Even the minor PR damage caused to Wales (and I really think Wales was just looking for a reason/excuse to give up his adminship, as he was realizing "benevolent dictatorship" was no longer a fitting model for a project the scope and developmental maturity of Wikipedia) will not outweight the devastating damage to any professional reputation Sanger still had before this point.
If it weren't for the fact that Wales seems to be coated in teflon, this should be major PR damage. He, supposedly, long ago abdicated as 'benevolent dictator'. He's given up his 'special powers' at least (IIRC) three times before.
Yet, time and time again he personally intervenes in Wikipedia and nobody comments on it.
Go back and ask if they've account for the fact that the material exiting the well contains a high percentage of natural gas - which is going to expand as it exits the pipe, and thus increase the apparent flow rate.
Actually, you're completely wrong on all counts. The earliest colleges were intended to produce doctors, lawyers, priests, and administrators. I.E. a trade school.
In the case of inheriting the estate, often the estate was held in fief in return for service to the liege - I.E. work. Even so, from fairly early on it was recognized that owning an estate and supervising the managers (if not managing directly) required no little education. (To verify that accounts were rendered properly, etc. etc..)
Spaceflight has not turned into the everyday occurence that everyone thought it would around the time of the moon landing.
When everybody is five years old, they believe in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny too. What 'everyone thinks' has roughly zero relevance to the real world, doubly so when most people don't understand why we went to the moon in the first place. (Short version: political Viagra.)
Hell, 2001 was nine fucking years ago. I still can't get over that.
In other words, because reality has failed to keep face with your ill informed dreams, it's realities fault?
I always wondered why they were never used in cars.
AIUI, for the same reason they were abandoned by the railroads after a brief fling - they can produce high torque and high power, but they're fairly limited in maximum speed.
First of all the space shuttle is mostly 70's technology.
No, it's a mix of 70's, 80's, and 90's technology. The Shuttle has been heavily modified, updated, and upgraded over the years.
Second of all there is no reason why "old" should be equated with "inferior". Soyuz is the most reliable manned spacecraft and it has direct roots all the way back to the start of the Soviet space program.
Well, in the first place Soyuz's reliability rating is roughly the same (that is, within a few tenths of a percent) as the Shuttle's. In the second place, while the basic design has 'roots' all the way back to the start of the Soviet space program, it too has been heavily modified. Almost nothing beyond the basic shape remains from the original.
And, at its current demonstrated safety level of around 98%, that amounts to a 50% chance of Shuttle loss over the next 30 launches.
It's worth noting that the Shuttle's demonstrated safety level is equal to any other manned vehicle.
Also, on a somewhat bureaucratic side, but with real implications, the Shuttle's Certificate of Airworthiness needed recertification this year.
The closest thing to a certification is the FAA's certificate of airworthiness and that is a completely different creature.
The Shuttle, like all goverment aircraft, doesn't have a Certificate of Airworthiness. You're thinking of the CAIB's requirement that the Shuttle be recertified to fly beyond 2010. (Though they didn't actually spell out what recertification would be entail, only that it was required.)
The funny thing is that there is actually no official "manned certification" in NASA. No set criteria. No testing procedure. Nothing.
On the contrary - NASA's NPR 8705.2B is the governing document for human rating spacecraft.
I'll say what I said in an earlier reply: 1980's tech.
To what specific 1980's tech are you referring? The SSME's were upgraded in the 90's and early 2000's, as were the AP-101 flight control computers. The original 'steam gauge' cockpit was also upgraded to a fully modern 'glass' cockpit in the same time frame. The airframes have been well maintained and many smaller parts/systems have been replaced or upgraded as needed as well.
Seriously, saying "80's tech" is nothing but FUD. There's plenty of places where 80's (or even older) tech does just fine.
Heck, just a couple of miles from me the shipyard still uses a lathe installed in the 1940's. The forging furnace a few buildings over (modulo a few overhauls) basically dates from the 1930's. A few miles in the other direction is the submarine base, where the hydraulic valves in the submarines are basically unchanged since the 1950's. The missiles they carry are built with 80's technology in their electronics - and the still can achieve a CEP of [a classified but very small number] of feet. The submarines navigation system uses computers designed in the 1970's.
Don't be misled by consumer culture into believing that 'old == useless'.
The problem is, you're talking horseshit - because you missed one key factor: Sixty years ago vast numbers of college graduates began entering the workforce thanks to the GI bill.
Not to mention that this:
50 years ago, college was still pretty much reserved for the smartest of the bunch. Thanks to union labor, and a very large manufacturing base, there was no problem if you weren't college material. If you worked your butt off, you would get paid a living wage in a factory and have a career progression that ensured your earnings kept up with your life-stage.
College isn't a trade school, you're supposed to get a well-rounded education.
