So the situation isn't the same as with the "I have a letter".
The end result was the same - my edits were rejected because they didn't match the commonly, and easily, available sources.
Ok, if the other users don't want to simply edit the date, maybe write a couple of lines saying that the commonly found data on the web and the manuals from the original source seem to disagree, citing your source.
Well, it was more complex than the date - it was essentially an entire rewrite of half a dozen articles. On each, on the talk page, I noted my sources - and the same person (who had written all the articles and had most of the edits on them) promptly reverted my changes. (This was prior to 'citation needed'.) So I went to the talk page and explained that not only had I worked on this weapon in the Navy, but I had researched them for nearly twenty years and wished to share that research - and was promptly hit with the "no original research" hammer. (Never mind that any comprehensive historical article on the Wikipedia contains the same level of original research.)
Between that and several other examples of asshattery, I realized I didn't have time to fight one fool with too much time on his hands, let alone half a dozen or so. I left Wikipedia and have never been back.
I'm not sure how big that chance is, as long as union protest run the risk of being overrun with tanks. Let's face it, one of the reasons we've got it better is because workers have the right to vote and the freedom to unionize.
Throughout the Industrial Revolution unionization in the US was repressed (sometimes violently) by those in power. Police and National Guard troops were called in on several occasions to break unions. Just because people have rights, doesn't mean that corrupt officials will recognize them.
Certainly - but in a free country there is a group of people other than the corrupt officials and the downtrodden labor who'll eventually vote their conscience and/or insist on the rule of law and those rights will be recognized.
Kinda hard to do in a country where there is no vote and no rule of law.
We already have gated communities on the web. They're https sites.
Not just https sites - there are also moderated newsgroups, forums, and email lists. And those three are where people are headed and have been for years.
Sure, I have no objection to vandalism being taken down, but the biggest flaw I see in Wikipedia is a lot of content gets deleted for no reason (face it, storage and bandwidth is dirt cheap).
Which is why they just completed a six million dollar fund raising campaign. With cheap disk space, and cheap bandwidth, and volunteers doing the work... where is the money going?
Setting that aside, the problem isn't the cost of disk space or bandwidth - the problem is the unseen cost of maintenance. Every article on Wikipedia requires some portion of an editors time to maintain accuracy, completeness, coherency, etc..., and to clean up behind vandals. And there are only so many editors at any given time. Too many articles means rot accumulates in the corners and moves inward. Too many articles means too many stubs that remain untouched. Too many articles means an increasing number of articles that say the same thing from different points of views.
And frankly, based on a daily random sampling of articles, Wikipedia seems to be losing the battle.
Given this evidence I scanned the letter and posted it to let them know their date was off. Their response was that they couldn't use the letter as proof the date was wrong because they only used published sources of information. Unfortunately the only published sources they had were a handful of websites currently online that had the wrong date written down (no doubt copied from each other).
Indeed, because I had a related problem. A series of related articles I wished to edit had considerable problems. I worked on the item described in one of the articles while I was in the Navy, I had the unclassified manuals at one elbow, at the other elbow I had a stack of expensive reference books... All were trumped because a handful of websites all referenced the same handful of coffee table books - and disagreed with me.
At first I was taken aback by this as it was a bit odd that they would turn down physical evidence, but after thinking about it, it was obvious they didn't know me from Adam and can't just take people's word for things at face value, otherwise people could "prove" whatever they wanted. Those kinds of check and balances probably produce entries that aren't always perfect, but it's a lot better than the alternative in my mind.
Except there aren't any checks and balances - there is only whether or not the guy you discussing the issue with has more time on his hands and whether or not he can quote an interpretation of policy that supports his position. Your story is one of how the checks and balances fail.
Lastly, it's thermal controls are designed for the warm conditions of LEO not the arctic icebox of lunar orbit.
I'm curious. Apart from the altitude, what's the difference between a 90 minute polar orbit around the moon as opposed to a 90 minute polar orbit around the earth?
Well, somewhat simplified they can be compared this way: 90 miles above the Earth, the ISS 'sees' (thermally) the warm Earth beneath it. (Think of how it feels standing near a bonfire.) 90 miles above the moon, the moon fills much less of the sky, and while warmer on the day side is much (much) colder on the night side. (Think standing in front of a small electric heater.)
People are used to thinking only in terms of the sun when it comes to thermal environment of space, but that is the result of years of journalistic simplifications. (I know you've heard it too - "blazing hot in the sun, freezing cold in the dark".) In reality, its a bit more complicated than that.
So far no crew was forced to return to Earth after an emergency
Wrong. Gemini 8 had to land after a thruster failure. Not to mention Apollo 13. At least two Soyuz had to terminate their missions early because they could not dock with their target space station. (Back then, Soyuz only had batteries. After these incidents the solar panels were restored.)
