Hint: Sony, as a corporation, has adopted the position that they should be able to do whatever they wish to your updateable systems in order to protect their corporate interests.
My position on this is clear: That's fine. I will, quite simply, not buy *any* Sony product whatsoever until I see compelling evidence that this has changed.
This camera could give me free beer (as in FREE BEER! WOO!) and I still wouldn't buy it -- because that gives capital to a company who wants to control what my devices do, and will install, without permission, software to enable this.
So. You guys still buying Playstations can just shut up about the DRM issues. Sony certianly doesn't care about your opinions. You're still buying their stuff.
I won't. Period.
So, again.
No thanks. It's a Sony.
At least I'm still polite. Come next year (and the next rootkit DRM), it'll be "Fuck no, it's a Sony."
And, you know, let's look at a prediction he made at the start of 2005:
3) Apple will take a big risk in 2005. This could be in the form of a major acquisition. With almost $6 billion in cash, Steve Jobs hinted to a group of employees not long ago that he might want to buy something big, though I am at a loss right now for what that might be.
You can't say that he was right about it being a major acquisition, but he was *dead on* on the heart of the prediction.
And that cash pile is what's going to keep Apple going during the transition, given the fact Job obsoleted the entire product line.
That bezel looks exactly like a Model M -- keys are in the same place, LED bank is identical, even has the channel around the key banks to collect extra grime.
I'm wondering if they built the mold, or if they bought one.
If it is, in fact, a Model M with blank keycaps and the extra Win keys (that can be mapped to something useful), then I'd pay $79 for it, with or without letters.
S'truth, that. The more/. hates an Apple product, the better it sells. See "What fool buys a computer without a floppy?" and "Who would pay $250 for a 4GB iPod? Nobody!"
I'm kind of worried about this theoretical iMac -- enough posters have been positive about it that it may fail.
Can anyone think of an airport that has a GPS approach pattern but no ILS?
Hundreds, if not thousands. Large commerical airports have full ILS on most, if not all[1], of their runways and offer precision approaches[2] on them. Most also have Category II or III ILS approaches on some runways, for when visibility is very bad. (Cat IIIC approaches are the holy grail, Ceiling 0, Visibility 0, RVR 0 landings. There are very few Cat IIIC runways in the world right now. I digress.)
But ILS is expensive to maintain and monitor -- and you have to monitor it. A glideslope that isn't right kills people. So, most GA airports have at most one runway that offers full ILS, many don't have any ILS approaches at all.
GPS approaches, however, don't need hardware at the runways. You just publish a path, and install a reciever at the tower to alert you if something's wrong with GPS. Of course, GPS approaches are currently non-precision. The Local Area Augmentation System for GPS promises to change that. It does involve more equipment at the airport, but you don't need equipment at each runway, and monitoring is much simpler (set up a couple of LAAS GPS boxen about, and have them scream loudly if the report a position that differs from true by a certain amount.)
Many current GPS systems have WAAS -- this is built for aircraft enroute, not landing, so it can't be used for precision approaches. Scope out your local airports on AirNav and you'll see that many tiny airports have GPS approaches for all of their runways -- and an increasing number have only GPS approaches. Other approaches need more (and more expensive) hardware at the airport.
1) Runway 4R at ORD, for example, doesn't have a glideslope, only a localizer. ORD doesn't land planes on 4R for a variety of reasons, so installing and maintaining the full ILS isn't worth the cost. The localizer is there for back-course use, typically in missed ILS approaches on 22L.
2) Precision means you have glideslope information, thus, can land in IFR conditions. Non precision approaches are VFR only.
Amendment IX says that "Just because we've enumerated these rights does not mean that we have enumerated all the rights." It does not say "Anything we didn't mention is a right of the people." Amendment X is irrelevant -- it deals with the powers of the federal government, not with the rights of the people.
The problems is this -- the Constitution, as amended....
