as much as I'd like to see stricter gun control, better mental health care would make it a bit of a moot point whether the nutcases have guns because then they wouldn't be nutcases.
I'm all for better mental care, but I think you're overestimating that it would give us a sane society. The field of mental health medicine has a long way to go to achieve that level of perfection. As it stands, all people today can be expected to exhibit mental illness at some time in their lives, no matter how trusted a member of society they happen to be.
Nobody goes through their whole life being completely sane without interruption. Note that some of the most trusted people in our society, including astronauts and airline pilots, have exhibited harmful mental illness at times.
These people would, quite rightly, be offended if you said they were just doing it to improve Microsoft's profits- they're there to help others, share their knowledge, talk with others who have similar interests, and other similar personal goals.
Yes, they are. But they could do those same things in a way that sent all of their work to the public benefit. They really are enriching a company that ultimately doesn't have their own interest, or that of their community, in mind.
Should I be unhappy that my thoughts offend them? I'm just sad for them that they don't see that their activities are so misdirected.
Way to piss on all the people who aren't Canonical employees that devote a lot of time and effort to making Ubuntu a successful and welcoming community of users and developers.
As I said in my Linux.conf.au keynote, using your spare time to make Mark Shuttleworth richer isn't smart. We have a lot of real community projects, meaning operated by the community and entirely for the public benefit, where the present Ubuntu volunteers could better spend their time.
Regarding the money, IMO it's not worth the negative part. And let's not forget that Ubuntu is essentially built by projects like GNOME and LibreOffice, and Debian. Should I be overjoyed by the little portion of what they make that they return to those projects?
Do you think it has reached brake even point yet? Do you think it ever will?
I don't really care. What I do know is that it now has a mainly negative effect on the folks who feed it, and thus I evangelize that community folks find something else to do than helping Ubuntu.
Ubuntu is ultimately there for Canonical's profit. We thought we could work with folks like that, but obviously we were too optimistic. The goals of the Free Software community are important, and will only be achieved if people like you devote your free time to making the non-profits work as the direct path to users.
To show how these things work, I've been thinking about setting up a denial campaign for an obviously factual event: "Hurricane" Sandy.
It wasn't really a hurricane. National weather service decided not to issue a warning. The roller coaster would not have landed in one piece as it is photographed. We could build a pretty solid case that it wasn't real. It would really piss off the people who were there:-)
Yes, I know two of the people who have been to ISS via Space Adventures.
But Golden Spike is not like Space Adventures. Space Adventures was founded when there was a temporary opportunity to get a ride to space from the Russians because of their economic woes.
What we are seeing here is a company that doesn't have the opportunity, doesn't have the technology, doesn't have the capital.
I know really well what FUD is. I also know about FAKES and PHONEYS.
We have an ITAR 121 carve-out for Open Source due to the lawsuit Phil Karn brought against the government some years ago. This is used successfully by DIY Drones, which IMO has a much bigger problem than AMSAT.
I a number of smaller replacements for AO-40 would be better than a large one.
AMSAT is very experienced in putting together satellites at low cost, and having them integrated successfully. What they need is a ride. The same is true for many universities. Figure out the launch cost for 5 tons. There would be a long line of folks who would want a discount on that.
Maybe I should give you some more context. I work with an organization called AMSAT on leading-edge digital communications technology. We are a non-profit, volunteer organization that has been running the most successful private space program, as hitch-hikers on government and commercial payloads since 1963. We have put up something more than 60 satellites in that time, often working with universities in many nations. We will give you a working satellite in place of that ballast. We've done this for one of the initial test flights of Arianne 5, and for other missions.
There is not any good reason to launch a stupid dead weight into space. There are many university and other projects that will be happy to use that weight.
What makes Airship Ventures unrelated? While their craft uses conventional ballast and a conventional shape, it's the only model of rigid airship in the world at the moment, and it's an economic failure.
So, what we need to go up against economic failure is a game-changer. It's not clear that this is one. Ballast-less also means the craft is lighter. And the shape is made to avoid sidewise air while having a huge profile from above or below. Wind over mountains and thermals would be a problem.
