An illusion can become a half-truth, a mask can alter the expression of a face. The familiar arguments to the effect that democracy is 'just the same as' or 'just as bad as' totalitarianism never take account of this fact. All such arguments boil down to saying that half a loaf is the same as no bread. In England such concepts as justice, liberty and objective truth are still believed in. They may be illusions, but they are very powerful illusions.The belief in them influences conduct, national life is different because of them. In proof of which, look about you. Where are the rubber truncheons, where is the castor oil? The sword is still in the scabbard, and while it stays there corruption cannot go beyond a certain point. The English electoral system, for instance, is an all but open fraud. In a dozen obvious ways it is gerrymandered in the interest of the moneyed class. But until some deep change has occurred in the public mind, it cannot become completely corrupt. You do not arrive at the polling booth to find men with revolvers telling you which way to vote, nor are the votes miscounted, nor is there any direct bribery. Even hypocrisy is a powerful safeguard. The hanging judge, that evil old man in scarlet robe and horse-hair wig, whom nothing short of dynamite will ever teach what century he is living in, but who will at any rate interpret the law according to the books and will in no circumstances take a money bribe, is one of the symbolic figures of England. He is a symbol of the strange mixture of reality and illusion, democracy and privilege, humbug and decency, the subtle network of compromises, by which the nation keeps itself in its familiar shape.
Because he knew England didn't have the manpower for an amphibious landing in France or Germany. They'd sent troops to France, but the incompetency of the French High Command in the face of Blitzkreig forced the Dunkirk evacuation.
That's where the line about "the New World coming to rescue the Old" comes in -- Churchill knew he couldn't invade France until the US entered the war. He knew that was likely by early '42, i.e., about two years after that speech. If Pearl Harbor hadn't happen, Roosevelt was prepared to make German attacks on American shipping a casus belli.
Did they teach you the history of WW II, or are you just being obnoxious?
Once the shares are bought back, they no longer exist. As you surmise, the ownership value of the shares is evenly divided among the remaining shareholders. But that's it. If the company decides to sell new shares, it works in exactly the opposite manner. The company creates new shares and *poof* everyone else's shares lose some of their ownership value. (That's why it takes a vote by shareholders to authorize either share issue or share buy-back.)
What you have to do is keep an eye on the number of "shares outstanding". That's the total number of shares ever isued in all public offerings. The number (1 / shares outstanding) is how much of the company you own when you buy one share. If new shares are sold, "shares outstanding" goes up and your shares go down in value. If shares are bought back, "shares outstanding" goes down and your shares go up in value.
A company can't own itself. (It can be non-owned, however - that's a voluntary association.) If a buy-back is taken far enough, you get down to a point where there are only X investors left and none that are willing to sell. At that point no shares are traded (nobody in the group will sell to each other or anyone else), and the stock is no longer publicly traded, but privately held.
Say everyone but one person uses the buy-back. In that case, 100% of "outstanding shares" are held by the last person (call him Bill), and Bill owns the company (in "fee simple", as the ancient legalese says).
If Bill then "sells" his shares to the company, it's just funny accounting on Bill's ledger book. Bill still owns the company, he's just not describing that ownership in terms of "shares" anymore.
I advise trying "Railroad Tycoon" or reading Heinlein's Time Enough For Love, the section set on New Beginnings; either one will give you a feel for how this works.
The problem with Baxter is that he's a pessimist about the future of humanity. Read any of his books that project into the future and they will give a picture of a bleak humanity whose goals were crushed by an uncaring universe. And not elements of 'our' universe either, but the plot points that Baxter makes up (usually some alien species).
Friends! Americans! Countrymen! Lend us your code! I come to bury Saddam, not to praise him.
Seriously: the Slate article suggests that Slashdotters could code and contribute to the peace effort in Iraq. Plotz describes a needed update/upgrade to Kingmaker, an old 1970's computer game. Assuming someone could get rights (or reverse-engineer what must be a reasonably simple game, considering that it's a board game), what are the chances that someone could make an open-source version of what DoD and our friends in Iraq need?
powerbarr said: >I was not aware that Burt Rutan is working on large rocket engines to enable geosynchronous orbit.
Well, he hasn't announced anything yet, and I don't know for certain that he has any designs yet as well. (Rutan is notoriously closed-mouthed about these things). But he has hinted that he has very broad plans beyond the rocket systems (SpaceShipOne/White Knight) that he has now.
Your info on Boeing's attitude on Sea Launch is very interesting and explains much.