Actually, for most of history, college *was* supposed to be a trade school. It's true that a student would pick up a well rounded education along the way, but that's because having a well rounded education was considered minimal qualification.
The idea that college is supposed to be purely to produce a well rounded education without commercial taint is a purely modern creation.
This guy is forgetting that we live in a (sort of) democracy. How would a democracy where the people aren't educated work?
It worked just fine for a century and a half without a majority, or even a significant percentage having college degrees. (Note the distinction between having an education and having a degree - the two aren't the same at all.)
Yep, he's missing the point. People don't get college degrees in order to go cut down trees, they get them in hopes of making a career in their chosen field.
While no doubt that's true of some people - TFA is correct for others. They go to college because they're a huge pressure to go to college to 'get a good job'. They end up with a meaningless degree, and then end up cutting trees because they can't find a 'good job' because they have a degree rather than an education.
They end up cutting down trees (or, as in my case, driving a truck) only after they've failed to accomplish that goal.
Which assumes they have a goal in the first place. I know a lot of HS and college grads and students that only have a 'goal' to get their parents, spouses, and/or guidance counselors off their back.
As a society we put way too much pressure on teenagers and young adults to know for absolutely certain what they want to do with the rest of their lives.
In 1946 the stock market DOW Index (~150) was still lower than 1929 (~300).
On the other hand, the Dow is pretty much only a useful meausure of how the stock market is performing - it's only one metric. (And IMO not a very useful one as it's as much a barometer of emotion and belief as anything else.)
On the gripping hand, US GDP in 1929 was $103 billion dollars, and $222 billion in 1946. (And it increased by nearly 50%, to $293 billion, by 1950.)
Or, in other words, the economists and historians that have for years been pointing towards the postwar boom years (along with the grandparent) are correct, and you're just blowing smoke.
The cost I listed is my 'out the door' cost per month. As I don't spend hours and hours on the phone, or text at all, those features are irrelevant. Ditto for navigation as I own an in car navigator. As far as 'provably' worse, well you're wrong about that too... Around these parts, that honor is split between Sprint and Verizon.
Let's face it. We are geeks. We are always going to like the freedom and power to do whatever we want with our computers.
Some Slashdotters are computer geeks and want all that freedom and power - some of us are other kinds of geeks and we just want our computers (desktop, smartphone, whatever) to just bloody work. For the first kind of geek computers are a toy, and for the second kind computers are a tool. It's important to recognize the difference, not only between kinds of geeks but how computers are viewed even among geeks.
As many people have pointed out in previous discussions, in the 1950s, if you owned a car, you more or less had to know how to do a bunch of basic maintenance tasks. Now, many of the parts you had to maintain no longer exist (such as the carburetor, as I understand it--I'm not a car person), and most of the others you can't maintain on your own: you have to take it to the dealer or an authorized service center, or void your warranty. Computers today are just starting to move past where cars were in the 1950s.
The problem with that analogy is that it's utterly false - for cars and computers. Garages and PC service techs both emerged fairly shortly after their respective technologies began to spread into the consumer market.
What you're missing is that the story of technology in the mass market is the story of ever simplifying user interfaces. Electric starters replaced cranks, and shells and menuing systems replaced the command line.
Amazon for not load-testing their emergency backup power on a regular basis
And you know they don't test it how? Oh, right. Testing is a magic wand that solves everything - except it doesn't. I've seen stuff fail literally seconds after being successfully tested. Welcome to the real world.
and the power grid for not having redundancies. Our aging power grid is really beginning to show on so many levels that this is going to become a lot more common over the coming years.
Horseshit. This has nothing to do with the grid, and everything to do with local supplies - which rarely if ever have redundancy. (Mostly because it increases the difficulty and cost of maintenance and considerably increases the capital cost - while only providing a benefit in a one-in-a-million situation.)
A Sprint "Everything" data plan, even with a $10 tariff for 4G, is still ridiculously cheaper than the crazy high prices that AT&T gouges from its Apple-dazed captive masses.
Hardly. I just just checked prices (because I'm out of contract with AT&T and thinking of upgrading to a smart phone), and AT&T will charge me $130/mo for two iPhones while Sprint will charge me $128/mo for two Droid phones - and that's without the 4G tariff.
I still remain on the record saying that the current plan is the best one NASA has had since the Shuttle was a dream given form*.
* Not quite the form it should have been, though.
If there was actually a plan, we could judge whether or not it's the best one since the Shuttle. But there isn't a plan - just vague promises to do something undetermined at some future date to be decided. I mean its a wonderful plan for the pundits because you can read any dream into it, but in reality it's just fluff.
Perhaps the worst thing about Obama's plan is that it is a little more in line with reality instead of wishes?