1) Does not say that there is a right to privacy (no mention) 2) Does not say that there cannot be a right to privacy. (Amendment IX)
Therefore, the only conclusion that can be drawn from the Constitution is:
C) There may, or may not be, a right to privacy.
People always assume that Amendment IX automatically grants any right they wish. This is wrong. It just prevents the courts from automatically denying a right because it wasn't listed. The courts *can* deny that rights exist, but need to do so based on the body of law -- of which the Constitution is *only* a part. It's the supreme part, but it is not the whole body of law.
The right of privacy has come about only through judicial and legislative action -- and may well go away from that same action.
And the WFPC2 was installed in 1993, and was built about 1991. How many kilopixles did your digital camera have back then.
The Advanced Camera for Surveys, built between 1996 and 1999, was installed in 2000. It has a 4096x4096 pixel detector.
Where was your 16 megapixel camera in 1999?
The replacement for the WFPC2, the Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC), will also have a 4096x4096 detector, along with a 10Mpix IR detector. Both of these sensors are of much higher quality than a consumer CCD.
Well, the part that connect the cranks is called the crank spindle. It rides on the bottom bracket bearings, one fixed, one adjustable. In the old days, these were cup races, with the other half of the race being on the spindle, with loose ball bearings. Nowadays, the bearings are in cartridges, and the only adjustment needed is for centering.
The bottom bracket proper is the tube that the down tube, seat tube and chainstays connect to, and that the cranks revolve around. However, it has become common to also refer the bearing/spindle assembly that is installed into the bottom bracket as a bottom bracket, short for bottom bracket set -- similar to the bearings installed in the head tube, called the head set.
You've never served food to a racing cyclist, have you? Do *not* get between a Tdf racer and his morning vat of pasta.
But, yeah -- you've got a real point. My defintion of poser. I'm a large guy. I ride a steel framed touring bike -- fairly heavy, built to haul lots and lots of gear.
If you weigh half what I do, and are riding a bike that costs twice what I paid -- and I pass you, you are a poser. I pass you on a climb, you just suck.
For once, here's a system that I think RFID is really meant for.
The problem with barcodes is that they have to be scanned. They're passive, and it takes time to stop, grab a scanner, and hit the barcode.
The biggest cause of misrouted bags is time crunches -- somebody rushing to get the bag onto a flight, not stopping to find a scanner to scan in, misreading the three letter code, and throwing it onto the wrong belt, cart, or into the wrong plane.
Ideally, you'd have RFID boxes on the belts, the carts -- and in the cargo doors (for narrowbodies) and the LD-3 loading station (for widebodies.) that's programmed to know what flight(s) are invovled, and sets off an alarm when a tag doesn't match. So, if they're rushing, and they read "LAS" (McCarran International Airport, Las Vegas), the beeper on the cargo door goes off, they look again, and see that, no, it is really "LAX" (Los Angeles International), and *not* put the bag on the Las Vegas flight.
Even if the LAX flight has already left, this is a better answer. It is far easier to fix the "Bag Didn't Make The Flight" error (you put the bag on the next flight) than it is to fix the "Bag Went On The Wrong Fight" error, since there may not be a direct flight from the bag's current destination and the bag's correct destination.
This particular error is quite common -- esp. when someone has been working one of the two flights, and gets a bag for the other. They see "L" and "A" and, having seen "S" for the last hour, don't bother to parse the "X" at the end.
As to privacy concerns? As long as the tag is on the bag for one trip only, it is no worse than barcode. Indeed, your nametag often gives away *more* privacy information than your trip tag -- and it is always there. (Get one of those tags you have to open up, and if you are employed, put your work address on the bag.)
Another issue -- a bag is loaded onto a plane, but the passenger isn't onboard. Nowadays, this means that they have to pull the bag. Right now, this means wading through a loaded bay or container to find it. With a handled RFID box, you can at least get close to the bag quickly.
This is an application where a well build RFID system could make a very real improvment in luggage handling -- for both the passengers and airlines.
I've said it once and I'll say it again, Bayesian filers is the solution.
