma.
Your theory is trivially falsified, or at least cast into severe doubt, by the fact that at least one of the 'interventions' took place in the UK and involved what were almost certainly storage sites for gravity bombs.
Next, you have to consider that if the US *did* have such a device - they almost certainly wouldn't test it against deployed operational missiles. They'd use the silos at Vandenberg. (And the control centers would be manned by handpicked personnel rather than random joes in either case.) Not to mention is it completely against the rules to play games with 'live' weapons.
That depends on how near to which parts of them.
That's true - so long as you don't spend any time near the reactor compartment or any nuclear weapons that may be onboard. </neitherconfirmnordeny>
Why yes, I *am* a former SSBN crewman - why do you ask?
The article discusses alien intervention "running back to the 1940's", and the Navy certainly still has nukes... Even though they've given up most of them, there's still the missile facilities at Bangor and King's Bay.
Fascinating how the aliens only seem to infest US Chair Force nuclear weapons sites and personnel... But not Navy or Army sites and personnel.
Because Congress refused to fund the expensive heavy lift launchers required to support the "separate crew and cargo" paradigm. Without expensive heavy lift launchers to place destinations for a cheap Shuttle into orbit, you end up with an expensive medium lift launcher to carry the destinations into orbit inside the (expensive) Shuttle.
Or, IOW, the "separate crew and cargo" paradigm we're adopting is only possible because the Shuttle has already done the heavy lifting part of the process.
No, it's because of the hideous expense of supporting a heavy launcher that only launches (at the optimistic best) every year or so, or (more likely) every five years or so.
If it's not safe enough to send humans into orbit, then it doesn't make much sense to trust it with multi billion dollar one of a kind payloads either, does it? Not to mention that the contents of the cargo bay in the Shuttle are far less protected than the contents of the crew compartment. The cargo bay is in vacuum, and only shielded against aerodynamic and vibration effects - which in fact is exactly the same minimum protection provided a payload on a more conventional booster.
That's the equivalent of claiming that's there is no need to perform crash testing on a 2010 Corvette because crash testing was already done on a 1953 Corvette. (To use Slashdot's favored form of analogy.) It should be obvious on it's face that this is a ludicrous claim.
But since it isn't, I should point the almost complete lack of commonality between the Atlas that John Glenn rode and the Atlas V. Different engines, different structures, different staging mechanisms, different electronics, different vibration environment, different acceleration and performance profiles...
When you state that facts are "overblown" and don't "represent a realistic argument", you're pretty much waving the white flag and surrendering - because you're admitting you don't have an argument.
The Shuttle is one of the safest launch vehicles around based on it's record. Despite all the hype and handwaving about how 'unsafe' it is, the fact is that it's demonstrated safety is not significantly better or worse than any other vehicle currently flying. If you base your argument by a comparison to Shuttle safety, you're either appealing to emotion and ignorance, or you're ignorant yourself.
Man rating an existing launcher requires a complete ground up review of it's engineering and a ground up study of it's potential failure modes and the engineering required to bring the safety up to man rating requirements. Man rating a new launcher requires a complete ground up review of it's engineering and a ground up study of it's potential failure modes and the engineering required to bring the safety up to man rating requirements. Or, in other words, wrong again.
These vehicles (Delta IV and Atlas V) are as reliable as the Shuttle - or of anything else flying. So this is a pretty weak argument, pretty much like the rest of your claims.
Huh? My experience is quite the opposite - 99.99999% of the time you get the article title and maybe four or five sentences maximum worth of content. (And that is in fact what the LVRJ's 'share this' buttons provide.)
Correct, and from the responses here on Slashdot, I suspect virtually none have actually gone and checked out the 'advertising'. It doesn't say what you think it says.
However, the LVRJ is not saying "here's the article, share it with all your friends", they're saying "here's a link, share it with all your friends". There's a huge and important difference there.
Not quite - there's different kinds of 'copying'. Putting a button on your site does give implicit permission to copy that portion of the story provided by the button - it does not give implicit permission to cut-and-paste the entire story. (Usually such buttons only provide a teaser and a link, and the LVJR's buttons adhere to this custom.) I'm hoping the judge recognizes the difference.
Fair use plays into this as well. Unless it falls under one of the exemptions, then by copying the entire article to your website (whether or not you provide a link) you've violated the LVJR's copyrights.
Just because your crude methods of measuring miles per gallon are unable to discern a difference, does not mean a difference does not exist. (Not to mention that if you always get 35MPG, that alone should raise a warning flag as to correctness of your calculations and method of measurement.)
Not that you care what's really happening - as your reply makes it clear your mind is already made up. Unless the 'independent' analysis agrees with your existing bias, you'll just claim it to be a product of the "petro-military complex".
First you have to demonstrate that their business model is flawed or failed. Your belief that you should not have to respect existing copyright laws does not constitute such a demonstration.
"The planes of the future will offer an unparalleled, unobstructed view of the wonders of the five continents -- where you will be able see the pyramids or the Eiffel Tower through the transparent floor of the aircraft"
That's fine - during the .000001% of the flight spent near the Pyramids or the Eiffel Tower and at a low enough altitude to make them out. That view of the Atlantic while crossing it isn't going to be too impressive though.
The amount of gasoline consumed is directly proportional to the weight being carried. So, yes it does take extra gasoline even though she is driving past your house every day. And if she is actually 'driving past' (as opposed to 'stopping at') your house every day, then making that stop consumes additional gasoline as she must accelerate back to speed after stopping.