The worst thing about Obama's 'plan' is that it isn't actually a plan. It isn't actually much of anything in fact. It can be usefully summed up as: "cancel some stuff that many people wanted to cancel anyhow, maintain the status quo on some other stuff, fund a few minor programs without real goals or schedules, promise something for everyone a few years down the road".
Seriously, everyone is treating this 'plan' with great fanfare - but the Emperor has no clothes.
And, FTR, I haven't used any knowledge from my MCSE in many, many years.
Yet you whined you were forced to work outside rather than being allowed to use it.
Exactly where did I say "I didn't fully deserve to be there?" Or that "I wasn't treated fairly?"
Do you even read what you write or consider it's implicit meaning?
And I suspect you know very few (if any) ex-cons. Otherwise you would have a tiny understanding of the system, which you clearly do not have.
ROTFLMAO. The final defense of loser who realizes how badly he's losing the argument - the illogical and ignorant cry of "you don't agree with me, that means you don't know anything".
Reading comprehension - get some. I said the US tips "(most of) it's hand", and in fact they do. The *actual* top speed an aircraft carrier is classified, but we do reveal a notional speed. Etc. etc. etc..
You seem to be yet another person that assumes what you learn from your tv education is immutable truth. Once again...3% of the world's population, 25% of its prison inmates. Do you not understand this? Do you really think the US is a nation of felons?
It's an impressive soundbite, but it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
I'm not looking for, or interested in your, or anyone else's fucking sympathy.
Horseshit. Your very first post was whining for sympathy because they made you work rather than giving you a cushy job because of your MCSE. Then you whined for sympathy because you "didn't fully deserve to be there" and because "you weren't treated fairly". (I take both with a huge grain of salt because virtually every ex con I know says the same thing.)
Slashdot Mirror
If it weren't for the fact that Wales seems to be coated in teflon, this should be major PR damage. He, supposedly, long ago abdicated as 'benevolent dictator'. He's given up his 'special powers' at least (IIRC) three times before.
Yet, time and time again he personally intervenes in Wikipedia and nobody comments on it.
Which he has, very publicly, given up at least (IIRC) three times.
Go back and ask if they've account for the fact that the material exiting the well contains a high percentage of natural gas - which is going to expand as it exits the pipe, and thus increase the apparent flow rate.
Actually, you're completely wrong on all counts. The earliest colleges were intended to produce doctors, lawyers, priests, and administrators. I.E. a trade school.
In the case of inheriting the estate, often the estate was held in fief in return for service to the liege - I.E. work. Even so, from fairly early on it was recognized that owning an estate and supervising the managers (if not managing directly) required no little education. (To verify that accounts were rendered properly, etc. etc..)
When everybody is five years old, they believe in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny too. What 'everyone thinks' has roughly zero relevance to the real world, doubly so when most people don't understand why we went to the moon in the first place. (Short version: political Viagra.)
In other words, because reality has failed to keep face with your ill informed dreams, it's realities fault?
AIUI, for the same reason they were abandoned by the railroads after a brief fling - they can produce high torque and high power, but they're fairly limited in maximum speed.
No, it's a mix of 70's, 80's, and 90's technology. The Shuttle has been heavily modified, updated, and upgraded over the years.
Well, in the first place Soyuz's reliability rating is roughly the same (that is, within a few tenths of a percent) as the Shuttle's. In the second place, while the basic design has 'roots' all the way back to the start of the Soviet space program, it too has been heavily modified. Almost nothing beyond the basic shape remains from the original.
It's worth noting that the Shuttle's demonstrated safety level is equal to any other manned vehicle.
The Shuttle, like all goverment aircraft, doesn't have a Certificate of Airworthiness. You're thinking of the CAIB's requirement that the Shuttle be recertified to fly beyond 2010. (Though they didn't actually spell out what recertification would be entail, only that it was required.)
On the contrary - NASA's NPR 8705.2B is the governing document for human rating spacecraft.
To what specific 1980's tech are you referring? The SSME's were upgraded in the 90's and early 2000's, as were the AP-101 flight control computers. The original 'steam gauge' cockpit was also upgraded to a fully modern 'glass' cockpit in the same time frame. The airframes have been well maintained and many smaller parts/systems have been replaced or upgraded as needed as well.
Seriously, saying "80's tech" is nothing but FUD. There's plenty of places where 80's (or even older) tech does just fine.
Heck, just a couple of miles from me the shipyard still uses a lathe installed in the 1940's. The forging furnace a few buildings over (modulo a few overhauls) basically dates from the 1930's. A few miles in the other direction is the submarine base, where the hydraulic valves in the submarines are basically unchanged since the 1950's. The missiles they carry are built with 80's technology in their electronics - and the still can achieve a CEP of [a classified but very small number] of feet. The submarines navigation system uses computers designed in the 1970's.
Don't be misled by consumer culture into believing that 'old == useless'.