No, it's not. Filtering is merely automating "just hit delete." It still gets sent, it still travels the wires to your box, it still hits your spool.
The core argument against spam is that it shoves the costs of advertising onto the recipents. That's why we said that "just hitting delete" wasn't an acceptable answer.
Now, you're singing "Just use Baysian to delete for you." Same spam on the wire, same hit on the spool, same copy to/dev/null -- and worse, now you're spinning extra cycles to scan the mail.
Just hit delete means you kill 1000 this month -- and 10000 a year later. I'm tired of paying for bandwidth that spammers use. I'm tired of throwing cycles at SpamAssassin to trap the spam.
Filtering is not an answer. Filtering is a bandage -- and it's one that's soaking through.
"The most critical mistake: designing a spaceship to fly horizontally like an airplane but launching it vertically like a rocket."
I agree with you, and the experts, why the hell does a spaceship need wings?
To land in a specific place? The Apollo capsules had a whole fleet spread across the Pacific to retrieve it and the crew.
The problem with the Shuttle that flies today is simple -- the specifications, part NASA, part DOD, specifiy a mission that requires the use of attached booster rockets. Namely...
1) The cargo bay is too large, and,
2) The cross range capability is extreme.
Why? The Air Force insisted that the Shuttle be able to, in one orbit, take off from Vandenburg AFB, put a KH-11 or similar sat into orbit (or retrive one) and land back at Vandeburg. The problem with this is that in one orbit, Vandeburg moves quite a way, since the earth is rotating.
So, the huge bay was needed to handle the KH-11s, and the very large OMS engines were needed to get the Shuttle back to Vandenburg in one orbit.
Drop these two requirements, and you can cut the OMS system by a half, the payload bay by at least a third, and, suddenly, you don't *need* the SRBs anymore. Indeed, the flyaway liquid fueled boosters become a possibility. You can drop one of the SSMEs off the craft, as well -- and lose the structure needed to hold it. And so forth -- or, even better, ride flyaways almost all the way up, and just have one SSME take you to orbit. Less OMS means less fuel tankage to deal with. And so forth.
NASA wanted about 10 Billion in 1975 to build the Shuttle. They were told that they were getting 5. They said that they weren't even going to try -- it wouldn't work. DOD said that they'd be interested in the Shuttle as a military craft, with a few modifications and a couple of extra mission requirements, and wouldn't protest the extra budget money. So, the deal was made -- DOD got the huge cargo bay and the cross range capability, and NASA got the money to build it. Alas, they ended up with an impossible spec to build to -- and were only able to make it work with the SRBs and 3 SSMEs.
NASA's biggest mistake with the Shuttle was taking that deal.
Not hardly. All three Skylab missions and the Apollo Soyuz rendezvous used the 3-man Apollo capsule, launched on Saturn I-B boosters. If the photo was taken in 1974, it would have been the return of the Skylab 3, on February 8th, 1974.
The final use of the Apollo CM was the flight of the Apollo 18 CM as part of the Apollo-Soyuz flight. She flew on July 15, 1975, and returned on July 24, 1975.
Well, the historical reasons for morse are many, but the reason for the 5WPM requirement (and it used to much harder -- the top classes required 20WPM) was treaty.
Long distance HF bands aren't useful, unless everyone agrees what those bands are -- no use having the US hams on 40M, if the UK is using that same band for broadcast. So, the amatuer bands were set by treaty. This treaty also had a morse requirement. However, this year, the World Radiocommuncation Conference, held every so often to review things like this, dropped the code requirements for the HF bands.
I agree that Morse as a requirement has passed it's time. It is a bandwidth efficent and noise resistant mode -- but there are better now, such as PSK31. I've copied 90% of a PSK31 transmission that was so weak I could barely see it on a waterfall display -- never mind actually hearing it.
Note that eliminating the Morse code requirement wouldn't eliminate Morse code from the bands. There are segements of the ham bands that are CW only. Those who work with low power (QRP) are very fond of CW morse.