Sea Launch is a joint project between Boeing, Energiya Ukrainiya, and a Norwegian company that makes oil platforms. All three are private companies, but they are tightly tied to their respective countries' military-industrial complexes. I'll take Elon Musk or Burt Rutan any day of the week and twice on Sunday over these guys. (Check previous Slashdot stories.)
...is a pilot project of the MBTA that is supposed to work this way (GPS on buses, screens showing 'till next bus times). I haven't ridden it, though, so no word on how well it works. Any Bostonians taken it?
I assume Mac OS X -- that would be the simplest. It's the only platform I can think of that you *know* will be compatible with both OpenOffice and Microsoft Word.
If all you want is a conceptual, "in-your-head", reasonably math-free treatment of physics, your best pick absolutely has to be Hewitt's _Conceptual Physics_. This guy writes in an easy-to-understand style and uses plenty of graphics and self-drawn cartoons to demonstrate and illustrate. If you "just don't get it" and the math only mucks up your thinking, go for this one.
A good standard AP high school/basic college text would be Serway or Giancoli. (Hint: Serway's cheaper. =-)
The top-of-the-line in easily accessible physics textbooks is definitely the Feynman Lectures on Physics. You'll only get as far as QED (since they were written in the late 50's), but for most people, quantum electrodynamics is as far as they *want* to go. Ol' Dick Feynman will give you the full math treatment, but explains it so clearly and concisely it'll go down like fresh-churned buttermilk. I swear by the Red Books, and I know many a colleague who wouldn't be caught stranded on a desert island without 'em.
1) It is true that 8 glasses of water need not be drunk each day. It *is* true that the equivalent, two liters of fluid, must be consumed -- but food contains 30-50% of the water you need each day.
2) It is true that "being thirsty means you're already dehydrated" is an exaggeration, but it is an intentional one. It means "you're well on the way to being dehyrated". The exaggeration is, I suppose, intended to catch ID10Ts who ignore thirst even during 10-km runs in 110 degree weather. Thirst does kick in well after you have lost plenty of fluid, and once ADH (anti-diuretic hormone, the hormone that controls urine production and volume status) has already risen. These facts, I suppose, are the origin of the common anecdote.
3) "Dark urine doesn't mean you are dehydrated" -- not true. It *is* true that it is difficult to judge from color alone. Despite our 16 million color resolution, it is hard for people to subjectively grade color without experience (i.e. working in a urinalysis lab); thus, judging hydration by urine color alone will have a high error rate and often be inconclusive. Other factors, such as urine contaminants, might make the test less accurate. Along with other clues, however (i.e., being sweaty, thirsty, and tired), it may be useful.
4) "Water intoxication", a peculiar form of hyponatremia (low blood sodium concentration), is *not* mythical. However, it *is* much rarer than dehydration. It takes a special kind of person (read: mentally ill patient) to drink the 25+ glasses of water per day that it requires to achieve this.
5) Studies have shown (sorry, I don't have links, its 0130 around here) that caffinated beverages such as Coke hydrate at about 2/3 the rate of pure water. That is, at Coke concentrations, the caffeine dose is sufficient to cause you to lose 1/3 of the water you just drank as part of the Coke.
6) These indicators -- thirst and dark urine -- are not "myths" and not useless (although they are far from perfect). I happen to know first-hand that some of the best doctors in the United States use these observations in their daily assessments of patients.
7) "Absence of evidence is not equal to evidence of absence." --paraphrased from Carl Sagan
This fellow has done very little experimentation on his own, but simply collected the lack of research combined with evidence from his own student experiments over the years. While this is a provocative article, it is intended to stimulate research, and NOT to be the definitive work on the subject. What's needed (as he states at the end, in A CALL FOR DIALOGUE) is more and better (and better funded, pretty please)nutritional research!
Disclaimer: IANAD (but I am in medical school and work with 'em in hospitals every day; see address.) And yes, I am a geek. Been programmin' since age four (BASIC on a c64), researchin' at MIT. Good enough for youz?
>I detest Osama bin Laden, a man who is the >bigoted, violent, religiously fanatical, spoiled >son of a rich oil magnate, who believes he can >control the world with the threat of war and >destruction. Hey, wait that sounds like somebody >else...
Indeed it does. Especially since Osama is the son of a rich construction magnate, not an oil magnate.
Whence comes this idea that if you're rich and Arab, you're in the oil business? Princess Diana's last boyfriend was rich and Arab, but he was in the department store business...
"1. Because using Segway is so unlike anything out there in terms of personal transportation devices, the reseller better really teach people how to use it correctly. I have visions of clueless Segway riders crashing into other pedestrians and larger vehicles because they're not used to how to stop this scooter."