Moving the ISS is not such a crazy idea at all, and it's been proposed already by some smart people as a way to increase moon mission payoffs and reduce mission risks. A series of orbit boosts could eventually lead to a transfer orbit and lunar orbital insertion.
You're right - it isn't a crazy idea. It's a barking-at-the-moon freakin' lunatic idea, proposed only by folks who are either crazy themselves or (being kind) utterly innocent of any acquaintance with the facts.
To start with, the ISS isn't designed to be operated unmanned. Next, the electronics onboard ISS aren't shielded against the radiation in the Van Allen Belts. Lastly, it's thermal controls are designed for the warm conditions of LEO not the arctic icebox of lunar orbit.
So yeah, in theory you could boost about 500 Shuttle loads of fuel and move it to Lunar orbit... In practice, it'll arrive there dead.
Moving it to mars... Now that's a bit of a stretch but it might be possible with a propulsion efficiency breakthrough that could be powered by existing solar arrays or a bolt-on reactor.
Sure, it's a stretch. Kind of like saying it's a stretch for me to fly from Seattle to New York by flapping my arms - though it might be possible for with a propulsion efficiency breakthrough, like strapping a 747 to my back.
That's a bit like trusting your bank to only make good loans.
Nobody with any sense expects their bank to only make good loans - as doing so requires a fully functional crystal to determine who'll lose their job, what company will suffer a massive setback, etc.. etc.. over the life of the loan. What you do reasonably expect is for the proportion of bad loans to be minor in relation to the proportion of good loans.
Whether or not an 11 year old thinks they are awesome does indicate their marketability. Their viability as tool will be determined by where they are two weeks after he gets them - in use, or in the bottom of the closet.
States are free to assign their electoral votes however they want to do it. A few already assign them on a prorated basis, there is nothing that prevents the rest from doing it. If every state did this, then it would be the same as assigning based on the national popularity.
Which is frightening as hell - because it only increases the lock the existing two parties have on the system.
*Most* goods/services the government buys goes out under open bids, but there are a lot of exceptions. Even under open bids, not all will have serious bidding/competition because of the limited number of companies capable of carrying out the contract.
And all contract negotiations are secret, even under open bid.
No, I don't have it all wrong. I was here at the time and I have studied the issue.
The number of major errors you make suggests that your studies have been superficial at best.
Understand: Bowing went from well over 100,000 workers to 35,000 workers in about 18 months. My friends, family, and neighbors were all affected. You can't attrbute that simply to the SST program being cut.
Now I see why you have so many misconceptions - you can't fucking read. If you could read, or maybe if you were sober, you'd notice I didn't simply attribute it to the SST program.
The economies of scale don't work with that % passengers, so airlines began replacing 747s with smaller jets.
The airlines started doing so in 1973 - two fucking years after the massive layoffs at Boeing.
The 747 is also a long haul jet, and airlines began to use them for that instead of shorter flights, much different than what they expected. The 747 remains a long haul and cargo jet to this day.
Of course the 747 remains a long haul aircraft - after all, that was the role it was fucking designed for.
The resulting fall off in orders and the recession left Boeing a shadow of its former self. Seattle and the surrounding region felt the recession keenly.
The flaw in that argument, as I pointed out, is that the 747 program wasn't centered in Seattle, and the region it was centered in didn't experience the problems felt in Seattle and Kent valley areas.
First, a question. What are the orbital mechanics? Would it be possible to build a "bus" that could drop off a navigation-capable "probe taxi" near each destination?
No.
Second, a dream. If ever there was a time to send a large human crew on a career-length mission (maybe 30 - 40 years), this would be the one. High-acceleration supply/instrument packages could be sent before and after them. A serious commitment to zero-gravity construction could be undertaken. The cost would be huge, but the payback would potentially be on a scale rivaling the technology revolution that grew out of Apollo.
Given that the technology revolution spawned by Apollo was essentially zero...
But it did fail--initially. Boeing bet the farm on the 747 expecting ridership to increase. We entered a recession. It did not increase. Boeing went from 135,000 workers to 35,000 workers in the space of a few months.
You've got the and the effects of a number of events all confused.
The 747 didn't fail - thought it's entry into service was rocky due to teething troubles with the engines.
The huge jobs cuts occurred in 1971/72 - a year after the 747 entered service and a year before the recession really took hold in 72/73. The primary cause being massive cutbacks in government spending on aerospace - most notably for Boeing, the 2707 SST.
At the time Boeing was a one-horse show just like Seattle and the firm nearly went bankrupt. People left their homes to the banks and moved out of Seattle, Renton, Kent, and Auburn.