Supporting flamers, in *any* constructive debate, is wrong.
Flamers are the conversation equivalent of terrorists. Rather than offer reasonable explanations of why they are right, or more often, rather than thinking about the statements presented in case they might be wrong, they simple resort to bombast, ad hominem attacks, or the insult direct. By doing so, they are simply trying to avoid any discussion that *might* impinge on some cherished belief.
If you resort to flames, you *lose*. You are showing that you are not mature enough to accept criticism, or your are not confident enough in your position to defend it. Instead, you whip out the "You suck, Microserf" and chuckle at the enormity of your own wit. Of course, everyone else watching knows that you are just another doltish member of the human race that can't be bothered to state disagreements in a conversational tone, and won't be bothered with defending them with facts and logic.
Anyone can flame someone. Most people who read/. could probably write a script that will flame for them. Rational beings, however, don't need that. They can state their positions in clear, concise language, and defend them in clear, concise language. Finally, they can admit that they are wrong at times.
Think about it. If something somebody writes pisses you off, ask yourself "Why? Why do a few words on a computer screen anger me?" Then craft a reply. If the guy is wrong, prove it. "You SUCK!" is *not* proof. Futhermore, don't even resort to straw men. Simply state why the guy is wrong, give cites/proof, and walk away. If he flames back, you'll both know who lost.
If your lucky, that person will respond back in clear, lucid tones, and you can have a discussion. This betters both of you, and you might walk away from the computer that day a little wiser, and with one more person to count as a acquaintance, a colleague, or maybe even as a friend. That's the power of communication. That's the power of internetworking. It's another tool of interaction, and flamers want to control that. Don't let them. Don't play thier game. Just calmly state your position, and walk away.
Those are good balance points. I would call it this way..
If Slashdot doesn't have any outgoing arrows, then it's special should be a free action.
So, modify the card above to no outgoing arrows, and make/.ing a free action, once per turn. Increase the POW to 2, since it's not useful in the attack, and leave the NW power bonus at x3, which would make it hard to take/. away from the network, which is poetic...
Special: Once a turn, owner may declare a given group "Slashdotted." This group may not attack, lend power to an attack, or grant money to an attack. If attacked, no money can be spent on defense by anyone other than the group itself, but defender's power is doubled (hard to attack a site you can't reach)
If owned by the network, Slashdot POW triples (3).
(Notes: Pow and money are weak, because the special is strong, and historical concerns. This really needs to be tested in a game-the power may be a little to strong. Pow modifier is a beta idea-/. should become more effective if combined with the network, but how much so depends. A POW 3 card with a special is a pretty potent card. 2 Outgoing arrows is another way to restrict power-game balance is important)
Man I hope KSC doesn't get damaged...all four Space Shuttles are there.
And the shelters (OPF-Orbiter Processor Facilities) that the STSes are in are only rated to 105mph sustained winds. The VAB is a little better, rated to 125mph sustained, but a direct hit by Floyd would be bad. KSC is currently at "HURCON II" (gotta love that name!), more info on what that means at KENNEDY SPACE CENTER HURRICANE PLAN SUMMARY
Social graces are irrelevant. Politeness and the expression and the care for emotions leads to inefficiency
Fie! Social graces are the packet headers of everyday life. You don't just walk up to people and shout information. "Excuse me" is the english version of the TCP/IP SYN flag. "Hello my name is..." badges are merely the world-at-large's version of a source field. The social graces let strangers communicate without conflict-and when they are ignored or misinterpreted... off to the bit-bucket (or is that gib-bucket?)
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, my first flamebait *and* troll. Cool.
Perhaps I should explain.
Hint: Sony, as a corporation, has adopted the position that they should be able to do whatever they wish to your updateable systems in order to protect their corporate interests.
My position on this is clear: That's fine. I will, quite simply, not buy *any* Sony product whatsoever until I see compelling evidence that this has changed.
