I stopped reading when it became obvious that your comparison is based on bias, handwaving, and smokescreens. Thus plainly, though indirectly, answering my question.
Many small aircraft get as good, if not better, than many SUVs and at 2-3 times the speed while carrying one to four people and a small amount of luggage.
And comparing an auto from the edge of the bell curve is useful how? (Doubly so when the aircraft compared to has a fraction of the capacity and capability.)
Omni died for one simple and oft overlooked reason - it stayed in stasis from the day of it's birth. Really, pick up practically any issue from the late 1980's and compare it to any issue from the early years - and it's exactly the same, stylistically, thematically, and in content. The world moved on and Omni didn't.
Hence, it's readership and ad revenue declined steadily across the 80's, leading to the now infamous 'ad-on-the-cover'. In the background, but increasingly visible in the contents, the editors frantically tried to update their material without actually changing their editorial philosophy. By the time it died, it was already a relic propped up only by the unwillingness of Guccione to either change the status quo or to disconnect the feeding tube.
If they'd done that, the rovers would have covered about 1/10 of the terrain they have due to need to plan and execute every maneuver such that not only does it not get the rovers in trouble, the the cable doesn't get snagged either. Given that Spirit and Opportunity are already at the extreme limit of what the landing system they used is capable of - you'd have rovers half the size and with [probably] less than half the science payload of the current rovers.
You know what the solution to this problem is? Send more rovers. Lots more.
Why? The rovers can only answer a limited set of scientific questions and their landing systems can only reach a very small (and mostly scientifically uninteresting) portion of the planet's surface. Sending a lot of them is like hoping that, since you can't afford a car, a bunch of matchbox vehicles will serve as a useful replacement.
If we had a spare rover near Spirit, we could probably have it roll over and give Spirit a tow...
What a wonderful idea! Let's replace three quarters of the science payload with a robotic arm/hand and a winch and cable drum just in case one gets stuck an another just happens to be in the same vicinity. Put a few pots out in your backyard tonight, it just might rain soup.
My UID is higher than yours, but it still goes back a long ways...:) But you're right, on many topics (not just IT/Tech 'religion'), reasoned discussion has long since been replace by dogma and group think.
Indeed. Slashdot has changed from largely tech reporting (not just IT, but space, science, etc. etc.), to more and more political reporting (not just national politics, but IT politics) and outright religious reporting (Linux, Apple, Google).
Columbine, 9/11, and Groklaw changed Slashdot irrevocably.
How do I get people to pay me for saying stupid things about fashionable subjects? What he does is way more glamorous and takes way less actual, you know, effort than what I do.
By engaging in the literary version of what a young Hollywood starlet does, almost show a little tit (pander to your audiences biases), tease 'em with some bikini shots (pander to their biases more), etc... etc... It's kinda like karma whoring on Slashdot.
And on the flipside, those services don't fully and properly support 911 *and* you now have a single point of failure (no redundancy). Keeping the landline is worth it to me, I don't judge everything solely on price.
Even an announcement of putting people in LEO, other that with Soyuz, should be taken with a grain of salt. How many years have they been flogging Kliper?
"Roscosmos, Russia's Federal Space Agency, will start working on a project to save planet Earth from a possible collision with Asteroid Apophis"
I predict this will accomplish roughly the same as the last fifty seven space spectaculars announced with much fanfare by Rovkosmos - roughly zip point nada.
The fact is, asteroid detection systems (let alone mitigation systems) globally are woefully inadequate. We need at least a dozen radar telemetry satellites in solar orbit and improvements in the deep-space-network to handle that kind of data through-put.
Why would we want to spend billions of dollars on building something roughly as useful for asteroid detection as a teddy bear?
Total cost is likely in the tens of billions, and most of that will go on the telescopes, not the radar sats, and traditionally that's the most starved part of all national budgets diverted to space.
Then why didn't you mention telescopes in the first place rather than as an afterthought? (Not to mention your estimation of the cost of the radar sats is off considerably.) Nor should it be surprising that telescopes aren't heavily funded under space budgets - since they aren't budgeted under space at all. They aren't starved on space budgets, they're [reasonably] well fed on their own budgets.
What's woefully inadequate here is your knowledge of what they hell you're talking about.
Well if you believe they can calculate the odds of it hitting earth based on its current estimated path, then surely they can calculate how to modify the trajectory so as to reduce the odds.
