Ah yes, when one cannot supply a reasonable and rational reply... lather on the snark and nonense. It's always easy to make up nonsense questions and objections when one is sitting safe at home and responsible for public safety.
Talking to the operator and listening to the message would not have changed the facts one bit. Nor was there anyone to ask for details - the caller had hung up.
Fact is, they had a phone call indicating that there was one individual shot (possibly dead), another individual potentially being held hostage, and the alleged perp being high on unspecified drugs. In that kind of situation, there is not time to investigate. Waiting ends up with people dead.
Fact is, various emergency responders roll all time without an extended conversation with the caller - because callers get cut off, or have to hang up for a variety of reasons. Not treating a call as real because they got cut off or had to hang up ends up with people dead.
I'm really naive about security, so I can't understand how these security breaches happen time and time again. If these systems were web based, or offering some kind of web or internet service which necessitated having open TCP ports I'd find this easier to understand.
The 911 service uses the _phone lines_. You don't get any more exposed to the world without cutting a hole in your office wall and installing a door to the front sidewalk - then taking the door of it's hinges.
The fact that teh swat can be tricked into overkill mode/business as usual like this is quite frightening.
So what would have them do? Ignore a 911 call? Wait around playing cards while a patrol call investigated a situation they might not have been able to handle (had the call been real)?
Lordy - I'm glad I saw the 'boy scout Navy' coming and got the hell out of Dodge when offered the chance.
I'll never forget the time I had screwed up in some way or another, bad enough to require Official Attention for high up but not bad enough to end up across the green table. For half an hour the XO went at me using four letter words only as attention getters and point makers while he discussed my shortcomings mental and physical, the poor quality of my ancestry and upbringing, and the chances of me retaining my fish, my rate, and that 2nd Class stripe if I ever ended up before him again. (I didn't.)
Forcing people to behave artificially causes people to not be able to bond and communicate.
This rather obvious realization has been surfacing over the past few decades. 20 years ago professionals were expected to wear suits and ties to work. Today, most employers I've worked for only require that of sales people, or on certain ocassions. The average employee can wear jeans, at in their cube, swear, and scratch their butt.
A nice superficial analysis - but as a counterpoint, I offer the US military. Service members communicate and bond, even without combat service, despite being restricted in dress, and hours, and behavior, and a dozen other ways that would your average individual begging to be returned to his safe and comfortable cubicle. I've also seen and read about teams from the blue suit corporate world deeply bonded.
Or, in short... your conclusion does not follow from your thesis.
When reality does not match ones assumptions - the smart thing to do is to examine those assumptions rather than continuing to proceed as if they were facts.
I don't know if the Russian Program Managers got all political against us, but the item, written by a retired NASA manager, sure as hell gets political against the Russians.
When you follow the space progam/ISS day in and day out, rather than relying on the all to infrequent Slashdot coverage... you soon see why. Again and again when something goes wrong, the Russians first (publically) announced 'theory' is that the problem is 'the Americans fault'. Only months later, if ever, does the truth come out. There are a couple of failures from the early flights of the current Soyuz version that were publically blamed on the Americans - that the Russians have yet to disclose the real cause of. The Russians have a long habit of being less than candid when it comes to their space program, and NASA has gone right along with them in covering up safety and performance issues with MIR, Soyuz, and the ISS.
This item is hugely biased. It looks to me like a simple case of corrosion, which could easily have been patched up if it happened on a Mars flight.
Sure, this one failure could have been patched up - but this is only the latest in a long series of failures caused by poor design and manufacture of the Russian segments of the ISS. Failures nowhere matched on the US side. Failures consistently blamed on the US by the Russians. While both NASA and the Russians are publically praising the performance of the Russian hardware.
It's not just about the Russians.
It's just as well he's retired - looks like he's fighting long lost battles against cooperation with the Russians and Europeans.
It may seem that way to somebody unfamiliar with the backstory and history. (I.E. pretty much every Slashdot commentator so far.)