This camera could give me free beer (as in FREE BEER! WOO!) and I still wouldn't buy it -- because that gives capital to a company who wants to control what my devices do, and will install, without permission, software to enable this.
So. You guys still buying Playstations can just shut up about the DRM issues. Sony certianly doesn't care about your opinions. You're still buying their stuff.
I won't. Period.
So, again.
No thanks. It's a Sony.
At least I'm still polite. Come next year (and the next rootkit DRM), it'll be "Fuck no, it's a Sony."
Sorry, it's a Sony. Not interested.
And, you know, let's look at a prediction he made at the start of 2005:
3) Apple will take a big risk in 2005. This could be in the form of a major acquisition. With almost $6 billion in cash, Steve Jobs hinted to a group of employees not long ago that he might want to buy something big, though I am at a loss right now for what that might be.
You can't say that he was right about it being a major acquisition, but he was *dead on* on the heart of the prediction.
And that cash pile is what's going to keep Apple going during the transition, given the fact Job obsoleted the entire product line.
That bezel looks exactly like a Model M -- keys are in the same place, LED bank is identical, even has the channel around the key banks to collect extra grime.
I'm wondering if they built the mold, or if they bought one.
If it is, in fact, a Model M with blank keycaps and the extra Win keys (that can be mapped to something useful), then I'd pay $79 for it, with or without letters.
S'truth, that. The more /. hates an Apple product, the better it sells. See "What fool buys a computer without a floppy?" and "Who would pay $250 for a 4GB iPod? Nobody!"
I'm kind of worried about this theoretical iMac -- enough posters have been positive about it that it may fail.
Can anyone think of an airport that has a GPS approach pattern but no ILS?
Hundreds, if not thousands. Large commerical airports have full ILS on most, if not all[1], of their runways and offer precision approaches[2] on them. Most also have Category II or III ILS approaches on some runways, for when visibility is very bad. (Cat IIIC approaches are the holy grail, Ceiling 0, Visibility 0, RVR 0 landings. There are very few Cat IIIC runways in the world right now. I digress.)
But ILS is expensive to maintain and monitor -- and you have to monitor it. A glideslope that isn't right kills people. So, most GA airports have at most one runway that offers full ILS, many don't have any ILS approaches at all.
GPS approaches, however, don't need hardware at the runways. You just publish a path, and install a reciever at the tower to alert you if something's wrong with GPS. Of course, GPS approaches are currently non-precision. The Local Area Augmentation System for GPS promises to change that. It does involve more equipment at the airport, but you don't need equipment at each runway, and monitoring is much simpler (set up a couple of LAAS GPS boxen about, and have them scream loudly if the report a position that differs from true by a certain amount.)
Many current GPS systems have WAAS -- this is built for aircraft enroute, not landing, so it can't be used for precision approaches. Scope out your local airports on AirNav and you'll see that many tiny airports have GPS approaches for all of their runways -- and an increasing number have only GPS approaches. Other approaches need more (and more expensive) hardware at the airport.
1) Runway 4R at ORD, for example, doesn't have a glideslope, only a localizer. ORD doesn't land planes on 4R for a variety of reasons, so installing and maintaining the full ILS isn't worth the cost. The localizer is there for back-course use, typically in missed ILS approaches on 22L.
2) Precision means you have glideslope information, thus, can land in IFR conditions. Non precision approaches are VFR only.
No, you didn't.
Amendment IX says that "Just because we've enumerated these rights does not mean that we have enumerated all the rights." It does not say "Anything we didn't mention is a right of the people." Amendment X is irrelevant -- it deals with the powers of the federal government, not with the rights of the people.
The problems is this -- the Constitution, as amended....
1) Does not say that there is a right to privacy (no mention)
2) Does not say that there cannot be a right to privacy. (Amendment IX)
Therefore, the only conclusion that can be drawn from the Constitution is:
C) There may, or may not be, a right to privacy.