There are many things about the web site that look fraudulent. I know this company has produced more modest technology successfully, but this particular project has a number of things that don't look real.
Look at the cockpit photo. A number of radios and electronic boxes on a shelf above the window, and a couple of computer monitors. That is a mock-up for a photo, not a real cockpit at all.
Look at the diagram of how the "no ballast" technology works. The craft vents Hydrogen, not Helium, to the outside when it needs to reduce lift. And, I suppose when it needs more it makes it by electrolysis. Which has energy and time problems.
Look at the assembly photos. Really thin aluminized mylar sheets that aren't cut for the shape are being stretched across the frame, and they're full of wrinkles. That's not a real lighter-than-air envelope.
And pick out the landing gear from the landing gear photo. Is it the inflatable bladder? Is it the various temporary-looking struts?
I don't understand what this has to do with the article.
Oh. I'm sorry for you:-)
A company is about to complete their Zeppelin airship, although, uh, oops, this is only one that can't carry a payload. It's sort of the rigid airship equivalent of an RC toy plane or a balloon on a rope. Another company, which happens to own one of the two modern Zeppelin airships capable of carrying payload and passengers, can not support itself even in one of the most forward-looking and technically-oriented regions of the world. They have shown that nobody wants Zeppelins.
The Airship Ventures "Zeppelin NT" is built by the German ZLT Zeppelin Luftschifftechnik GmbH & Co KG. It is a technically accomplished craft, given the obvious and insurmountable limitations of a Zeppelin, and has operated flawlessly in the San Francisco Bay area. Its technical factors had nothing to do with the failure of the company. The company failed because nobody needs Zeppelins. This is the unfortunate truth that has prevented Aeros from gaining funding
Slashdot Mirror
I'm all for better mental care, but I think you're overestimating that it would give us a sane society. The field of mental health medicine has a long way to go to achieve that level of perfection. As it stands, all people today can be expected to exhibit mental illness at some time in their lives, no matter how trusted a member of society they happen to be.
Nobody goes through their whole life being completely sane without interruption. Note that some of the most trusted people in our society, including astronauts and airline pilots, have exhibited harmful mental illness at times.
Don't look now, but the time when you can lawfully operate your car in manual control on an urban road is limited. Maybe 20 years.
Sure, you can kill someone with a broken bottle. Guns, however, make it just too easy.
Our country makes it too easy for nutcases to have guns. I, for one, would give up the right to bear arms for everyone, and not miss it.
Yes, they are. But they could do those same things in a way that sent all of their work to the public benefit. They really are enriching a company that ultimately doesn't have their own interest, or that of their community, in mind.
Should I be unhappy that my thoughts offend them? I'm just sad for them that they don't see that their activities are so misdirected.
As I said in my Linux.conf.au keynote, using your spare time to make Mark Shuttleworth richer isn't smart. We have a lot of real community projects, meaning operated by the community and entirely for the public benefit, where the present Ubuntu volunteers could better spend their time.
Regarding the money, IMO it's not worth the negative part. And let's not forget that Ubuntu is essentially built by projects like GNOME and LibreOffice, and Debian. Should I be overjoyed by the little portion of what they make that they return to those projects?
I don't really care. What I do know is that it now has a mainly negative effect on the folks who feed it, and thus I evangelize that community folks find something else to do than helping Ubuntu.
I own my company. It doesn't work by any of the methods you imagined. And of course GPL, as a way of managing copyright, has nothing to do with this.
Ubuntu is ultimately there for Canonical's profit. We thought we could work with folks like that, but obviously we were too optimistic. The goals of the Free Software community are important, and will only be achieved if people like you devote your free time to making the non-profits work as the direct path to users.
I didn't tell you, but the folks at sandyconspiracy.com really need help...
The first paragraph seems rather grandiose to me.
To show how these things work, I've been thinking about setting up a denial campaign for an obviously factual event: "Hurricane" Sandy.