IIRC, the reason Segway/IT/Ginger is "revolutionary" is that it takes no brains whatsoever to operate. Stopping the thing should, in theory, be an instantaneous, reflex reaction.
In theory, at least. I *do* hope they have done sufficient beta-testing.
C3PO-->Dear, oh dear.....
"2. The US$3,000.00 cost for the personal version is way too expensive, IMHO. Kamen should seriously talk with the one company that produce a Segway-like scooter at a reasonable cost: Honda. Using its motorcycle and electric vehicle expertise, Honda could build such a scooter for US$1,800.00 or less per scooter."
IIRC, the U.S. consumer market will be the last market to see Segway/IT/Ginger. He goes after CEO's, gov't, and big business, THEN the overseas market, and finally the US. By that time mass-production will be sufficiently big to drive the price down.
I agree, it'll never work at $3000. But at $500-$1000, it might. And again, IIRC, a lot of the $3000 goes to motherboards, chips, gyros, etc. And we all know what happens to the price of those....
I am most humbly
your obd't servant, but
don't ever tell me what to do,
for I am
Posts recruiting for bin Laden are, of course, not helpful. It would be better for everyone if they were taken down. But I think everyone here agrees that censorship powers should NOT be given to the government. So how can we (legally) get rid of such?
(1) E-mail the ISP and ask for the message to be taken down. Self-policing of the Net!
(2) Have the government request (without threatening anything) that the messages be taken down.
(3) *ONLY IF SUCH ACTIVITY CONTINUES AND FORMS A PATTERN* _Gently_ suggest that if many messages of this type appear, the ISP could be under suspicion of *aiding the terrorists*. Do *not* even *think* about using any laws as curbs on freedom of speech or privacy. The government *will* be using every possible resource to track these sons of you-know-what down. But we should be sure that such powers do *not* spill over into other areas.
OK, so the consensus is that using someone's computer without their consent, even to do them a favor, is both illegal and a Bad Thing.
So why not ask for their consent? Like this:
(1) User A, who has clue, downloads the patch and fix.
(2) Fix, as a part of the fix, scans his files to determine where infective packets have been sent.
(3) Fix requests: "Send this fix package to those who have been infected? y/n"
(4) If yes, fix zaps to chosen people. (Email, ftp, whatever.)
(5) Email says to clueless user B, "I have been sent by such-and-such because his computer indicated that you were attacked and/or infected by $INFECTIVE_PROGRAM."
(6) Fix says, "My authenticity can be verified by going to website blah-blah-blah, and downloading X program." Or perhaps there is no attachment to the email, and it links you to the website to download the fix.
(7) User B, now clued, downloads the fix and runs it. Process iterates.
Unless the box is moldering in a closet somewhere and hasn't been touched in months, this system should get through to all infected users eventually. And best of all, it's TOTALLY VOLUNTARY on each and every user's part.
As far as I can tell, here's the summary on Microsoft's move:
GOOD: Detection of crappy drivers. Collecting and disseminating data on what works and what doesn't is a GoodThing[tm]. An automatic warning that a driver is incompatible with the OS also appears to be a popular idea. (Perhaps the Linux companies should co-opt this concept?)
GOOD: Having the option, as a network administrator, to disable crash-prone drivers and prevent their installation.
GOOD: Forcing administrators of legacy software to remove bugs caused by the switch in operating systems. Bringing code up to spec is a GoodThing[tm].
BAD: Microsoft having the power to deny YOU the ability to program your box as you choose. This strikes many/. readers as fascist.
BAD: Microsoft snarfing your entire core dump -- thus having the ability to know what you do and do not have on your computer. Sort of like the local supermarket being able to track your buying habits with their SuperSaver cards.
BAD: Microsoft's known, documented, and illegal penchant for using their code as a monopolistic weapon. DR-DOS is the most widely mentioned victim of this tactic, but there have been many others. By writing their code in a certain way, Microsoft can make $PROGRAM crash repeatedly. $PROGRAM will thus appear on the blacklist, and Microsoft can then (remotely and instantaneously!) disable $PROGRAM, "as a public service". Look for blacklistings to appear in conjunction with Windows Updates with matching functionality...
CONCLUSION: Microsoft should include a checkbox in XP allowing the user/admin, if they so choose, to disable this "helpful" feature.
The fact of the matter remains, people won't follow good security practices because it's inconvenient, they don't want to, they don't know about them, or their Aunt Ruth has a beard.
Some of the things listed above could be automated, or a program could be set up, run by the administrator, that auto-LARTs those who do stupid stuff like this. For example:
Keep your virus definitions up to date...
