From TFA: When we get up to space and the people up there run around and show us stuff â" that's really, really effective and there was nothing like that compared to the classroom.
Sounds like when I reported to my submarine... the real thing was very different from the neat lines on the diagrams and open spaces in the simulators and trainers. (And the willies that I got the first time we dove...)
It is located in western Canada. Does anybody know of a place that would want something like this or should we just sell it for metal recycling?
0.o
It just so happens that TFA gives you a list of places to contact. Seriously, I know it's something of a Slashdot tradition to not read TFA, but this takes the cake.
Unless you have something singularly unique, like a Cray or something, I very much doubt your old computer gear is of value to anybody.
This - these places are no doubt awash in common consumer gear and most common non-consumer gear.
I should dig my old Navy manuals out of storage someday and see if anyone wants them. I can't imagine they get offered too many of those, and the DGBC and DCC are probably pretty unique computers.
Geez, when did people get so fucking boneheaded about this. Cameras have been around for a long time, and even back when you didn't run the risk of images being broadcast to the whole world in an instant, folks generally seemed smart enough to NOT let themselves get photographed in compromising solutions.
You're pretty naive. Cameras have been around for a long time - and pictures taken in 'compromising positions' have been around just about as long. People took pictures and developed them at home (pretty easy with black and white film). People took pictures with Polaroid or other instant film systems and enjoyed them immediately. People even took pictures and *sent them to complete strangers* to be developed.
Go to eBay's Adult Only section and search on "vintage Polaroid" or "vintage photograph" and prepare to have your eyes opened.
Back when I ran a used and rare bookstore in the late 90's, I was regularly contacted by dealers in such things and asked to keep an eye out for them when I was out scouting for books. (Even found a few sets, managed to buy them, and made a tidy profit reselling them to those dealers.)
This isn't a redesign - it's a fundamental replacement of how the site functions. Looking at the beta is like visiting Amazon.com and finding Flickr.com instead.
Frankly, the new commenting 'system' sucks - the comment area is too narrow for useful indenting, and you've taken away the bars the separate one comment from another. In the name of looking "l33t and h1p!11!!!11" you've basically torn the heart out of the most basic function of the site.
The less said about boring, generic, and derivative overall look, the better.
Slashdot is, and always will be, something of a fringe site. That's a function of the content and the community, not of the site design. It's not hip and trendy, and it never will be.
No, I'm an adult capable of thinking and making my own informed decisions. You're an child in an adult body unable to take the responsibility for your own screwups, instead claiming to be a 'victim'.
I encourage this because when I was three years old access to daddy was something I would never again enjoy in this life to the present day, for even one minute. I feel the lack did not improve my level of joy throughout my life, though I could be wrong. Sometimes daddy is an ass. As my mother is dead I have to accept her judgement on the issue. I can aspire however to be better: to be the available, accessible and good daddy I wished for when I was my youngest daughter's age.
In other words, you're not doing it for her - you're doing it for you. Worse yet, you're doing it to fulfill some childish fantasy you've failed to outgrow.
The SpaceX Falcon 9 is built largely around previously-tested designs, on top of solid engineering. One would suppose this would give it a better than 50/50 chance of success.
The only reason one would suppose that is pretty much a complete lack of knowledge about this type of engineering. Integration is the hard part, no matter how well known the components are and how well the paper engineering went.
In fact, the space shuttle program, viewed over its total life, had something like 93% success rate for its engines. Much of the SpaceX projects' development is based on the results of those tests, designs, and engineering expertise.
In fact, you're so far off base you aren't even on the same continent. 135 flights times 2 SRB's with one failure works out to 1/270... 99.6% success. 135 flights times 3 SSME's with two failures works out to 2/405... or 99.5%. But those numbers are meaningless in this context. No matter how much Falcon 9 is 'based on' that experience, it's still a new statistical universe for the most part because it *isn't* the Shuttle.
