Given the independence of the editors (the volunteers) from the publishers (Wikimedia Foundation Inc.), I'm not too concerned about the content. Of course that independence only lasts until Wikimedia insists on seats on the Arbitration Committee or other editorial authority.
They don't need seats on the Arbitration Committee, they can and have simply overridden them by fiat. (See: WP:Office.)
But they need a mechanism -- beyond 'trust us' -- to keep an eye on the money. That much money is just too tempting, not only for plain embezzlement but also for things like loans and investments for personal or friends' businesses, unreasonable expenses, etc.
And that's why the IRS keeps a weather eye on large charities/non[not for] profits. There's no need for 'celebrity' board members.
Finally, what mechanisms do similar organizations use to manage windfalls of cash?
You could have saved yourself much typing. "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts, and if you do I'll make a nonsensical reply" is so much easier to type.
It would have been an even better article had they chosen one definition of 'dirty' and stuck with it consistently.
As far as Dirty IT job No. 2: Datacenter migration specialistgoes... *yawn*. Move a bunch of boxes, cable 'em up and hit the on button. Big Deal. Come talk to me when you've moved an entire printing plant three blocks across three weeks - without interrupting production or missing a deadline.
However, if you already have the capability to send the mass & energy required for humans to Mars... why not use that *immense* mass and energy budget for hugely superior robot explorers?
Because the 'hugely superior' robot explorers simply don't exist - and won't for the foreseeable future. No matter how much 'budget' you throw at them, they are simply not as fast or flexible or as capable of improvisation as humans.
Not every ship carrying containers is the same size either. They just carry more of them if they are larger and less if they are smaller. We could have a container carried by teh PSLV and maybe ten of the same carried by the Ariane.
Size does matter - because for any given cargo flight there is only one docking port available. They can't simply 'carry more of them'. I imagine you could come up with some silly stacking and interconnecting scheme for the containers, but at a great cost in weight and volume.
Size also matters because a smaller [cargo] vehicle means it is less capable of performing reboost and attitude control.
Frankly the shuttle would be the wrong vehicle to carry cargo as it needs to be man rated and a cargo vehicle doesnt need to be.
You do have to transfer crew to and from the station too you know. Doing both on one flight vastly simplifies station operations.
Right, but the Russians are paying significantly less, both in upfront and per-mission costs for their Soyuz and Progress launches than we are for our shuttle launches.
Well, that's not surprising since the Soyuz and Progress are significantly less capable. Buying something less capable is usually cheaper after all.
but involving humans in the process is tremendously costly because of the need to insulate humans from the harsh environment - whereas properly designed automated machines work quite nicely even in the hard vacuum and temperature extremes of space.
Of course there is more to the issue that you fail to mention. Humans are extremely flexible and robots... aren't. Humans can make repairs on station... robots can't. Etc... Etc...
Then there is the issue of working speed - what it has taken three years for Spirit to accomplish would have taken a human geologist a mere three days.
If the Europeans are smart, they will strap a couple of rockets onto the International Space Station (ISS) and develop a control system smart enough to slowly tug the ISS out of Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and into Low Moon Orbit (LMO) autonomously.
Lets hope they are also smart enough to build an entire new electronics system for the Station as the passage through the Van Allen belts will fry it all. Lets also hope they come up with some new radiation shielding, as the station will be uninhabitable due to the increased radiation on the other side of the belt.
Even nicer, the trip to the Moon could be slow and leisurely because the impatient and gluttonous humans wouldn't be along. We machines might even be able to make do with Ion engines for the cruise phase from the Earth to the Moon.
If having humans onboard was the reason why the trip was made so fast, you'd have a point.
And the fact that the Russians with their low tech systems can do it far more reliably than the United states and our "superior" technology and space program.
That's what many people believe. In reality, no rocket has really flown enough to build a valid experience base - and within the limits of currently available data the difference in reliability and safety between the US and Russia is essentially statistically insensible. (IIRC somewhere around 98.3% of the US and 98.5% for the Russians.)
You want to know what happens when you standardize too soon? You end up with lock in, which leads to problems down the road when you learn what you really need. (See "IBM PC, History Of" and "HTML Standards, history of".)
The other problem is that vehicles you list have a wide variety of performance characteristics. A single standard 'container' (vehicle) that fit them all would end up being limited to the least common denominator.
And lastly - competition is good. Competition breeds innovation.
I didn't claim or argue that they were obviously good did I? I merely noted the holes the in the arguments against them - and true to form the reply is nonsensical and vaguely insulting. "You don't believe in the Faith!"
Training people to trust the documents in similar situations is scary; I wish I had a better argument against it.
What's scary is people continuing to insist that such thing are Obviously Bad - despite not being able to come up with valid arguments against it that aren't handwaving/tinfoil hat fear mongering. It's very frightening that at the end of the day the Slashdot demographic, which in theory prides itself on it's collective intellect, aren't really much better than Christian fundies or other 'faith based' belief systems.
what astonishes me is how the government can secretly implement such a system for its citizens, and how little concern the media and Japanese citizens in general display about the privacy implications.