It wasn't really a hurricane. National weather service decided not to issue a warning. The roller coaster would not have landed in one piece as it is photographed. We could build a pretty solid case that it wasn't real. It would really piss off the people who were there :-)
Yes, I know two of the people who have been to ISS via Space Adventures.
But Golden Spike is not like Space Adventures. Space Adventures was founded when there was a temporary opportunity to get a ride to space from the Russians because of their economic woes.
What we are seeing here is a company that doesn't have the opportunity, doesn't have the technology, doesn't have the capital.
I know really well what FUD is. I also know about FAKES and PHONEYS.
We have an ITAR 121 carve-out for Open Source due to the lawsuit Phil Karn brought against the government some years ago. This is used successfully by DIY Drones, which IMO has a much bigger problem than AMSAT.
I a number of smaller replacements for AO-40 would be better than a large one.
AMSAT is very experienced in putting together satellites at low cost, and having them integrated successfully. What they need is a ride. The same is true for many universities. Figure out the launch cost for 5 tons. There would be a long line of folks who would want a discount on that.
Maybe I should give you some more context. I work with an organization called AMSAT on leading-edge digital communications technology. We are a non-profit, volunteer organization that has been running the most successful private space program, as hitch-hikers on government and commercial payloads since 1963. We have put up something more than 60 satellites in that time, often working with universities in many nations. We will give you a working satellite in place of that ballast. We've done this for one of the initial test flights of Arianne 5, and for other missions.
There is not any good reason to launch a stupid dead weight into space. There are many university and other projects that will be happy to use that weight.
Given how expensive it is to lift anything to space, lifting ballast to space is a sin. Lift another satellite in its place.
It's a godaddy web site. You know, the one for really small businesses.
I can't believe how much press this got, for being so without substance.
Here is their business plan: They are going to take people to the moon. They are going to do it by buying a spaceship.
That's it.
What makes Airship Ventures unrelated? While their craft uses conventional ballast and a conventional shape, it's the only model of rigid airship in the world at the moment, and it's an economic failure.
So, what we need to go up against economic failure is a game-changer. It's not clear that this is one. Ballast-less also means the craft is lighter. And the shape is made to avoid sidewise air while having a huge profile from above or below. Wind over mountains and thermals would be a problem.
It's the storms, not the flames, that are the demise of lighter-than-air craft. Solve that problem, and they will be more practical.
There are many things about the web site that look fraudulent. I know this company has produced more modest technology successfully, but this particular project has a number of things that don't look real.
Look at the cockpit photo. A number of radios and electronic boxes on a shelf above the window, and a couple of computer monitors. That is a mock-up for a photo, not a real cockpit at all.
Look at the diagram of how the "no ballast" technology works. The craft vents Hydrogen, not Helium, to the outside when it needs to reduce lift. And, I suppose when it needs more it makes it by electrolysis. Which has energy and time problems.
Look at the assembly photos. Really thin aluminized mylar sheets that aren't cut for the shape are being stretched across the frame, and they're full of wrinkles. That's not a real lighter-than-air envelope.
And pick out the landing gear from the landing gear photo. Is it the inflatable bladder? Is it the various temporary-looking struts?
There is really a lot to question.
Oh. I'm sorry for you :-)
A company is about to complete their Zeppelin airship, although, uh, oops, this is only one that can't carry a payload. It's sort of the rigid airship equivalent of an RC toy plane or a balloon on a rope. Another company, which happens to own one of the two modern Zeppelin airships capable of carrying payload and passengers, can not support itself even in one of the most forward-looking and technically-oriented regions of the world. They have shown that nobody wants Zeppelins.
The Airship Ventures "Zeppelin NT" is built by the German ZLT Zeppelin Luftschifftechnik GmbH & Co KG. It is a technically accomplished craft, given the obvious and insurmountable limitations of a Zeppelin, and has operated flawlessly in the San Francisco Bay area. Its technical factors had nothing to do with the failure of the company. The company failed because nobody needs Zeppelins. This is the unfortunate truth that has prevented Aeros from gaining funding
As you can see on their web site, Airship Ventures is out of business and there's a campaign to save the airship from being scrapped.