Keep your programs/operating system/server up to date with the latest patches...
...I do believe that both M$ and Linux have automated these.
The others could be easily automated. Probably should be....
If Zubrin hates waste, he can hate a non-Shuttle-C space station all he wants, until it's on-orbit. As soon as it's up there, no matter how much the process may have been hated, it's a waste not to use it where appropriate.
I have to agree. The project, now brought this far, MUST be finished. (Although a Big Can habitat would go a long way towards that goal.)
I also thought the X33 was a rather interesting design point. From what I can see, NOTHING in the way of SSTO would possibly survive the committee of public opinion, considering what I've seen in the sci.space.* newsgroups. Everyone has their pet project ideas, and the only thing they hate worse than any of the others is anything contracted by NASA or done by current big-aerospace.
This is, of course, a result of:
(1) lack of leadership by either NASA or the big aerospace companies, and
(2) a lack of funding, public or private, to do what really needs to be done to resolve the issue: trying everything.
Somewhere out there is the right technology. But, somehow, it seems that it is in no one's interest to build it. (Except, perhaps, the Europeans or someone else who would dearly love to put all of us out of business, and have the dollars to research it properly.)
X-33 was a good design (although, IMHO, Delta Clipper was better). The problem with both wasn't the design, but lack of leadership. And I don't mean the President. I mean the NASA bueuracracy, and the executives of Boeing, and, yes, the advocacy groups that heckled it from start to finish. We need to stop pestering each other and come together to build something. If only we could agree on what that is. Maybe a National Academy of Sciences study would help.
OTOH, maybe not. We got an NAS study on Triana, and look what happened to it.
[Zubrin's book] seemed to be only half about going to Mars. The other half seemed to be another diatribe against the space station. Maybe I didn't read far enough, but I haven't thrown the book away, only set it aside. Zubrin seemed to have as big an anti-space-station blindspot as those he accused of having a must-use-space-station blindspot.
Zubrin's "blindspot", as you say, is not only directed at Space Station ops. He is in disgust at any space program whose costs and ops are comprimised by political decisions. In that, he no different from any other Engineer Indignant At Management's Mistakes.
If you (a) complete Case for Mars and (b) read the sequel, Entering Space, then you discover that:
(1) Zubrin also directs his invective at his former employer, Lockheed Martin, for refusing to attempt cheap development of SSTO's. (I'm not surprised. Construction companies are not in the transportation business, they are in the CONSTRUCTION business. It is in Lockheed Martin's interest not to build SSTO's. Which is why it was eminently stupid to give the X-33 SSTO development project to them.)
(2) Zubrin doesn't hate the station, he hates waste. In his (logical) opinion, the Station should have been built with Shuttle-C (the never-built Cargo Shuttle, with payload replacing the orbiter) and Aldrin's Big Cans. Such a Station would take more crew EVA time, but many, many fewer launches.
(3) However, Zubrin *does* have a tendency to hammer his point home far beyond the point at which he has convinced you. Grit your teeth, bear it, and dig through his work for the science and engineering. You'll find it rather thorough and thought-provoking.
This is a long lament on the universality of foolish politicians.
The Russian Duma, being of a significantly more nationalist and less realistic bent than the Kremlin, is continually attempting to ignore reality with respect to their space program. Check the link at http://www.nasawatch.com to Pravda, where an official communication of the Duma has already asked for the RASA (Russian Aeronautics and Space Administration) chief's head for allowing their station to go down.
Other interesting points to take away from their communique:
* They absolutely refuse to consider the possibility that they didn't have the money to keep Mir operational or even in a safe orbit.
* They already want a new station. Never mind that there were only four core modules built: The MIR core module, now half-melted in the South Pacific; the training module, sitting in Star City and needed for ISS training; the Zvezda service module (which is an updated MIR core module); and the mock-up, sitting in a museum (not sure which). Remember how much trouble getting Zvezda built was?
* Remember how like pulling teeth it was to get the money for Zvezda out of the *very same Duma*? They want the nationalism and prestige of a space program, but they don't want to pay for it. They want to pay for MIR 2 by "letting the Americans pay our share of ISS costs". Let's think about this a second... we just found out that *we* are overbudget, we are stretching *our* contribution out to who knows when (2007 for completion now? 2008?), and they want us to pay their whole share, so they can throw up a competing station? On what planet do these people think they are living on?
* They are concerned about insane things like "we can't use the ISS for military purposes". (Exactly how did they use Mir for military purposes? Skylab? Salyut? Spy satellites and commsats are *so* much more cost efficient for military use that this isn't even funny.)