[rant]The Slashdot hivemind frustrates the hell out of me when it comes to space issues. Too damm few bother to actually read and keep up with the field, and fewer still know much about the history.[/rant]
Difference needed in distillation steps between sugarcane and corn == zero.
Higher sugar content == less processing to convert starches into sugars.
Very little processing is required to convert starches into sugars - one merely malts, or uses enzymatic processes directly.
This is stuff we already know, and is proven in numerous publications written on the subject. In addition it is easily confirmed independently.
In addition it is handwaving bullshit having nothing to do with the topic at hand.
It's already been shown that ethanol corn farms cannot produce enough energy burning ethanol to actually power the entire process.
You just might try and read up on ethanol production - because sugarcane based ethanol can't either. It requires substantial energy input (above and beyond the bagasse) to make work.
I was only trying to show that if you had a device that could eliminate some of the more expensive aspects of production that economics of corn ethanol could be dramatically changes.
You're parroting crap you've read other places, without understanding it. In some circles, that makes you look smart. In others, it makes you look like and ass.
One doesn't debate pseudoscientific nonsense - one merely notes its existence and moves on. (And when one has the wit to take the rational part in such a debate, once can differentiate between so noting and attacks.)
Yes but you get a lot more ethanol out of sugarcane than you do corn, so you can actually get more energy out of sugarcane than you put in it. basically you are actually benefiting from the sunlight the plants collected, but currently with corn you put in as much if not more energy trying to convert it. If you are operating your farms mainly near coal power plants you are just going through a round about way of converting coal into ethanol. (should just use coal gas then, it's cheaper)
You have no clue what you are talking about.
I assumed all slashdotters knew the main hitch with corn ethanol as fuel cars, sorry if I wasn't more clear.
What is the major hitch? It's not purification (which is required for any ethanol source), nor is it the pseudoscientific babble you post above.
I don't know how you were rated as "5 insightful" - in fact there was zero explanation as to why OOO was unsatisfactory.
Oh? Did you bother to read the message at the top of the thread? If you had, you'd have seen: The great thing about Office is all the damn pieces work together. Excel is friendly with Access, Access is friendly with Word, Everything is friendly with Outlook. To beat Office, you have to have an Office suite that works like that. Not just all the pieces in one package.
Precisely. I'm increasingly finding that I cannot rely on internet reviews. Few products are without some problems, and fewer still ship thousands (or tens of thousands) of units without a lemon or two.
But on the 'net, it is those few who seem to drive the reputation of a product. (Bloggers are the worst of the lot - they tend to repeat each other and link in a snarled web, thus making the problem(s) appear even more widespread than they actually are.)
Why do we need Terabytes of information about landing sites about Mars but all it took was a telescope to pick a landing site on the moon?
A telescope doesn't have the resolution to study potential landing zones/site - even at lunar ranges. Additionally, they want to be careful with the landing areas for this probe due to it's size and weight.
Maybe it's a distance thing and maybe there are just more difficulties with a Mars mission that I just don't understand or was there a few fly by missions to the moon I'm not remembering...
The Lunar Orbiter program put five photosats in orbit around the moon in 1966 and 67 for the purpose of studying the lunar surface with an emphasis on photographing potential landing sites. Even so, one of the main missions of the CSM pilot was conducting additional photographic studies from orbit while the rest of the crew was on the surface.
There were actually three series of precursor missions to the moon in advance of the landings, the Ranger series of hard landers, the Lunar Orbiter series of photosats, and the Surveyor series of soft landers. None of them get a great deal of press nowadays, but without them the manned missions would have been much more difficult and much more dangerous.
Like so many in this thread - you can't tell the difference between an assumption and a fact. That Qwest was being punished is spin, an assumption. It is not a fact. Correlation is not causation.
You don't know if the information was redacted prior to the judge seeing it or not. Like so many in this thread you can't tell the difference between an assumption and a fact.
With 200 billion stars in OUR galaxy alone, and billions of other galaxies in our universe, anybody that thinks we are unique (usually religious type folks) are seriously fooled. There has to be hundreds of thousands of life forms out there (at least). The sooner science finds it, the better.