It astonishes you that the millions of citizens of Japan don't agree with the Slashdot privacy uber alles mentality?
I was about to say the same thing - the real problem is getting grants to fund the research. If the problem is interesting (to scientists anyhow) finding someone to work on it isn't all that hard.
NASA states that for their next mission they will only consider missions without a nuclear power source. This is a sad thing to hear, because it shows just how short-sighted and unambitious they have become.
Huh? Did you even TFA? NASA has ground ruled out that type of missions not because they lack vision - but because those types of missions are currently impossible to execute.
If I recall correctly, the Soviet Union finally dissolved in 1991. So at some point, circa 1988, somebody in either Reagan or Bush's administration decided it'd be easier to get Plutonium from the Soviet Union? You know, the sworn enemy, evil empire, etc. etc.? And even weirder, the Soviet Union agreed?
I know, it was for NASA, not the Minuteman missile, but still...
Quite understandable actually - because PU238 isn't used in weapons, PU239 is.
AIUI/IIRC in the US most 238 came as a by product of producing 'supergrade' tube alloy - while the Russians produced it directly from Neptunium and as a by product of reprocessing reactor fuel. Thus as the effects of SALT/START/INF took hold, we had no need to produce tube alloys, and ceased production - losing the ability to produce 239 in the process.
I believe one of the cut modules for the station would have been a super-arm, a multi-segmented robot that could walk it's way around the station, anchoring itself on special pads that would provide support and power. One or two of these arms could move anywhere on the station and help attach incoming modules every time they're boosted.
Nope, that arm was installed on the station years ago.
What we really need for a revolution in space, we need bigger boosters. Why did pepper used to be worth more per ounce than gold? Because getting to the far east was so damned expensive, caravan or ship, it was a dicy proposition. Why is pepper cheap as dirt now? Affordable transportation. Lower the cost of transport and whole new worlds of possibility are opened.
And how precisely do bigger boosters lower costs? (Hint: The bigger the booster, the lower the flight rate, which means fewer flights to amortize development costs and ground support costs across.)
For someone so opinionated - you certainly haven't bother to educated yourself.
BS. Using misleading statistics to prove a point does not prove a point. The Soyuz has a lower fatality rate than the Shuttle and that's going back to the 60s.
Ok, quote some valid and non misleading statistics then. Otherwise, you're making an emotional argument rather than an engineering one.
It has a flawless fatality record for longer than the shuttle has even existed.
There is far more to safety than simply fatalities. The simple fact is, Soyuz has a long record of near fatal accidents and serious incidents. (Many people are unaware of this because they happened back before the Wall came down and never made the Western press. See this page for more information.) Just as a single example - out of the last ten odd flight, the main flight control computer has crashed during re-entry four times.
Now consider that the Soyuz is likely flown/managed by people whose attention to safety would give NASA managers heart attacks and just how much of a fuck up the shuttle is become evident.
Four major computer failures in the span of a few years - yeah, these are guys who pay attention to safety.
How is it different from other nonprofits? Some CEOs of nonprofits get paid hundreds of thousands per year of donated money, and this guy can't treat three friends to a $325 meal?
Because the CEO's get paid a salary, and then use that salary to pay personal expenses. Wales seems to have billed the foundation directly for personal expenses - a significant difference. Worse yet, when the IRS gets wind of such shenanigans... They check the tax returns of the organization pretty closely.
Now the real problem is that he, the creator of wikipedia, hasn't been able to convince some private company to give him lots of money. You think that'd do pretty well on a resume.
Rarely does a private company hire a former king to be a peon. Worse yet, when you look at the kinds of companies that would pay real money and compare them to Jimmy's resume... His resume starts looking pretty thin. (Not to mention his reputation proceeds him.)
Actually our underway game on the 'Hog (655B) was Diplomacy... But we had a strong and ongoing group back in Charleston. Tenderpukes (dolphin wearers, but still tenderpukes) and guys on shore duty formed the core, with the rest of us playing whenever we were in.
Slashdot Mirror
They don't need seats on the Arbitration Committee, they can and have simply overridden them by fiat. (See: WP:Office.)
And that's why the IRS keeps a weather eye on large charities/non[not for] profits. There's no need for 'celebrity' board members.
Professional administrators and accountants.
On-line products are stored how? In a tank?
On line products do take up shelf space, it's just that warehouse shelf space is much cheaper than retail shelf space.
You could have saved yourself much typing. "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts, and if you do I'll make a nonsensical reply" is so much easier to type.
It would have been an even better article had they chosen one definition of 'dirty' and stuck with it consistently.
As far as Dirty IT job No. 2: Datacenter migration specialistgoes... *yawn*. Move a bunch of boxes, cable 'em up and hit the on button. Big Deal. Come talk to me when you've moved an entire printing plant three blocks across three weeks - without interrupting production or missing a deadline.
Because the 'hugely superior' robot explorers simply don't exist - and won't for the foreseeable future. No matter how much 'budget' you throw at them, they are simply not as fast or flexible or as capable of improvisation as humans.