The general Russian thought on ISS comes down to something like this:
RUSSIAN DUMA: What happen?
RUSSIAN MISSION CONTROL: Someone set up us the re-entry!
RUSSIAN MISSION CONTROL: We get signal from Houston.
RUSSIAN DUMA: What!
RUSSIAN MISSION CONTROL: Main screen turn on.
AMERICAN MISSION CONTROL: How are you gentlemen!!
AMERICAN MISSION CONTROL: All your space stations are belong to us.
RUSSIAN DUMA: What you say??
AMERICAN MISSION CONTROL: You are on the path to insignificance.
AMERICAN MISSION CONTROL: You have no chance to economically recover make your time.
RUSSIAN DUMA: Take off every 'MIR 2'.
RUSSIAN DUMA: You know what you doing.
RUSSIAN DUMA: Move 'MIR 2' for great justice.
This is so close to the typical Duma member's thought patterns that I can't decide if it's funny or not....
Your friendly neighborhood nitpicker,
Allen Bryan,
Re:Isn't this a little small?
on
Solar Sails
·
· Score: 1
> Or is this just a proof-of-concept sort of thing?
Yes.
RTF Website.
Slashdot Mirror
Because he knew England didn't have the manpower for an amphibious landing in France or Germany. They'd sent troops to France, but the incompetency of the French High Command in the face of Blitzkreig forced the Dunkirk evacuation.
That's where the line about "the New World coming to rescue the Old" comes in -- Churchill knew he couldn't invade France until the US entered the war. He knew that was likely by early '42, i.e., about two years after that speech. If Pearl Harbor hadn't happen, Roosevelt was prepared to make German attacks on American shipping a casus belli.
Did they teach you the history of WW II, or are you just being obnoxious?
Read "The End of Eternity" by Asimov... he also alludes to the episode in other books.
You've got the wrong image.
Once the shares are bought back, they no longer exist. As you surmise, the ownership value of the shares is evenly divided among the remaining shareholders. But that's it. If the company decides to sell new shares, it works in exactly the opposite manner. The company creates new shares and *poof* everyone else's shares lose some of their ownership value. (That's why it takes a vote by shareholders to authorize either share issue or share buy-back.)
What you have to do is keep an eye on the number of "shares outstanding". That's the total number of shares ever isued in all public offerings. The number (1 / shares outstanding) is how much of the company you own when you buy one share. If new shares are sold, "shares outstanding" goes up and your shares go down in value. If shares are bought back, "shares outstanding" goes down and your shares go up in value.
A company can't own itself. (It can be non-owned, however - that's a voluntary association.) If a buy-back is taken far enough, you get down to a point where there are only X investors left and none that are willing to sell. At that point no shares are traded (nobody in the group will sell to each other or anyone else), and the stock is no longer publicly traded, but privately held.
Say everyone but one person uses the buy-back. In that case, 100% of "outstanding shares" are held by the last person (call him Bill), and Bill owns the company (in "fee simple", as the ancient legalese says).
If Bill then "sells" his shares to the company, it's just funny accounting on Bill's ledger book. Bill still owns the company, he's just not describing that ownership in terms of "shares" anymore.
I advise trying "Railroad Tycoon" or reading Heinlein's Time Enough For Love, the section set on New Beginnings; either one will give you a feel for how this works.
>inter(pla)net
I believe the abbreviation that they use is InterPlaNet... I've seen it on some of the IPN graphics. So you're right, they do use that abbrev.
The problem with Baxter is that he's a pessimist about the future of humanity. Read any of his books that project into the future and they will give a picture of a bleak humanity whose goals were crushed by an uncaring universe. And not elements of 'our' universe either, but the plot points that Baxter makes up (usually some alien species).
Friends! Americans! Countrymen! Lend us your code! I come to bury Saddam, not to praise him.
Seriously: the Slate article suggests that Slashdotters could code and contribute to the peace effort in Iraq. Plotz describes a needed update/upgrade to Kingmaker, an old 1970's computer game. Assuming someone could get rights (or reverse-engineer what must be a reasonably simple game, considering that it's a board game), what are the chances that someone could make an open-source version of what DoD and our friends in Iraq need?
powerbarr said:
>I was not aware that Burt Rutan is working on large rocket engines to enable geosynchronous orbit.
Well, he hasn't announced anything yet, and I don't know for certain that he has any designs yet as well. (Rutan is notoriously closed-mouthed about these things). But he has hinted that he has very broad plans beyond the rocket systems (SpaceShipOne/White Knight) that he has now.