It would be highly suspect of their rockets had a failure rate much higher than that -- one would expect a higher success rate due to incremental improvement, not worse.
Look up the success rate for Falcon I - by your "math" it should be much better than the 1-in-4 actually demonstrated. That it isn't should be clue for you.
A better way to be prepared would be to own and be able to ride a horse. Only fuel it needs is grass, hay, and water(and if there isn't enough water for both you and a horse where you are, you are probably screwed anyway), and when it eventually breaks down at least you can eat it.
Not really - horses are very high maintenance, fairly delicate, and expensive to maintain. That's why, historically and today, they were/are in the main restricted to the upper classes and why the mounted arm of the cavalry was relatively small and made up of specialized troops. (And why they were abandoned so enthusiastically by everyone who could manage to as soon as reasonably possible.)
On the other hand, how did the "lawyer working for the casino" know the hand that the crook folded with? That sounds like we are talking about crooks on both sides.
Unless French casinos are very different from American ones, you're under video surveillance pretty much constantly once you're inside and especially when seated at a table game.
The reason for insurance is to spread the risk (and associated costs) over a large population.
That's part of it - the Sesame Street version. The other part is to limit risk and costs to subscribed population. Then there's ensuring that sufficient reserve funds exist to cover expected contingencies, and... well, a whole lot of other things. Insurance is a complicated business even before you add in competition and profit.
The problem with insurance today isn't insurers picking and choosing their customers, it's people like you who really don't understand insurance and what seems to be a widespread belief that insurance is a slot machine that pays out a full jackpot every time you pull the handle.
The upshot is ten years of servicing addicts, and not one death.
That they know of. Or are willing to admit to. Or... well, you get the picture. There's plenty of ways to spin positive and avoiding taking credit for the negative.
No, you're a moron. People die from heroin abuse routinely - mostly via overdose as you admit yourself in another reply. (Before going on to add a bunch of other codswallop about how such a powerful drug is as safe as daises.)
But more to the point of my subject line: There is something totally bizarre happening here. The parent comment is a prime example of a sort of (for lack of a better word) "anti-compassion" that seems to have been triggered by this story.
Totally bizarre? You must be new here - it's absolutely bog standard for Slashdot.
I found that decision - but it fails to support the OP's tinfoil hat contention. Especially his unnamed "they" who pulled the doors off - because the party that would pull the doors to create a public space isn't the party doing the bugging.
Try reading and thinking next time.
Oh, and further on the issue of phone booth doors... Phone booths without doors were appearing before 1967, and phone booths with would persist well into the 1990's.
In short, their 'leadership' is artificial and shallow - bought and paid for, and likely only persisting so long as their market remains distorted by law. And your research missed a further distortion - a tariff on non-renewable energy that's used to subsidize renewable energy installations. (Which can then sell their power at the legally mandated above market rates.)
I wish you could buy cars like everything else. No instead you have to fuck around with dealers who try to add fees, refuse to special order cars, try to convince you to take what they have in stock, or try to show you crap you are not interested in.
Grow a pair. Or stop being a prima donna and blaming the world for your social dysfunction or because you don't have the backbone to deal with salesmen. Because the last thing I want is to buy cars like everything else - either prepackaged and designed for the lowest common denominator or having to spend days or weeks wasting my time trying to learn the arcana of a field in order to make a simple goddam purchase. Specialists and middlemen exist for a reason, I pay them to make my life easier.
Child pornography is quite obvious without further investigation
Actually, it's not. A nude image of a child is sometimes pornography, and sometimes it's not. A clothed image can be pornography for that matter. While some is easily recognizable, there's a huge, huge grey area in the middle. (A grey area that's vanishing due to moral panic, not any changes in the law.)
Until the legislators who are attempting to write laws start using English words appropriately, there can be no good laws written to cover this new economic activity. Appropriating verbiage from maritime law because "piracy" sounds so menacing is bullshit, plain and simple.