Those four cities have something in common - first they were the heart of Boeing's advanced development, government and space business, and second they weren't where the 747 was being built. Thirty miles north in Everett, where the 747 was being assembled, nobody was turning out the lights.
Boeing 747's original design was to compete for the defense contract for the Strategic Air Command heavy cargo aircraft. Lockheed won the competition and got to build C5-J. Boeing lost the military contract but converted the design to civilian use and won the bigger market.
According to Joe Sutter, who designed the aircraft, this is utterly false.
Does anyone have an "in" with somebody at Google Earth or the outfit they contract with to provide the imagery? A large portion of central and northern Arizona hasn't been updated in years i.e. the images are still in low resolution.
Google Earth buys most of its images on the cheap generally... That is, when an imagery outfit takes photographs under contract they retain the copyright (generally). Every so often they bundle older images up and shop them around at reduced costs, and outfits like Google snap 'em up.
The reason I ask is that I belong to a Search & Rescue team and we are currently looking for evidence of a downed aircraft reported missing two years ago. However, much of the possible crash area is still way out of date. In general, not having current imagery makes our job more difficult than it should be.
How, exactly? There isn't anything on those images that isn't on USGS topo maps, in fact there is far, far less...
Yes, people lost jobs from defense contractors and moved to more productive jobs elsewhere.
Yeah, that's the theory. Fact is, I know more than a few folks who lost their defense related jobs who spent the next decade or more working McJobs. Real productive that. The area I live in was hammered by the cutbacks, and still hasn't entirely recovered despite proximity to a major metropolis.
The unemployment during the clinton era went under 5% which it hadn't done since 1973.
Which happened, in no small part, because in the Clinton era they changed how they calculated unemployment figures - considerably reducing them. It also happened because of the rise in employment in McJobs as a fallout of the increasing Dot-Bomb, something that neither Clinton nor the military cutbacks did anything to cause.
Slashdot Mirror
The end result was the same - my edits were rejected because they didn't match the commonly, and easily, available sources.
Well, it was more complex than the date - it was essentially an entire rewrite of half a dozen articles. On each, on the talk page, I noted my sources - and the same person (who had written all the articles and had most of the edits on them) promptly reverted my changes. (This was prior to 'citation needed'.) So I went to the talk page and explained that not only had I worked on this weapon in the Navy, but I had researched them for nearly twenty years and wished to share that research - and was promptly hit with the "no original research" hammer. (Never mind that any comprehensive historical article on the Wikipedia contains the same level of original research.)
Between that and several other examples of asshattery, I realized I didn't have time to fight one fool with too much time on his hands, let alone half a dozen or so. I left Wikipedia and have never been back.
Certainly - but in a free country there is a group of people other than the corrupt officials and the downtrodden labor who'll eventually vote their conscience and/or insist on the rule of law and those rights will be recognized.
Kinda hard to do in a country where there is no vote and no rule of law.
Not just https sites - there are also moderated newsgroups, forums, and email lists. And those three are where people are headed and have been for years.
Which is why they just completed a six million dollar fund raising campaign. With cheap disk space, and cheap bandwidth, and volunteers doing the work... where is the money going?
Setting that aside, the problem isn't the cost of disk space or bandwidth - the problem is the unseen cost of maintenance. Every article on Wikipedia requires some portion of an editors time to maintain accuracy, completeness, coherency, etc..., and to clean up behind vandals. And there are only so many editors at any given time. Too many articles means rot accumulates in the corners and moves inward. Too many articles means too many stubs that remain untouched. Too many articles means an increasing number of articles that say the same thing from different points of views.
And frankly, based on a daily random sampling of articles, Wikipedia seems to be losing the battle.
Indeed, because I had a related problem. A series of related articles I wished to edit had considerable problems. I worked on the item described in one of the articles while I was in the Navy, I had the unclassified manuals at one elbow, at the other elbow I had a stack of expensive reference books... All were trumped because a handful of websites all referenced the same handful of coffee table books - and disagreed with me.
Except there aren't any checks and balances - there is only whether or not the guy you discussing the issue with has more time on his hands and whether or not he can quote an interpretation of policy that supports his position. Your story is one of how the checks and balances fail.
Well, somewhat simplified they can be compared this way: 90 miles above the Earth, the ISS 'sees' (thermally) the warm Earth beneath it. (Think of how it feels standing near a bonfire.) 90 miles above the moon, the moon fills much less of the sky, and while warmer on the day side is much (much) colder on the night side. (Think standing in front of a small electric heater.)
People are used to thinking only in terms of the sun when it comes to thermal environment of space, but that is the result of years of journalistic simplifications. (I know you've heard it too - "blazing hot in the sun, freezing cold in the dark".) In reality, its a bit more complicated than that.