Your info on Boeing's attitude on Sea Launch is very interesting and explains much.
Sea Launch is a joint project between Boeing, Energiya Ukrainiya, and a Norwegian company that makes oil platforms. All three are private companies, but they are tightly tied to their respective countries' military-industrial complexes. I'll take Elon Musk or Burt Rutan any day of the week and twice on Sunday over these guys. (Check previous Slashdot stories.)
...is a pilot project of the MBTA that is supposed to work this way (GPS on buses, screens showing 'till next bus times). I haven't ridden it, though, so no word on how well it works. Any Bostonians taken it?
ObLink: www.allaboutsilverline.com
Allen
I assume Mac OS X -- that would be the simplest. It's the only platform I can think of that you *know* will be compatible with both OpenOffice and Microsoft Word.
If all you want is a conceptual, "in-your-head", reasonably math-free treatment of physics, your best pick absolutely has to be Hewitt's _Conceptual Physics_. This guy writes in an easy-to-understand style and uses plenty of graphics and self-drawn cartoons to demonstrate and illustrate. If you "just don't get it" and the math only mucks up your thinking, go for this one.
A good standard AP high school/basic college text would be Serway or Giancoli. (Hint: Serway's cheaper. =-)
The top-of-the-line in easily accessible physics textbooks is definitely the Feynman Lectures on Physics. You'll only get as far as QED (since they were written in the late 50's), but for most people, quantum electrodynamics is as far as they *want* to go. Ol' Dick Feynman will give you the full math treatment, but explains it so clearly and concisely it'll go down like fresh-churned buttermilk. I swear by the Red Books, and I know many a colleague who wouldn't be caught stranded on a desert island without 'em.
1) It is true that 8 glasses of water need not be drunk each day. It *is* true that the equivalent, two liters of fluid, must be consumed -- but food contains 30-50% of the water you need each day.
2) It is true that "being thirsty means you're already dehydrated" is an exaggeration, but it is an intentional one. It means "you're well on the way to being dehyrated". The exaggeration is, I suppose, intended to catch ID10Ts who ignore thirst even during 10-km runs in 110 degree weather. Thirst does kick in well after you have lost plenty of fluid, and once ADH (anti-diuretic hormone, the hormone that controls urine production and volume status) has already risen. These facts, I suppose, are the origin of the common anecdote.
3) "Dark urine doesn't mean you are dehydrated" -- not true. It *is* true that it is difficult to judge from color alone. Despite our 16 million color resolution, it is hard for people to subjectively grade color without experience (i.e. working in a urinalysis lab); thus, judging hydration by urine color alone will have a high error rate and often be inconclusive. Other factors, such as urine contaminants, might make the test less accurate. Along with other clues, however (i.e., being sweaty, thirsty, and tired), it may be useful.
4) "Water intoxication", a peculiar form of hyponatremia (low blood sodium concentration), is *not* mythical. However, it *is* much rarer than dehydration. It takes a special kind of person (read: mentally ill patient) to drink the 25+ glasses of water per day that it requires to achieve this.
5) Studies have shown (sorry, I don't have links, its 0130 around here) that caffinated beverages such as Coke hydrate at about 2/3 the rate of pure water. That is, at Coke concentrations, the caffeine dose is sufficient to cause you to lose 1/3 of the water you just drank as part of the Coke.
6) These indicators -- thirst and dark urine -- are not "myths" and not useless (although they are far from perfect). I happen to know first-hand that some of the best doctors in the United States use these observations in their daily assessments of patients.
7) "Absence of evidence is not equal to evidence of absence." --paraphrased from Carl Sagan
This fellow has done very little experimentation on his own, but simply collected the lack of research combined with evidence from his own student experiments over the years. While this is a provocative article, it is intended to stimulate research, and NOT to be the definitive work on the subject. What's needed (as he states at the end, in A CALL FOR DIALOGUE) is more and better (and better funded, pretty please)nutritional research!
Disclaimer: IANAD (but I am in medical school and work with 'em in hospitals every day; see address.) And yes, I am a geek. Been programmin' since age four (BASIC on a c64), researchin' at MIT. Good enough for youz?
>I detest Osama bin Laden, a man who is the
>bigoted, violent, religiously fanatical, spoiled
>son of a rich oil magnate, who believes he can
>control the world with the threat of war and
>destruction. Hey, wait that sounds like somebody
>else...
Indeed it does. Especially since Osama is the son of a rich construction magnate, not an oil magnate.
Whence comes this idea that if you're rich and Arab, you're in the oil business? Princess Diana's last boyfriend was rich and Arab, but he was in the department store business...