Well, the problem is the estimation of the odds of it hitting Earth come with some pretty large error bars. Small enough to be reasonably certain that it won't hit the Earth, but large enough that I find it unlikely that any sort of precise calculation can be made of the amount of trajectory modification required.
idiot driver should be prosecuted since everyone knows the third light from the top is regular green and not a turn signal.
Unless it's a left turn lane, in which the third from the top is a left turn signal. Or, if it's a 'doghouse' type signal you have a choice of not one but two lights that are "third from the top".
That's determining what their job is, not what their social status is or judging them as a person as specified by the OP and myself.
People treat doctors differently than janitors. You can agree (and say you like or don't like the practice) or you can disagree (in which case you are either a liar or a delusional fool to which I will stop responding).
In other words, unless I'm not a biased asshole and treat people like people, I must be a liar or delusional.
Those who claim otherwise are the ones I find to be the most bigoted, for they can't even see their own bigotry.
Or worse yet, if I'm not a biased asshole and treat people without prejudice... I must be prejudiced.
Nice circular logic you have there. It's plain to me who the bigoted asshole in this conversation is - it's the one who insists people must fall into the categories he defines. (Hint: Look in your mirror to find him.)
The entire problem being discussed is how people can be treated due to their job.
Maybe you should TFA and the ensuing discussion, because that's not what's being discussed here.
Despite the fact there is a whole lot more work going on in IT than is involved with cleaning (no argument on maintenance however) and people in both professions are treated similarly unfairly by others who feel they are 'above' that type of thing.
From what I've seen, most people in IT believe themselves to be treated unfairly based on an inflated ego.
You know nothing about them. Have never spoken to them in your life, and pre-judge them to be an employee of Starbucks.
That's determining what their job is, not what their social status is or judging them as a person as specified by the OP and myself.
Or are you just saying that because you are one of the losers that can't hold down a real job and hates that people look down on him because he is 35, working at McDonalds and living in his mother's basement?
46 actually, and living in a very nice house. The only uniform I've ever worn to work was that of the US Navy.
And the problem with being a janitor or just another facilities maintenance person is... what exactly? (Other than to IT's ego and already overinflated self esteem.)
Given that he has several books on security, his opinion carries some weight.
One would hope that experts be judged by quality rather than quantity. Bruce Schneier has earned street cred in the industry over many years of work.
Bruce Schneier has earned street cred in the industry, in the fields he is expert, by many years of work. He's earned street cred on the 'net, in fields he often knows little to nothing about, by pandering to their anti-Bush, anti-Goverment, anti-conservative, anti-big business, (well, I'll stop there as the anti-'s go on a while), beliefs.
The chance of me being read ended by semi on the highway tomorrow is pretty low too. But, I'll still buckle my seat belt and drive defensively none the less.
Slashdot Mirror
I stopped reading when it became obvious that your comparison is based on bias, handwaving, and smokescreens. Thus plainly, though indirectly, answering my question.
Ben Bova left Omni in 1981 - right on the cusp of it's 'glory years'. Kathy Keeton never was an editor on Omni.
And comparing an auto from the edge of the bell curve is useful how? (Doubly so when the aircraft compared to has a fraction of the capacity and capability.)
Omni died for one simple and oft overlooked reason - it stayed in stasis from the day of it's birth. Really, pick up practically any issue from the late 1980's and compare it to any issue from the early years - and it's exactly the same, stylistically, thematically, and in content. The world moved on and Omni didn't.
Hence, it's readership and ad revenue declined steadily across the 80's, leading to the now infamous 'ad-on-the-cover'. In the background, but increasingly visible in the contents, the editors frantically tried to update their material without actually changing their editorial philosophy. By the time it died, it was already a relic propped up only by the unwillingness of Guccione to either change the status quo or to disconnect the feeding tube.
If they'd done that, the rovers would have covered about 1/10 of the terrain they have due to need to plan and execute every maneuver such that not only does it not get the rovers in trouble, the the cable doesn't get snagged either. Given that Spirit and Opportunity are already at the extreme limit of what the landing system they used is capable of - you'd have rovers half the size and with [probably] less than half the science payload of the current rovers.