I hate to break it to you - but they are using English words appropriately. The usage of the term 'piracy' for IP violations goes back well over a century and is well understood by all. It's those who support piracy who are trying so earnestly to re-define the term and to eliminate this usage.
Perhaps those who are misusing the word so much should be sent to the waters off Somalia to learn what it means.
Enjoy your Indian Ocean cruise... because it's you and your semantic games that represent misuse.
So, you're comparing one manned mission versus one robot mission?
No, i'm comparing the speed and capability of humans versus that of robots. But, if one human mission can do in one day what one robot mission takes three years to do (a thousand to one ratio, not a hundred to one).... Or to put it another way, Oppurtunity has covered 34km in over eight years of driving... less distance than the Apollo LRV's accumulated in just eleven hours. Even allowing for spending three quarters of it's time hunkered down for the winter, making stationary observations, or waiting for the human engineering team back on earth to make up it's mind, the ratio between the two is utterly mind boggling.
That should tell anyone intelligent the tradeoff is much more complex than "robots are cheaper, robots are cheaper, robots are cheaper".
Slashdot Mirror
From TFA: When we get up to space and the people up there run around and show us stuff â" that's really, really effective and there was nothing like that compared to the classroom.
Sounds like when I reported to my submarine... the real thing was very different from the neat lines on the diagrams and open spaces in the simulators and trainers. (And the willies that I got the first time we dove...)
0.o
It just so happens that TFA gives you a list of places to contact. Seriously, I know it's something of a Slashdot tradition to not read TFA, but this takes the cake.
This - these places are no doubt awash in common consumer gear and most common non-consumer gear.
I should dig my old Navy manuals out of storage someday and see if anyone wants them. I can't imagine they get offered too many of those, and the DGBC and DCC are probably pretty unique computers.
You're pretty naive. Cameras have been around for a long time - and pictures taken in 'compromising positions' have been around just about as long. People took pictures and developed them at home (pretty easy with black and white film). People took pictures with Polaroid or other instant film systems and enjoyed them immediately. People even took pictures and *sent them to complete strangers* to be developed.
Go to eBay's Adult Only section and search on "vintage Polaroid" or "vintage photograph" and prepare to have your eyes opened.
Back when I ran a used and rare bookstore in the late 90's, I was regularly contacted by dealers in such things and asked to keep an eye out for them when I was out scouting for books. (Even found a few sets, managed to buy them, and made a tidy profit reselling them to those dealers.)
This isn't a redesign - it's a fundamental replacement of how the site functions. Looking at the beta is like visiting Amazon.com and finding Flickr.com instead.
Frankly, the new commenting 'system' sucks - the comment area is too narrow for useful indenting, and you've taken away the bars the separate one comment from another. In the name of looking "l33t and h1p!11!!!11" you've basically torn the heart out of the most basic function of the site.
The less said about boring, generic, and derivative overall look, the better.
Slashdot is, and always will be, something of a fringe site. That's a function of the content and the community, not of the site design. It's not hip and trendy, and it never will be.
More than one....
No, I'm an adult capable of thinking and making my own informed decisions. You're an child in an adult body unable to take the responsibility for your own screwups, instead claiming to be a 'victim'.
Since we're talking about rocket engines, well... you do the math (as they say). Or did you think I was talking about croquet sets? Moron.
In other words, you're not doing it for her - you're doing it for you. Worse yet, you're doing it to fulfill some childish fantasy you've failed to outgrow.
Not really. Economies of scale don't kick in all that much when your annual production is that tiny.
The only reason one would suppose that is pretty much a complete lack of knowledge about this type of engineering. Integration is the hard part, no matter how well known the components are and how well the paper engineering went.
In fact, you're so far off base you aren't even on the same continent. 135 flights times 2 SRB's with one failure works out to 1/270... 99.6% success. 135 flights times 3 SSME's with two failures works out to 2/405... or 99.5%. But those numbers are meaningless in this context. No matter how much Falcon 9 is 'based on' that experience, it's still a new statistical universe for the most part because it *isn't* the Shuttle.