People always assume that Amendment IX automatically grants any right they wish. This is wrong. It just prevents the courts from automatically denying a right because it wasn't listed. The courts *can* deny that rights exist, but need to do so based on the body of law -- of which the Constitution is *only* a part. It's the supreme part, but it is not the whole body of law.
The right of privacy has come about only through judicial and legislative action -- and may well go away from that same action.
And the WFPC2 was installed in 1993, and was built about 1991. How many kilopixles did your digital camera have back then.
The Advanced Camera for Surveys, built between 1996 and 1999, was installed in 2000. It has a 4096x4096 pixel detector.
Where was your 16 megapixel camera in 1999?
The replacement for the WFPC2, the Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC), will also have a 4096x4096 detector, along with a 10Mpix IR detector. Both of these sensors are of much higher quality than a consumer CCD.
Well, the part that connect the cranks is called the crank spindle. It rides on the bottom bracket bearings, one fixed, one adjustable. In the old days, these were cup races, with the other half of the race being on the spindle, with loose ball bearings. Nowadays, the bearings are in cartridges, and the only adjustment needed is for centering.
The bottom bracket proper is the tube that the down tube, seat tube and chainstays connect to, and that the cranks revolve around. However, it has become common to also refer the bearing/spindle assembly that is installed into the bottom bracket as a bottom bracket, short for bottom bracket set -- similar to the bearings installed in the head tube, called the head set.
And they're much easier to put in nowadays.
You've never served food to a racing cyclist, have you? Do *not* get between a Tdf racer and his morning vat of pasta.
But, yeah -- you've got a real point. My defintion of poser. I'm a large guy. I ride a steel framed touring bike -- fairly heavy, built to haul lots and lots of gear.
If you weigh half what I do, and are riding a bike that costs twice what I paid -- and I pass you, you are a poser. I pass you on a climb, you just suck.
It's scary how many posers there are.
Yep. You've heard that Alaska is going to split into two states? That'll make Texas the *third* largest state.
For once, here's a system that I think RFID is really meant for.
The problem with barcodes is that they have to be scanned. They're passive, and it takes time to stop, grab a scanner, and hit the barcode.
The biggest cause of misrouted bags is time crunches -- somebody rushing to get the bag onto a flight, not stopping to find a scanner to scan in, misreading the three letter code, and throwing it onto the wrong belt, cart, or into the wrong plane.
Ideally, you'd have RFID boxes on the belts, the carts -- and in the cargo doors (for narrowbodies) and the LD-3 loading station (for widebodies.) that's programmed to know what flight(s) are invovled, and sets off an alarm when a tag doesn't match. So, if they're rushing, and they read "LAS" (McCarran International Airport, Las Vegas), the beeper on the cargo door goes off, they look again, and see that, no, it is really "LAX" (Los Angeles International), and *not* put the bag on the Las Vegas flight.
Even if the LAX flight has already left, this is a better answer. It is far easier to fix the "Bag Didn't Make The Flight" error (you put the bag on the next flight) than it is to fix the "Bag Went On The Wrong Fight" error, since there may not be a direct flight from the bag's current destination and the bag's correct destination.
This particular error is quite common -- esp. when someone has been working one of the two flights, and gets a bag for the other. They see "L" and "A" and, having seen "S" for the last hour, don't bother to parse the "X" at the end.
As to privacy concerns? As long as the tag is on the bag for one trip only, it is no worse than barcode. Indeed, your nametag often gives away *more* privacy information than your trip tag -- and it is always there. (Get one of those tags you have to open up, and if you are employed, put your work address on the bag.)
Another issue -- a bag is loaded onto a plane, but the passenger isn't onboard. Nowadays, this means that they have to pull the bag. Right now, this means wading through a loaded bay or container to find it. With a handled RFID box, you can at least get close to the bag quickly.
This is an application where a well build RFID system could make a very real improvment in luggage handling -- for both the passengers and airlines.
I've said it once and I'll say it again, Bayesian filers is the solution.
/dev/null -- and worse, now you're spinning extra cycles to scan the mail.
