Also note that she said "strong indications of life" not actually finding definitive proof of life. I think she's probably talking something along the lines of a spectrum analysis finding a chemical in the atmosphere of a foreign body that's associated with life, or finding some microbes on Europa or something. But if we're going to do it by 2025, we'll need some pretty huge leaps forward, and very fast. And the idea that we'll be putting anyone on Mars by 2025 is laughable. Maybe 2125, and even that's unlikely given the current funding levels of most space programs.
Stofan thinks putting astronauts on Mars will be a big part of that goal.
In that case, you're going to be in for a VERY long wait. Man may one day set foot on Mars, but it won't be any time within our liftetimes, and they won't be wearing a NASA patch on their spacesuit.
(one in a million pilots homicidal? replace pilots with computers!).
I just got a flashback to the opening scenes of Wargames, when the Pentagon's response to the humanity of their nuclear launch commanders was to replace them with an automated system. They expected the automated system to be perfect, and a much better alternative to squishy emotional humans. I mean, it's TECHNOLOGY, right? What could possibly go wrong?
When humans make mistakes, they are generally far more rational and adaptable than a computer when it comes to recognizing them and making corrections. When a computer fucks up, it will usually chug right along on a clearly irrational path until some human steps in and reboots the fucking thing.
The airlines must not believe the tech is there
on
Planes Without Pilots
·
· Score: 1
If they did, they would already have automated cargo planes.
In some government departmets corruption is so prevalent that the honest people are not trusted. That if you didn't take bribes everyone else in the office treated you with suspicion, that because you weren't as vulnerable as them to possible criminal charges they thought you might rat them out. You basically couldn't get your job done because no one wanted to have anything to do with you.
There is actually an expression for that in American English: "Go along to get along." I've heard it used mostly in reference to police corruption.
If Obama would stop warning the Israelis off of bombing the shit out Iranian enrichment plants (and actively denying them airspace travel through Iraq to do it), this whole question would have been settled long ago.
Only if the question is "How do we even further destabilize the middle east, and possibly start WWIII?"
They're going to get nuclear weapons if there ISN'T a deal. Rejecting the deal will only assure it. At lease this deal gives us a chance to stall it, or maybe make some headway on becoming finally more friendly. You know "friendly," as in they're one of only two allies who can help to really fight Isis (the other being the Assad regime in Syria). "Friendly" as in WE FUCKING NEED THEM.
The only other option is to go to war with them and overthrow the government. And we saw how wonderfully that turned out in Iraq, didn't we?
So, are you going to add another state to the caliphate or deal?
From the second the GW Bush made his crazy ill-advised "Axis of Evil" speech and then proceeded to invade one of those Axis members, it was pretty much guaranteed that Iran and North Korea would pursue nukes (and NK has already succeeded). They're not stupid. They know nukes are the only way to assure you won't be invaded or overthrown by the U.S.
So if you don't suck up to Iran and give them a deal that says "We're not going to invade you if you'll just play ball," then it's really only a matter of time. Mossad can car-bomb all the scientists it wants. The U.S. can release a hundred Stuxnets. But eventually it WILL happen.
So if you don't give them a deal, you're really only assuring it. Now, maybe they'll still do it anyway. But at least this way there is a CHANCE they won't.
in Canada if you sell a digital good to a customer you must continue and provide access to it if you do not provide a physical media.
I'm curious how they plan to enforce that when a company goes out of business and is liquidated. Issue a summons to their old HQ building, informing anyone inside that they must keep the servers running? Find all the former employees at their new companies and tell them they have to get the old band back together or else? Send a harshly-worded letter to the people who bought the old servers at auction?
About the only practical thing they could do would be to demand that the company issue customer refunds in the final days before it goes belly-up. But if the company is bankrupt, it's unlikely customers will see any of that money once the creditors are done with whatever's left.
And when it happens, they won't be able to do any of the things they have promised because someone else is calling the shots and they no longer have any say in it.
Not to mention the fact that, unless Valve has had the foresight to put it in their contracts with the game publishers already, it would likely be illegal for them to do without the publishers' permission.
1) Either you're too stupid to realize that this data was backed up in about a million places by the time you destroyed it, or 2) You're a bunch of spiteful dicks.
1) Because a bunch of old corrupt Batista cronies down in Miami want their slave plantations back. 2) Because JFK wanted to show how much he hated commies 3) Because the CIA is still butthurt over Castro showing them up for decades.
Somewhere along the way, the "writers" that foist these lame stories missed that the whole point of April Fools Day is to actually FOOL people (with stories that are plausible enough to sucker some people in). Any idiot can write a fake story. But a good fake story that's actually just plausible enough to have people repeating it and believing it, THAT'S what it's about.
A Trekker, a Trekkie, and a Vulcan walk into a bar.
"Wow, that's a pretty girl over there," says the Trekkie.
"I calculate her body mass at approximately 45 Kg, with an estimated distance from us of 5.35 meters. I also find her behavior most illogical and perplexing, I've therefore determined that it is logical for us to avoid her," another responds.
"And I really have to get back to Vulcan," responds the third.
Slashdot Mirror
Also note that she said "strong indications of life" not actually finding definitive proof of life. I think she's probably talking something along the lines of a spectrum analysis finding a chemical in the atmosphere of a foreign body that's associated with life, or finding some microbes on Europa or something. But if we're going to do it by 2025, we'll need some pretty huge leaps forward, and very fast. And the idea that we'll be putting anyone on Mars by 2025 is laughable. Maybe 2125, and even that's unlikely given the current funding levels of most space programs.