Look up the success rate for Falcon I - by your "math" it should be much better than the 1-in-4 actually demonstrated. That it isn't should be clue for you.
Not really - horses are very high maintenance, fairly delicate, and expensive to maintain. That's why, historically and today, they were/are in the main restricted to the upper classes and why the mounted arm of the cavalry was relatively small and made up of specialized troops. (And why they were abandoned so enthusiastically by everyone who could manage to as soon as reasonably possible.)
Unless French casinos are very different from American ones, you're under video surveillance pretty much constantly once you're inside and especially when seated at a table game.
That's part of it - the Sesame Street version. The other part is to limit risk and costs to subscribed population. Then there's ensuring that sufficient reserve funds exist to cover expected contingencies, and... well, a whole lot of other things. Insurance is a complicated business even before you add in competition and profit.
The problem with insurance today isn't insurers picking and choosing their customers, it's people like you who really don't understand insurance and what seems to be a widespread belief that insurance is a slot machine that pays out a full jackpot every time you pull the handle.
That they know of. Or are willing to admit to. Or... well, you get the picture. There's plenty of ways to spin positive and avoiding taking credit for the negative.
No, you're a moron. People die from heroin abuse routinely - mostly via overdose as you admit yourself in another reply. (Before going on to add a bunch of other codswallop about how such a powerful drug is as safe as daises.)
Totally bizarre? You must be new here - it's absolutely bog standard for Slashdot.
I found that decision - but it fails to support the OP's tinfoil hat contention. Especially his unnamed "they" who pulled the doors off - because the party that would pull the doors to create a public space isn't the party doing the bugging.
Try reading and thinking next time.
Oh, and further on the issue of phone booth doors... Phone booths without doors were appearing before 1967, and phone booths with would persist well into the 1990's.
[[Citation Needed]]
*Yawn* Sophomoric semantic games.... You, and every reader with even a smattering of education, know damn well what I meant.
In short, their 'leadership' is artificial and shallow - bought and paid for, and likely only persisting so long as their market remains distorted by law. And your research missed a further distortion - a tariff on non-renewable energy that's used to subsidize renewable energy installations. (Which can then sell their power at the legally mandated above market rates.)
Grow a pair. Or stop being a prima donna and blaming the world for your social dysfunction or because you don't have the backbone to deal with salesmen. Because the last thing I want is to buy cars like everything else - either prepackaged and designed for the lowest common denominator or having to spend days or weeks wasting my time trying to learn the arcana of a field in order to make a simple goddam purchase. Specialists and middlemen exist for a reason, I pay them to make my life easier.
Actually, it's not. A nude image of a child is sometimes pornography, and sometimes it's not. A clothed image can be pornography for that matter. While some is easily recognizable, there's a huge, huge grey area in the middle. (A grey area that's vanishing due to moral panic, not any changes in the law.)
I hate to break it to you - but they are using English words appropriately. The usage of the term 'piracy' for IP violations goes back well over a century and is well understood by all. It's those who support piracy who are trying so earnestly to re-define the term and to eliminate this usage.
Enjoy your Indian Ocean cruise... because it's you and your semantic games that represent misuse.
No, i'm comparing the speed and capability of humans versus that of robots. But, if one human mission can do in one day what one robot mission takes three years to do (a thousand to one ratio, not a hundred to one).... Or to put it another way, Oppurtunity has covered 34km in over eight years of driving... less distance than the Apollo LRV's accumulated in just eleven hours. Even allowing for spending three quarters of it's time hunkered down for the winter, making stationary observations, or waiting for the human engineering team back on earth to make up it's mind, the ratio between the two is utterly mind boggling.
That should tell anyone intelligent the tradeoff is much more complex than "robots are cheaper, robots are cheaper, robots are cheaper".