IIRC, the reason Segway/IT/Ginger is "revolutionary" is that it takes no brains whatsoever to operate. Stopping the thing should, in theory, be an instantaneous, reflex reaction.
In theory, at least. I *do* hope they have done sufficient beta-testing.
C3PO-->Dear, oh dear.....
"2. The US$3,000.00 cost for the personal version is way too expensive, IMHO. Kamen should seriously talk with the one company that produce a Segway-like scooter at a reasonable cost: Honda. Using its motorcycle and electric vehicle expertise, Honda could build such a scooter for US$1,800.00 or less per scooter."
IIRC, the U.S. consumer market will be the last market to see Segway/IT/Ginger. He goes after CEO's, gov't, and big business, THEN the overseas market, and finally the US. By that time mass-production will be sufficiently big to drive the price down.
I agree, it'll never work at $3000. But at $500-$1000, it might. And again, IIRC, a lot of the $3000 goes to motherboards, chips, gyros, etc. And we all know what happens to the price of those....
I am most humbly
your obd't servant, but
don't ever tell me what to do,
for I am
Posts recruiting for bin Laden are, of course, not helpful. It would be better for everyone if they were taken down. But I think everyone here agrees that censorship powers should NOT be given to the government. So how can we (legally) get rid of such?
(1) E-mail the ISP and ask for the message to be taken down. Self-policing of the Net!
(2) Have the government request (without threatening anything) that the messages be taken down.
(3) *ONLY IF SUCH ACTIVITY CONTINUES AND FORMS A PATTERN* _Gently_ suggest that if many messages of this type appear, the ISP could be under suspicion of *aiding the terrorists*. Do *not* even *think* about using any laws as curbs on freedom of speech or privacy. The government *will* be using every possible resource to track these sons of you-know-what down. But we should be sure that such powers do *not* spill over into other areas.
Amen, brother. I submitted that story too, and got rejected too.
By Godwin's Law, pro-research forces have therefore won. The President simply took note of this and applied political "wisdom".
So why not ask for their consent? Like this:
(1) User A, who has clue, downloads the patch and fix.
(2) Fix, as a part of the fix, scans his files to determine where infective packets have been sent.
(3) Fix requests: "Send this fix package to those who have been infected? y/n"
(4) If yes, fix zaps to chosen people. (Email, ftp, whatever.)
(5) Email says to clueless user B, "I have been sent by such-and-such because his computer indicated that you were attacked and/or infected by $INFECTIVE_PROGRAM."
(6) Fix says, "My authenticity can be verified by going to website blah-blah-blah, and downloading X program." Or perhaps there is no attachment to the email, and it links you to the website to download the fix.
(7) User B, now clued, downloads the fix and runs it. Process iterates.
Unless the box is moldering in a closet somewhere and hasn't been touched in months, this system should get through to all infected users eventually. And best of all, it's TOTALLY VOLUNTARY on each and every user's part.
Comments?
GOOD: Detection of crappy drivers. Collecting and disseminating data on what works and what doesn't is a GoodThing[tm]. An automatic warning that a driver is incompatible with the OS also appears to be a popular idea. (Perhaps the Linux companies should co-opt this concept?)
GOOD: Having the option, as a network administrator, to disable crash-prone drivers and prevent their installation.
GOOD: Forcing administrators of legacy software to remove bugs caused by the switch in operating systems. Bringing code up to spec is a GoodThing[tm].
BAD: Microsoft having the power to deny YOU the ability to program your box as you choose. This strikes many /. readers as fascist.
BAD: Microsoft snarfing your entire core dump -- thus having the ability to know what you do and do not have on your computer. Sort of like the local supermarket being able to track your buying habits with their SuperSaver cards.
BAD: Microsoft's known, documented, and illegal penchant for using their code as a monopolistic weapon. DR-DOS is the most widely mentioned victim of this tactic, but there have been many others. By writing their code in a certain way, Microsoft can make $PROGRAM crash repeatedly. $PROGRAM will thus appear on the blacklist, and Microsoft can then (remotely and instantaneously!) disable $PROGRAM, "as a public service". Look for blacklistings to appear in conjunction with Windows Updates with matching functionality...
CONCLUSION: Microsoft should include a checkbox in XP allowing the user/admin, if they so choose, to disable this "helpful" feature.
Some of the things listed above could be automated, or a program could be set up, run by the administrator, that auto-LARTs those who do stupid stuff like this. For example:
...I do believe that both M$ and Linux have automated these. The others could be easily automated. Probably should be....
I have to agree. The project, now brought this far, MUST be finished. (Although a Big Can habitat would go a long way towards that goal.)