Stofan thinks putting astronauts on Mars will be a big part of that goal.
In that case, you're going to be in for a VERY long wait. Man may one day set foot on Mars, but it won't be any time within our liftetimes, and they won't be wearing a NASA patch on their spacesuit.
Uh...I just got out of some very cold water, but normally, it would be HUGE, I swear.
(one in a million pilots homicidal? replace pilots with computers!).
I just got a flashback to the opening scenes of Wargames, when the Pentagon's response to the humanity of their nuclear launch commanders was to replace them with an automated system. They expected the automated system to be perfect, and a much better alternative to squishy emotional humans. I mean, it's TECHNOLOGY, right? What could possibly go wrong?
When humans make mistakes, they are generally far more rational and adaptable than a computer when it comes to recognizing them and making corrections. When a computer fucks up, it will usually chug right along on a clearly irrational path until some human steps in and reboots the fucking thing.
If they did, they would already have automated cargo planes.
In some government departmets corruption is so prevalent that the honest people are not trusted. That if you didn't take bribes everyone else in the office treated you with suspicion, that because you weren't as vulnerable as them to possible criminal charges they thought you might rat them out. You basically couldn't get your job done because no one wanted to have anything to do with you.
There is actually an expression for that in American English: "Go along to get along." I've heard it used mostly in reference to police corruption.
If Obama would stop warning the Israelis off of bombing the shit out Iranian enrichment plants (and actively denying them airspace travel through Iraq to do it), this whole question would have been settled long ago.
Only if the question is "How do we even further destabilize the middle east, and possibly start WWIII?"
If they're really that determined, they're going to get nukes anyway. At least this way they can use some of that money to fight Isis.
Pretty bad. But I'm pretty sure an insult to Republicans in Congress won't cause them to build nuclear weapons.
What aren't you in prison, rotting right next to all the other NSA leaders who betrayed their country and its Constitution?
They're going to get nuclear weapons if there ISN'T a deal. Rejecting the deal will only assure it. At lease this deal gives us a chance to stall it, or maybe make some headway on becoming finally more friendly. You know "friendly," as in they're one of only two allies who can help to really fight Isis (the other being the Assad regime in Syria). "Friendly" as in WE FUCKING NEED THEM.
The only other option is to go to war with them and overthrow the government. And we saw how wonderfully that turned out in Iraq, didn't we?
So, are you going to add another state to the caliphate or deal?
From the second the GW Bush made his crazy ill-advised "Axis of Evil" speech and then proceeded to invade one of those Axis members, it was pretty much guaranteed that Iran and North Korea would pursue nukes (and NK has already succeeded). They're not stupid. They know nukes are the only way to assure you won't be invaded or overthrown by the U.S.
So if you don't suck up to Iran and give them a deal that says "We're not going to invade you if you'll just play ball," then it's really only a matter of time. Mossad can car-bomb all the scientists it wants. The U.S. can release a hundred Stuxnets. But eventually it WILL happen.
So if you don't give them a deal, you're really only assuring it. Now, maybe they'll still do it anyway. But at least this way there is a CHANCE they won't.
In China's defense, they did post clearly marked "No Swimming" signs.
in Canada if you sell a digital good to a customer you must continue and provide access to it if you do not provide a physical media.
I'm curious how they plan to enforce that when a company goes out of business and is liquidated. Issue a summons to their old HQ building, informing anyone inside that they must keep the servers running? Find all the former employees at their new companies and tell them they have to get the old band back together or else? Send a harshly-worded letter to the people who bought the old servers at auction?
About the only practical thing they could do would be to demand that the company issue customer refunds in the final days before it goes belly-up. But if the company is bankrupt, it's unlikely customers will see any of that money once the creditors are done with whatever's left.
And when it happens, they won't be able to do any of the things they have promised because someone else is calling the shots and they no longer have any say in it.
Not to mention the fact that, unless Valve has had the foresight to put it in their contracts with the game publishers already, it would likely be illegal for them to do without the publishers' permission.
Take your pick GCHQ:
1) Either you're too stupid to realize that this data was backed up in about a million places by the time you destroyed it, or
2) You're a bunch of spiteful dicks.
But traveling to Cuba is illegal for some reason.
There are three perfectly good reasons.
1) Because a bunch of old corrupt Batista cronies down in Miami want their slave plantations back.
2) Because JFK wanted to show how much he hated commies
3) Because the CIA is still butthurt over Castro showing them up for decades.
The hell you say!
Why do we *need* to travel at all?
Because most people would regard never leaving their house as a sign of mental illness.
Still a pretty big "if" there.
Somewhere along the way, the "writers" that foist these lame stories missed that the whole point of April Fools Day is to actually FOOL people (with stories that are plausible enough to sucker some people in). Any idiot can write a fake story. But a good fake story that's actually just plausible enough to have people repeating it and believing it, THAT'S what it's about.
A Trekker, a Trekkie, and a Vulcan walk into a bar.
"Wow, that's a pretty girl over there," says the Trekkie.
"I calculate her body mass at approximately 45 Kg, with an estimated distance from us of 5.35 meters. I also find her behavior most illogical and perplexing, I've therefore determined that it is logical for us to avoid her," another responds.
"And I really have to get back to Vulcan," responds the third.
Well, Maine promises to bring their new solar plant online just as soon as the clouds break.
It was probably funny the first time it was celebrated, maybe even the second or third. Now it's just tedious and unfunny.