Why? The rovers can only answer a limited set of scientific questions and their landing systems can only reach a very small (and mostly scientifically uninteresting) portion of the planet's surface. Sending a lot of them is like hoping that, since you can't afford a car, a bunch of matchbox vehicles will serve as a useful replacement.
What a wonderful idea! Let's replace three quarters of the science payload with a robotic arm/hand and a winch and cable drum just in case one gets stuck an another just happens to be in the same vicinity. Put a few pots out in your backyard tonight, it just might rain soup.
My UID is higher than yours, but it still goes back a long ways... :) But you're right, on many topics (not just IT/Tech 'religion'), reasoned discussion has long since been replace by dogma and group think.
Indeed. Slashdot has changed from largely tech reporting (not just IT, but space, science, etc. etc.), to more and more political reporting (not just national politics, but IT politics) and outright religious reporting (Linux, Apple, Google).
Columbine, 9/11, and Groklaw changed Slashdot irrevocably.
By engaging in the literary version of what a young Hollywood starlet does, almost show a little tit (pander to your audiences biases), tease 'em with some bikini shots (pander to their biases more), etc... etc... It's kinda like karma whoring on Slashdot.
And on the flipside, those services don't fully and properly support 911 *and* you now have a single point of failure (no redundancy). Keeping the landline is worth it to me, I don't judge everything solely on price.
Even an announcement of putting people in LEO, other that with Soyuz, should be taken with a grain of salt. How many years have they been flogging Kliper?
If you know what you're talking about, then why exactly did you write a post with literally nothing correct in it?
"Roscosmos, Russia's Federal Space Agency, will start working on a project to save planet Earth from a possible collision with Asteroid Apophis"
I predict this will accomplish roughly the same as the last fifty seven space spectaculars announced with much fanfare by Rovkosmos - roughly zip point nada.
Why would we want to spend billions of dollars on building something roughly as useful for asteroid detection as a teddy bear?
Then why didn't you mention telescopes in the first place rather than as an afterthought? (Not to mention your estimation of the cost of the radar sats is off considerably.) Nor should it be surprising that telescopes aren't heavily funded under space budgets - since they aren't budgeted under space at all. They aren't starved on space budgets, they're [reasonably] well fed on their own budgets.
What's woefully inadequate here is your knowledge of what they hell you're talking about.
Well, the problem is the estimation of the odds of it hitting Earth come with some pretty large error bars. Small enough to be reasonably certain that it won't hit the Earth, but large enough that I find it unlikely that any sort of precise calculation can be made of the amount of trajectory modification required.
Unless it's a left turn lane, in which the third from the top is a left turn signal. Or, if it's a 'doghouse' type signal you have a choice of not one but two lights that are "third from the top".
People treat doctors differently than janitors. You can agree (and say you like or don't like the practice) or you can disagree (in which case you are either a liar or a delusional fool to which I will stop responding).
In other words, unless I'm not a biased asshole and treat people like people, I must be a liar or delusional.
Or worse yet, if I'm not a biased asshole and treat people without prejudice... I must be prejudiced.
Nice circular logic you have there. It's plain to me who the bigoted asshole in this conversation is - it's the one who insists people must fall into the categories he defines. (Hint: Look in your mirror to find him.)
Which pretty much has nothing to do with whether or not you wear a uniform.
Maybe you should TFA and the ensuing discussion, because that's not what's being discussed here.
From what I've seen, most people in IT believe themselves to be treated unfairly based on an inflated ego.
That's determining what their job is, not what their social status is or judging them as a person as specified by the OP and myself.
46 actually, and living in a very nice house. The only uniform I've ever worn to work was that of the US Navy.
Given that I've never met (other than socially) a surgeon who wasn't wearing scrubs, I don't see what your point is.
If you're one of the sad and deluded individuals who judge a person based on his job, sure.
And the problem with being a janitor or just another facilities maintenance person is... what exactly? (Other than to IT's ego and already overinflated self esteem.)
Bruce Schneier has earned street cred in the industry, in the fields he is expert, by many years of work. He's earned street cred on the 'net, in fields he often knows little to nothing about, by pandering to their anti-Bush, anti-Goverment, anti-conservative, anti-big business, (well, I'll stop there as the anti-'s go on a while), beliefs.
One of the best response on Slashdot, ever.
The chance of me being read ended by semi on the highway tomorrow is pretty low too. But, I'll still buckle my seat belt and drive defensively none the less.