No, it's not. Filtering is merely automating "just hit delete." It still gets sent, it still travels the wires to your box, it still hits your spool.
The core argument against spam is that it shoves the costs of advertising onto the recipents. That's why we said that "just hitting delete" wasn't an acceptable answer.
Now, you're singing "Just use Baysian to delete for you." Same spam on the wire, same hit on the spool, same copy to
Just hit delete means you kill 1000 this month -- and 10000 a year later. I'm tired of paying for bandwidth that spammers use. I'm tired of throwing cycles at SpamAssassin to trap the spam.
Filtering is not an answer. Filtering is a bandage -- and it's one that's soaking through.
...does that make Neil Peart a webserver?
"The most critical mistake: designing a spaceship to fly horizontally like an airplane but launching it vertically like a rocket."
I agree with you, and the experts, why the hell does a spaceship need wings?
To land in a specific place? The Apollo capsules had a whole fleet spread across the Pacific to retrieve it and the crew.
The problem with the Shuttle that flies today is simple -- the specifications, part NASA, part DOD, specifiy a mission that requires the use of attached booster rockets. Namely...
1) The cargo bay is too large, and,
2) The cross range capability is extreme.
Why? The Air Force insisted that the Shuttle be able to, in one orbit, take off from Vandenburg AFB, put a KH-11 or similar sat into orbit (or retrive one) and land back at Vandeburg. The problem with this is that in one orbit, Vandeburg moves quite a way, since the earth is rotating.
So, the huge bay was needed to handle the KH-11s, and the very large OMS engines were needed to get the Shuttle back to Vandenburg in one orbit.
Drop these two requirements, and you can cut the OMS system by a half, the payload bay by at least a third, and, suddenly, you don't *need* the SRBs anymore. Indeed, the flyaway liquid fueled boosters become a possibility. You can drop one of the SSMEs off the craft, as well -- and lose the structure needed to hold it. And so forth -- or, even better, ride flyaways almost all the way up, and just have one SSME take you to orbit. Less OMS means less fuel tankage to deal with. And so forth.
NASA wanted about 10 Billion in 1975 to build the Shuttle. They were told that they were getting 5. They said that they weren't even going to try -- it wouldn't work. DOD said that they'd be interested in the Shuttle as a military craft, with a few modifications and a couple of extra mission requirements, and wouldn't protest the extra budget money. So, the deal was made -- DOD got the huge cargo bay and the cross range capability, and NASA got the money to build it. Alas, they ended up with an impossible spec to build to -- and were only able to make it work with the SRBs and 3 SSMEs.
NASA's biggest mistake with the Shuttle was taking that deal.
Not hardly. All three Skylab missions and the Apollo Soyuz rendezvous used the 3-man Apollo capsule, launched on Saturn I-B boosters. If the photo was taken in 1974, it would have been the return of the Skylab 3, on February 8th, 1974.
The final use of the Apollo CM was the flight of the Apollo 18 CM as part of the Apollo-Soyuz flight. She flew on July 15, 1975, and returned on July 24, 1975.
Well, the historical reasons for morse are many, but the reason for the 5WPM requirement (and it used to much harder -- the top classes required 20WPM) was treaty.
Long distance HF bands aren't useful, unless everyone agrees what those bands are -- no use having the US hams on 40M, if the UK is using that same band for broadcast. So, the amatuer bands were set by treaty. This treaty also had a morse requirement. However, this year, the World Radiocommuncation Conference, held every so often to review things like this, dropped the code requirements for the HF bands.
I agree that Morse as a requirement has passed it's time. It is a bandwidth efficent and noise resistant mode -- but there are better now, such as PSK31. I've copied 90% of a PSK31 transmission that was so weak I could barely see it on a waterfall display -- never mind actually hearing it.
Note that eliminating the Morse code requirement wouldn't eliminate Morse code from the bands. There are segements of the ham bands that are CW only. Those who work with low power (QRP) are very fond of CW morse.
http://grc.com/cleartype.htm
Supporting flamers, in *any* constructive debate, is wrong.