The problem is, you're talking horseshit - because you missed one key factor: Sixty years ago vast numbers of college graduates began entering the workforce thanks to the GI bill.
Not to mention that this:
Is laughable rose colored glasses nonsense.
Actually, for most of history, college *was* supposed to be a trade school. It's true that a student would pick up a well rounded education along the way, but that's because having a well rounded education was considered minimal qualification.
The idea that college is supposed to be purely to produce a well rounded education without commercial taint is a purely modern creation.
It worked just fine for a century and a half without a majority, or even a significant percentage having college degrees. (Note the distinction between having an education and having a degree - the two aren't the same at all.)
While no doubt that's true of some people - TFA is correct for others. They go to college because they're a huge pressure to go to college to 'get a good job'. They end up with a meaningless degree, and then end up cutting trees because they can't find a 'good job' because they have a degree rather than an education.
Which assumes they have a goal in the first place. I know a lot of HS and college grads and students that only have a 'goal' to get their parents, spouses, and/or guidance counselors off their back.
As a society we put way too much pressure on teenagers and young adults to know for absolutely certain what they want to do with the rest of their lives.
On the other hand, the Dow is pretty much only a useful meausure of how the stock market is performing - it's only one metric. (And IMO not a very useful one as it's as much a barometer of emotion and belief as anything else.)
On the gripping hand, US GDP in 1929 was $103 billion dollars, and $222 billion in 1946. (And it increased by nearly 50%, to $293 billion, by 1950.)
Or, in other words, the economists and historians that have for years been pointing towards the postwar boom years (along with the grandparent) are correct, and you're just blowing smoke.
The cost I listed is my 'out the door' cost per month. As I don't spend hours and hours on the phone, or text at all, those features are irrelevant. Ditto for navigation as I own an in car navigator. As far as 'provably' worse, well you're wrong about that too... Around these parts, that honor is split between Sprint and Verizon.
Some Slashdotters are computer geeks and want all that freedom and power - some of us are other kinds of geeks and we just want our computers (desktop, smartphone, whatever) to just bloody work. For the first kind of geek computers are a toy, and for the second kind computers are a tool. It's important to recognize the difference, not only between kinds of geeks but how computers are viewed even among geeks.
The problem with that analogy is that it's utterly false - for cars and computers. Garages and PC service techs both emerged fairly shortly after their respective technologies began to spread into the consumer market.
What you're missing is that the story of technology in the mass market is the story of ever simplifying user interfaces. Electric starters replaced cranks, and shells and menuing systems replaced the command line.
Not everyone spends hours and hours a day on their mobile while sending hundreds of texts, every situations is different.
And you know they don't test it how? Oh, right. Testing is a magic wand that solves everything - except it doesn't. I've seen stuff fail literally seconds after being successfully tested. Welcome to the real world.
Horseshit. This has nothing to do with the grid, and everything to do with local supplies - which rarely if ever have redundancy. (Mostly because it increases the difficulty and cost of maintenance and considerably increases the capital cost - while only providing a benefit in a one-in-a-million situation.)
Hardly. I just just checked prices (because I'm out of contract with AT&T and thinking of upgrading to a smart phone), and AT&T will charge me $130/mo for two iPhones while Sprint will charge me $128/mo for two Droid phones - and that's without the 4G tariff.
What part of "most of" do you find so fucking difficult to comprehend?
If there was actually a plan, we could judge whether or not it's the best one since the Shuttle. But there isn't a plan - just vague promises to do something undetermined at some future date to be decided. I mean its a wonderful plan for the pundits because you can read any dream into it, but in reality it's just fluff.
The worst thing about Obama's 'plan' is that it isn't actually a plan. It isn't actually much of anything in fact. It can be usefully summed up as: "cancel some stuff that many people wanted to cancel anyhow, maintain the status quo on some other stuff, fund a few minor programs without real goals or schedules, promise something for everyone a few years down the road".
Seriously, everyone is treating this 'plan' with great fanfare - but the Emperor has no clothes.
Yet you whined you were forced to work outside rather than being allowed to use it.
Do you even read what you write or consider it's implicit meaning?
ROTFLMAO. The final defense of loser who realizes how badly he's losing the argument - the illogical and ignorant cry of "you don't agree with me, that means you don't know anything".
Reading comprehension - get some. I said the US tips "(most of) it's hand", and in fact they do. The *actual* top speed an aircraft carrier is classified, but we do reveal a notional speed. Etc. etc. etc..
It's an impressive soundbite, but it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
Horseshit. Your very first post was whining for sympathy because they made you work rather than giving you a cushy job because of your MCSE. Then you whined for sympathy because you "didn't fully deserve to be there" and because "you weren't treated fairly". (I take both with a huge grain of salt because virtually every ex con I know says the same thing.)