Nonsense. Your claim is as fact free and agenda driven as those whom you deride.
We simply don't have enough information to evaluate the scarcity or commonality or worlds that will support life. We don't even have enough information to make an informed guess.
Nope. Just one of those rare individuals with balls to stand up and point out that the emperor has no clothes - and those that swallow uncritically anything that discredits the current administration have no brains.
The administration has done enough bad things - but that doesn't stop the brainless ones. They have to make shit up ("Iraq was attacked in retaliation for 9/11, the President said so") and, in this case, ignore the differences between fact and implication and between correlation and causation. The biggest threat to our country isn't the current Administration, it is the brainless sheeple, on both sides of the debate, that blindly swallow whatever they are told and regurgitate it any time anyone puts a quarter in their slot.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah yes, when one cannot supply a reasonable and rational reply... lather on the snark and nonense. It's always easy to make up nonsense questions and objections when one is sitting safe at home and responsible for public safety.
Talking to the operator and listening to the message would not have changed the facts one bit. Nor was there anyone to ask for details - the caller had hung up.
Fact is, they had a phone call indicating that there was one individual shot (possibly dead), another individual potentially being held hostage, and the alleged perp being high on unspecified drugs. In that kind of situation, there is not time to investigate. Waiting ends up with people dead.
Fact is, various emergency responders roll all time without an extended conversation with the caller - because callers get cut off, or have to hang up for a variety of reasons. Not treating a call as real because they got cut off or had to hang up ends up with people dead.
The 911 service uses the _phone lines_. You don't get any more exposed to the world without cutting a hole in your office wall and installing a door to the front sidewalk - then taking the door of it's hinges.
So what would have them do? Ignore a 911 call? Wait around playing cards while a patrol call investigated a situation they might not have been able to handle (had the call been real)?
Like a sailor.
(OK, that was obvious. But as a former submariner I could not resist.)
Lordy - I'm glad I saw the 'boy scout Navy' coming and got the hell out of Dodge when offered the chance.
I'll never forget the time I had screwed up in some way or another, bad enough to require Official Attention for high up but not bad enough to end up across the green table. For half an hour the XO went at me using four letter words only as attention getters and point makers while he discussed my shortcomings mental and physical, the poor quality of my ancestry and upbringing, and the chances of me retaining my fish, my rate, and that 2nd Class stripe if I ever ended up before him again. (I didn't.)
A nice superficial analysis - but as a counterpoint, I offer the US military. Service members communicate and bond, even without combat service, despite being restricted in dress, and hours, and behavior, and a dozen other ways that would your average individual begging to be returned to his safe and comfortable cubicle. I've also seen and read about teams from the blue suit corporate world deeply bonded.
Or, in short... your conclusion does not follow from your thesis.
When reality does not match ones assumptions - the smart thing to do is to examine those assumptions rather than continuing to proceed as if they were facts.
When you follow the space progam/ISS day in and day out, rather than relying on the all to infrequent Slashdot coverage... you soon see why. Again and again when something goes wrong, the Russians first (publically) announced 'theory' is that the problem is 'the Americans fault'. Only months later, if ever, does the truth come out. There are a couple of failures from the early flights of the current Soyuz version that were publically blamed on the Americans - that the Russians have yet to disclose the real cause of. The Russians have a long habit of being less than candid when it comes to their space program, and NASA has gone right along with them in covering up safety and performance issues with MIR, Soyuz, and the ISS.
Sure, this one failure could have been patched up - but this is only the latest in a long series of failures caused by poor design and manufacture of the Russian segments of the ISS. Failures nowhere matched on the US side. Failures consistently blamed on the US by the Russians. While both NASA and the Russians are publically praising the performance of the Russian hardware.
It's not just about the Russians.
It may seem that way to somebody unfamiliar with the backstory and history. (I.E. pretty much every Slashdot commentator so far.)
[rant]The Slashdot hivemind frustrates the hell out of me when it comes to space issues. Too damm few bother to actually read and keep up with the field, and fewer still know much about the history.[/rant]
Difference needed in distillation steps between sugarcane and corn == zero.