/. could probably write a script that will flame for them. Rational beings, however, don't need that. They can state their positions in clear, concise language, and defend them in clear, concise language. Finally, they can admit that they are wrong at times.
Flamers are the conversation equivalent of terrorists. Rather than offer reasonable explanations of why they are right, or more often, rather than thinking about the statements presented in case they might be wrong, they simple resort to bombast, ad hominem attacks, or the insult direct. By doing so, they are simply trying to avoid any discussion that *might* impinge on some cherished belief.
If you resort to flames, you *lose*. You are showing that you are not mature enough to accept criticism, or your are not confident enough in your position to defend it. Instead, you whip out the "You suck, Microserf" and chuckle at the enormity of your own wit. Of course, everyone else watching knows that you are just another doltish member of the human race that can't be bothered to state disagreements in a conversational tone, and won't be bothered with defending them with facts and logic.
Anyone can flame someone. Most people who read
Think about it. If something somebody writes pisses you off, ask yourself "Why? Why do a few words on a computer screen anger me?" Then craft a reply. If the guy is wrong, prove it. "You SUCK!" is *not* proof. Futhermore, don't even resort to straw men. Simply state why the guy is wrong, give cites/proof, and walk away. If he flames back, you'll both know who lost.
If your lucky, that person will respond back in clear, lucid tones, and you can have a discussion. This betters both of you, and you might walk away from the computer that day a little wiser, and with one more person to count as a acquaintance, a colleague, or maybe even as a friend. That's the power of communication. That's the power of internetworking. It's another tool of interaction, and flamers want to control that. Don't let them. Don't play thier game. Just calmly state your position, and walk away.
You could get Windows 2000 AND Office 2000 on the SAME drive!
Those are good balance points. I would call it this way..
/.ing a free action, once per turn. Increase the POW to 2, since it's not useful in the attack, and leave the NW power bonus at x3, which would make it hard to take /. away from the network, which is poetic...
If Slashdot doesn't have any outgoing arrows, then it's special should be a free action.
So, modify the card above to no outgoing arrows, and make
SlashDot
Power:1 Money:1
2 arrows out (L/U)
Special: Once a turn, owner may declare a given group "Slashdotted." This group may not attack, lend power to an attack, or grant money to an attack. If attacked, no money can be spent on defense by anyone other than the group itself, but defender's power is doubled (hard to attack a site you can't reach)
If owned by the network, Slashdot POW triples (3).
(Notes: Pow and money are weak, because the special is strong, and historical concerns. This really needs to be tested in a game-the power may be a little to strong. Pow modifier is a beta idea-/. should become more effective if combined with the network, but how much so depends. A POW 3 card with a special is a pretty potent card. 2 Outgoing arrows is another way to restrict power-game balance is important)
Man I hope KSC doesn't get damaged...all four Space Shuttles are there.
And the shelters (OPF-Orbiter Processor Facilities) that the STSes are in are only rated to 105mph sustained winds. The VAB is a little better, rated to 125mph sustained, but a direct hit by Floyd would be bad. KSC is currently at "HURCON II" (gotta love that name!), more info on what that means at KENNEDY SPACE CENTER HURRICANE PLAN SUMMARY
Indeed, this should be followed up with a "Hacker's Guide to Packet Switched Visual and Audible Analog Communication."
Nope. This should be
RFCXXXX: The Inter Human Transmission Facilitation Protocol (IHTFP)
Social graces are irrelevant. Politeness and the expression and the care for emotions leads to inefficiency
Fie! Social graces are the packet headers of everyday life. You don't just walk up to people and shout information. "Excuse me" is the english version of the TCP/IP SYN flag. "Hello my name is..." badges are merely the world-at-large's version of a source field. The social graces let strangers communicate without conflict-and when they are ignored or misinterpreted... off to the bit-bucket (or is that gib-bucket?)