Wrong. Gemini 8 had to land after a thruster failure. Not to mention Apollo 13. At least two Soyuz had to terminate their missions early because they could not dock with their target space station. (Back then, Soyuz only had batteries. After these incidents the solar panels were restored.)
You're right - it isn't a crazy idea. It's a barking-at-the-moon freakin' lunatic idea, proposed only by folks who are either crazy themselves or (being kind) utterly innocent of any acquaintance with the facts.
To start with, the ISS isn't designed to be operated unmanned. Next, the electronics onboard ISS aren't shielded against the radiation in the Van Allen Belts. Lastly, it's thermal controls are designed for the warm conditions of LEO not the arctic icebox of lunar orbit.
So yeah, in theory you could boost about 500 Shuttle loads of fuel and move it to Lunar orbit... In practice, it'll arrive there dead.
Sure, it's a stretch. Kind of like saying it's a stretch for me to fly from Seattle to New York by flapping my arms - though it might be possible for with a propulsion efficiency breakthrough, like strapping a 747 to my back.
What painfully stupid condescension?
Yes, explaining a technology few people under fifty have ever encountered in terms of today's technology is such a bad idea.
When Lincoln took office the White House had no telegraph connection. Lincoln 'developed the modern electronic leadership model'
Is that what kids are calling it nowadays? I must be out of date - I was raised to call it micromanagement.
http://www.aimergard.com/Products.aspx
Nobody with any sense expects their bank to only make good loans - as doing so requires a fully functional crystal to determine who'll lose their job, what company will suffer a massive setback, etc.. etc.. over the life of the loan. What you do reasonably expect is for the proportion of bad loans to be minor in relation to the proportion of good loans.
Whether or not an 11 year old thinks they are awesome does indicate their marketability. Their viability as tool will be determined by where they are two weeks after he gets them - in use, or in the bottom of the closet.
Yep. It shows how much Apple is really about style and sizzle, and how much Microsoft is about utility and usefulness.
Which is frightening as hell - because it only increases the lock the existing two parties have on the system.
The answer is: It depends.
*Most* goods/services the government buys goes out under open bids, but there are a lot of exceptions. Even under open bids, not all will have serious bidding/competition because of the limited number of companies capable of carrying out the contract.
And all contract negotiations are secret, even under open bid.
In case you haven't noticed - the government buys goods and services from private corporations on a daily basis.
The number of major errors you make suggests that your studies have been superficial at best.
Now I see why you have so many misconceptions - you can't fucking read. If you could read, or maybe if you were sober, you'd notice I didn't simply attribute it to the SST program.
The airlines started doing so in 1973 - two fucking years after the massive layoffs at Boeing.
Of course the 747 remains a long haul aircraft - after all, that was the role it was fucking designed for.
The flaw in that argument, as I pointed out, is that the 747 program wasn't centered in Seattle, and the region it was centered in didn't experience the problems felt in Seattle and Kent valley areas.
You haven't a clue what you are talking about.
No.
Given that the technology revolution spawned by Apollo was essentially zero...
You've got the and the effects of a number of events all confused.
The 747 didn't fail - thought it's entry into service was rocky due to teething troubles with the engines.
The huge jobs cuts occurred in 1971/72 - a year after the 747 entered service and a year before the recession really took hold in 72/73. The primary cause being massive cutbacks in government spending on aerospace - most notably for Boeing, the 2707 SST.
Those four cities have something in common - first they were the heart of Boeing's advanced development, government and space business, and second they weren't where the 747 was being built. Thirty miles north in Everett, where the 747 was being assembled, nobody was turning out the lights.
According to Joe Sutter, who designed the aircraft, this is utterly false.
The term "cattle class" was in use back when I was in high school - in the late 1970's.
Google Earth buys most of its images on the cheap generally... That is, when an imagery outfit takes photographs under contract they retain the copyright (generally). Every so often they bundle older images up and shop them around at reduced costs, and outfits like Google snap 'em up.
How, exactly? There isn't anything on those images that isn't on USGS topo maps, in fact there is far, far less...
Yeah, that's the theory. Fact is, I know more than a few folks who lost their defense related jobs who spent the next decade or more working McJobs. Real productive that. The area I live in was hammered by the cutbacks, and still hasn't entirely recovered despite proximity to a major metropolis.
Which happened, in no small part, because in the Clinton era they changed how they calculated unemployment figures - considerably reducing them. It also happened because of the rise in employment in McJobs as a fallout of the increasing Dot-Bomb, something that neither Clinton nor the military cutbacks did anything to cause.
If the technology existed to reasonably do so, and the stores simply weren't implementing it. You'd have a reason to complain.
The technology doesn't so exist.