Very little processing is required to convert starches into sugars - one merely malts, or uses enzymatic processes directly.
In addition it is handwaving bullshit having nothing to do with the topic at hand.
You just might try and read up on ethanol production - because sugarcane based ethanol can't either. It requires substantial energy input (above and beyond the bagasse) to make work.
You're parroting crap you've read other places, without understanding it. In some circles, that makes you look smart. In others, it makes you look like and ass.
One doesn't debate pseudoscientific nonsense - one merely notes its existence and moves on. (And when one has the wit to take the rational part in such a debate, once can differentiate between so noting and attacks.)
You have no clue what you are talking about.
What is the major hitch? It's not purification (which is required for any ethanol source), nor is it the pseudoscientific babble you post above.
Huh? Even if we did have the climate for sugarcane - we'd still need to distill the result to purify it.
A modern wind turbine can also be supplied in kit form and assembled with absolutely minimal tools... like nothing but a large hex wrench.
Yes, the parts are complex, but the interconnections between them are not.
Oh? Did you bother to read the message at the top of the thread? If you had, you'd have seen: The great thing about Office is all the damn pieces work together. Excel is friendly with Access, Access is friendly with Word, Everything is friendly with Outlook. To beat Office, you have to have an Office suite that works like that. Not just all the pieces in one package.
Precisely. I'm increasingly finding that I cannot rely on internet reviews. Few products are without some problems, and fewer still ship thousands (or tens of thousands) of units without a lemon or two.
But on the 'net, it is those few who seem to drive the reputation of a product. (Bloggers are the worst of the lot - they tend to repeat each other and link in a snarled web, thus making the problem(s) appear even more widespread than they actually are.)
Or possibly your 'flagship' product is in so little demand or so little known it's not worth a crackers time to crack.
A telescope doesn't have the resolution to study potential landing zones/site - even at lunar ranges. Additionally, they want to be careful with the landing areas for this probe due to it's size and weight.
The Lunar Orbiter program put five photosats in orbit around the moon in 1966 and 67 for the purpose of studying the lunar surface with an emphasis on photographing potential landing sites. Even so, one of the main missions of the CSM pilot was conducting additional photographic studies from orbit while the rest of the crew was on the surface.
There were actually three series of precursor missions to the moon in advance of the landings, the Ranger series of hard landers, the Lunar Orbiter series of photosats, and the Surveyor series of soft landers. None of them get a great deal of press nowadays, but without them the manned missions would have been much more difficult and much more dangerous.
And we have no way of knowing if the other big telcomm companies got similiar offers.
It's an assumption based on the testimony of someone with a pretty big agenda item (avoiding prison). It is not a fact.
Like so many in this thread - you can't tell the difference between an assumption and a fact. That Qwest was being punished is spin, an assumption. It is not a fact. Correlation is not causation.
You don't know if the information was redacted prior to the judge seeing it or not. Like so many in this thread you can't tell the difference between an assumption and a fact.
Nonsense. Your claim is as fact free and agenda driven as those whom you deride.
We simply don't have enough information to evaluate the scarcity or commonality or worlds that will support life. We don't even have enough information to make an informed guess.
God forbid somebody caring what kind of people are attracted to the site, and the results on the level and quality of the discussions resulting.
It isn't a copy and paste. Reading comprehension FTW.
No, both the article and summary make the mistake of treating an implication as a fact.
Nope. Just one of those rare individuals with balls to stand up and point out that the emperor has no clothes - and those that swallow uncritically anything that discredits the current administration have no brains.
The administration has done enough bad things - but that doesn't stop the brainless ones. They have to make shit up ("Iraq was attacked in retaliation for 9/11, the President said so") and, in this case, ignore the differences between fact and implication and between correlation and causation. The biggest threat to our country isn't the current Administration, it is the brainless sheeple, on both sides of the debate, that blindly swallow whatever they are told and regurgitate it any time anyone puts a quarter in their slot.