This is, of course, a result of:(1) lack of leadership by either NASA or the big aerospace companies, and
(2) a lack of funding, public or private, to do what really needs to be done to resolve the issue: trying everything.
Somewhere out there is the right technology. But, somehow, it seems that it is in no one's interest to build it. (Except, perhaps, the Europeans or someone else who would dearly love to put all of us out of business, and have the dollars to research it properly.)
X-33 was a good design (although, IMHO, Delta Clipper was better). The problem with both wasn't the design, but lack of leadership. And I don't mean the President. I mean the NASA bueuracracy, and the executives of Boeing, and, yes, the advocacy groups that heckled it from start to finish. We need to stop pestering each other and come together to build something. If only we could agree on what that is. Maybe a National Academy of Sciences study would help.
OTOH, maybe not. We got an NAS study on Triana, and look what happened to it.
Zubrin's "blindspot", as you say, is not only directed at Space Station ops. He is in disgust at any space program whose costs and ops are comprimised by political decisions. In that, he no different from any other Engineer Indignant At Management's Mistakes.
If you (a) complete Case for Mars and (b) read the sequel, Entering Space, then you discover that:
(1) Zubrin also directs his invective at his former employer, Lockheed Martin, for refusing to attempt cheap development of SSTO's. (I'm not surprised. Construction companies are not in the transportation business, they are in the CONSTRUCTION business. It is in Lockheed Martin's interest not to build SSTO's. Which is why it was eminently stupid to give the X-33 SSTO development project to them.)
(2) Zubrin doesn't hate the station, he hates waste. In his (logical) opinion, the Station should have been built with Shuttle-C (the never-built Cargo Shuttle, with payload replacing the orbiter) and Aldrin's Big Cans. Such a Station would take more crew EVA time, but many, many fewer launches.
(3) However, Zubrin *does* have a tendency to hammer his point home far beyond the point at which he has convinced you. Grit your teeth, bear it, and dig through his work for the science and engineering. You'll find it rather thorough and thought-provoking.
TTFN
The Russian Duma, being of a significantly more nationalist and less realistic bent than the Kremlin, is continually attempting to ignore reality with respect to their space program. Check the link at http://www.nasawatch.com to Pravda, where an official communication of the Duma has already asked for the RASA (Russian Aeronautics and Space Administration) chief's head for allowing their station to go down.
Other interesting points to take away from their communique:
* They absolutely refuse to consider the possibility that they didn't have the money to keep Mir operational or even in a safe orbit.
* They already want a new station. Never mind that there were only four core modules built: The MIR core module, now half-melted in the South Pacific; the training module, sitting in Star City and needed for ISS training; the Zvezda service module (which is an updated MIR core module); and the mock-up, sitting in a museum (not sure which). Remember how much trouble getting Zvezda built was?
* Remember how like pulling teeth it was to get the money for Zvezda out of the *very same Duma*? They want the nationalism and prestige of a space program, but they don't want to pay for it. They want to pay for MIR 2 by "letting the Americans pay our share of ISS costs". Let's think about this a second... we just found out that *we* are overbudget, we are stretching *our* contribution out to who knows when (2007 for completion now? 2008?), and they want us to pay their whole share, so they can throw up a competing station? On what planet do these people think they are living on?
* They are concerned about insane things like "we can't use the ISS for military purposes". (Exactly how did they use Mir for military purposes? Skylab? Salyut? Spy satellites and commsats are *so* much more cost efficient for military use that this isn't even funny.)
The general Russian thought on ISS comes down to something like this:
RUSSIAN DUMA: What happen?
RUSSIAN MISSION CONTROL: Someone set up us the re-entry!
RUSSIAN MISSION CONTROL: We get signal from Houston.
RUSSIAN DUMA: What!
RUSSIAN MISSION CONTROL: Main screen turn on.
AMERICAN MISSION CONTROL: How are you gentlemen!!
AMERICAN MISSION CONTROL: All your space stations are belong to us.
RUSSIAN DUMA: What you say??
AMERICAN MISSION CONTROL: You are on the path to insignificance.
AMERICAN MISSION CONTROL: You have no chance to economically recover make your time.
RUSSIAN DUMA: Take off every 'MIR 2'.
RUSSIAN DUMA: You know what you doing.
RUSSIAN DUMA: Move 'MIR 2' for great justice.
This is so close to the typical Duma member's thought patterns that I can't decide if it's funny or not....
Your friendly neighborhood nitpicker,
Allen Bryan,
> Or is this just a proof-of-concept sort of thing? Yes. RTF Website.