No it can't - because it has no life support capability.
Not even close.
ATV not only can't carry people to orbit, it can't carry people back to Earth - it can't even get people off the pad. (It lacks an escape system.)
Size does matter - because for any given cargo flight there is only one docking port available. They can't simply 'carry more of them'. I imagine you could come up with some silly stacking and interconnecting scheme for the containers, but at a great cost in weight and volume.
Size also matters because a smaller [cargo] vehicle means it is less capable of performing reboost and attitude control.
You do have to transfer crew to and from the station too you know. Doing both on one flight vastly simplifies station operations.
Well, that's not surprising since the Soyuz and Progress are significantly less capable. Buying something less capable is usually cheaper after all.
Of course there is more to the issue that you fail to mention. Humans are extremely flexible and robots... aren't. Humans can make repairs on station... robots can't. Etc... Etc...
Then there is the issue of working speed - what it has taken three years for Spirit to accomplish would have taken a human geologist a mere three days.
Lets hope they are also smart enough to build an entire new electronics system for the Station as the passage through the Van Allen belts will fry it all. Lets also hope they come up with some new radiation shielding, as the station will be uninhabitable due to the increased radiation on the other side of the belt.
If having humans onboard was the reason why the trip was made so fast, you'd have a point.
That's what many people believe. In reality, no rocket has really flown enough to build a valid experience base - and within the limits of currently available data the difference in reliability and safety between the US and Russia is essentially statistically insensible. (IIRC somewhere around 98.3% of the US and 98.5% for the Russians.)
You want to know what happens when you standardize too soon? You end up with lock in, which leads to problems down the road when you learn what you really need. (See "IBM PC, History Of" and "HTML Standards, history of".)
The other problem is that vehicles you list have a wide variety of performance characteristics. A single standard 'container' (vehicle) that fit them all would end up being limited to the least common denominator.
And lastly - competition is good. Competition breeds innovation.
I didn't claim or argue that they were obviously good did I? I merely noted the holes the in the arguments against them - and true to form the reply is nonsensical and vaguely insulting. "You don't believe in the Faith!"
Heck, it isn't even universal in America itself.
What's scary is people continuing to insist that such thing are Obviously Bad - despite not being able to come up with valid arguments against it that aren't handwaving/tinfoil hat fear mongering. It's very frightening that at the end of the day the Slashdot demographic, which in theory prides itself on it's collective intellect, aren't really much better than Christian fundies or other 'faith based' belief systems.
It astonishes you that the millions of citizens of Japan don't agree with the Slashdot privacy uber alles mentality?
Of course, that's based on the unsupported assumption that science is only valuable when it's "ground breaking".
I was about to say the same thing - the real problem is getting grants to fund the research. If the problem is interesting (to scientists anyhow) finding someone to work on it isn't all that hard.
Huh? Did you even TFA? NASA has ground ruled out that type of missions not because they lack vision - but because those types of missions are currently impossible to execute.
Quite understandable actually - because PU238 isn't used in weapons, PU239 is.
AIUI/IIRC in the US most 238 came as a by product of producing 'supergrade' tube alloy - while the Russians produced it directly from Neptunium and as a by product of reprocessing reactor fuel. Thus as the effects of SALT/START/INF took hold, we had no need to produce tube alloys, and ceased production - losing the ability to produce 239 in the process.
Um, no. PU239 is used in weapons, PU238 in nuclear batteries.
Nope, that arm was installed on the station years ago.
And how precisely do bigger boosters lower costs? (Hint: The bigger the booster, the lower the flight rate, which means fewer flights to amortize development costs and ground support costs across.)
For someone so opinionated - you certainly haven't bother to educated yourself.
Ok, quote some valid and non misleading statistics then. Otherwise, you're making an emotional argument rather than an engineering one.
There is far more to safety than simply fatalities. The simple fact is, Soyuz has a long record of near fatal accidents and serious incidents. (Many people are unaware of this because they happened back before the Wall came down and never made the Western press. See this page for more information.) Just as a single example - out of the last ten odd flight, the main flight control computer has crashed during re-entry four times.
Four major computer failures in the span of a few years - yeah, these are guys who pay attention to safety.
Because the CEO's get paid a salary, and then use that salary to pay personal expenses. Wales seems to have billed the foundation directly for personal expenses - a significant difference. Worse yet, when the IRS gets wind of such shenanigans... They check the tax returns of the organization pretty closely.
Rarely does a private company hire a former king to be a peon. Worse yet, when you look at the kinds of companies that would pay real money and compare them to Jimmy's resume... His resume starts looking pretty thin. (Not to mention his reputation proceeds him.)
The funny part, is your link doesn't mention anyone losing color and clarity 'in just a few months'. Did you even bother to fucking read it?
Actually our underway game on the 'Hog (655B) was Diplomacy... But we had a strong and ongoing group back in Charleston. Tenderpukes (dolphin wearers, but still tenderpukes) and guys on shore duty formed the core, with the rest of us playing whenever we were in.