"Does the proposition 'all men are created equal' mean anything to you"
Yes, it measn that all people, no matter where they come from, have the opportunity to become US citizens. They didn't become citizens before hacking US computers, so...
"I always thought that we hold our rights to such a high standard that they apply universally."
We, as Americans, have the right to decide (through democracy) what laws do or do not apply to us and our property. A people's right to self-government. If the suspects made no effort to be a part of our self-government, why should we force it upon them?
"If a country does not have these protections, don't we call them 'undemocratic' and threaten them with sanctions or worse?"
The suspects were made aware of their rights when they were arrested. They have the right to a lawyer. If they cannot afford legal consul, it will be provided to them free-of-charge. They have a right to only be held in prison for a year and a day before being put on trial. They have a right not to be interrogated without consul available. They have the right to a trial before a judge or a jury (their choice), where they have the right to challenge any and all evidence presented against them. They have the right to continue to have some contact with the outside world while incarcerated (probably with the local Russian Consulate). They have a right not to be denied bail without due process of law. They have the right to appeal a guilty verdict. And, last but not least, they have a right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment.
It's not like they're being dragged off into a dark alley and shot. They haven't "disappeared" like Chinese dissidents.
"But it is ok for the US to do any damned thing to people who are not inside it's borders because the Constitution does not apply."
The computers attacked were owned and operated by US citizens on US soil. Once the suspects entered US territory, the Constitution applied to them. It does not, however, apply to the evidence-gathering while they were outside the US.
"In a previous attempt to do something similar a U.S. Law Enforcement office was arrested and charged with kidnapping on foreign soil. He spent 3 months in jail before he was released."
However, there was no kidnapping involved in this case. They flew to the US voluntarily. Bait-and-switch, yes, but no kidnapping.
"Law enforcement agencies have no jurisdiction outside of the country."
The computers being hacked were within the US.
"This is against international law."
The crime was against US citizens and US property within US territory. What you're saying sounds like we don't have the right to attack a ship shooting missiles at the US if the ship is outside territorial waters.
I've said it twice already here, but nobody seems to understand it, so I'll say it again: The US Constitution (and it's protection against unreasonable search and siesure) does not apply here. They weren't US citizens. They weren't even resident aliens, illegal or otherwise. No Russian oblastey, respublik, okrugov, or krayev have ratified the US Constitution and become a US state. It hasn't even been put to a vote. The only time our Constitution applied to Russian territory and Russian people is when Seward helped buy Alaska.
This is wholly outside the jurisdiction of any US state or federal laws. The only "laws" that do apply are international treaties, and I have yet to hear of any that forbids a nation-state from taking nessecary action to protect itself from outside threat.
If the US were trying to enforce Constitutional law outside its borders, then the Chinese and others are right: We really ARE hegemonic. And I'd hate to be part of the military that tries to enforce those laws on the rest of the world.
Yeah, double standard. They were supposed to get a search warrant from a judge in the local oblast before they... hey, wait a second... Oblast? Oblast! This is a FOREIGN COUNTRY! These were not US citizens, they were not living on US soil, and until they enter the US, the US Constitution doesn't apply to them. Why do you think they had to be lured here before they could be arrested?
The only odd thing I see here is that I think this might have been the CIA's jurisdiction, since they're the ones usually in charge of information-gathering outside US borders.
If you want to argue that the US Constitution protects the rights of those nowhere near our borders, then I hope you're one of the first to volunteer for the military as they're deployed to China to enforce our Constitution on them.
Nothing against you philosophically, but your math seems off.
"but women are now the majority of US Internet users,"
According to the link, it says that out of all the users on the internet, 33% are brand new (less than a year), and 60% of that are women. 60% * 33% = 20%. Of course, this says nothing about any previous gender ratios, so it could mean anything.
"the average age of net users is up too."
As is, I don't see how that means anything. If five years ago, the average net user was 18, and now the average user is 23, it's still the same people. All it means is that we've aged five years in the past five years.
... that the US will supplement its ICBMs with inter-continental cruise missiles? These would have the advantage of flying in under the radar, so to speak...
No no no, what the Chinese are doing is a sign of respect and honor for our EP-3's incredible dog-fighting ability, taking out one of their jet fighters with only a propellor. I don't think the UAV's accomplishment can compare.:)
The internet is widespread throughout the US, in spite of the recent economic downturn that has yet to really stop. It seems that with each passing day, porn takes up a larger part of the internet economy. Do you think that this "porn boom" will help change opinions about sex in the US?
"You have to get the Uranium from somewhere, generally it's mined out of the ground. "
Notice I said "strip mining." A pound of uranium will last years, while a pound of oil, coal, natural gas, etc. may last you a half-hour, depending on what you do with it. One or two mines in the entire US would provide all the fuel we'd need. And they'd be small/slow enough to to be way more environment-friendly than your average coal mine.
"Most people freak at the thought of meltdowns and at the radioactive waste produced. We're already used to accepting the smog produced by Coal & oil plants, but radioactive disasters seem so utterly scary to the States, possibly as a result of years of Global Thermo Nuclear War fear?"
Nah, the big problem are the people (*cough* Californians *cough*) that want NO new power plants, no matter how the electricity is produced.:)
I'd hate to see something like, say, the defintion of a derivative, or the solution to the wave equation taken down to the simplest possible functions (I'm assuming nothing more complicated than subtraction...). That would make War & Peace look like a pamphlet.
There are times when being able to see everything all at once isn't the best way of learning something. If I lay out out complete blueprints for the space shuttle, you're not going to have that much better an understanding of it (unless, of course, you've already know how to deal with situations like that).
"And people like to pretend, probably because they enjoy porn and violence, that it doesn't harm people, but anyone who can seriously believe this is quite frankly mad. "
I've enjoyed Wolfenstein 3D, Doom, Duke 3D, Quake II, Half-Life, etc. since I've had a computer to play them on. I've played through and beaten all of the above listed games, taking perverse pleasure in all the ways to kill a bad guy.
Most of my friends own guns of some sort, be it pistols, rifles, or shotguns. They often go to the local shooting range to use some ammunition. Now, even though I've played FPSes more than any of them, I've never had the urge to join them at the range and go shooting.
I've never even so much as participated in a fist fight, even though I had another friend who wanted to get me to work as a bouncer with him.
Why are these statements true? Shouldn't my decades-long exposure to violence have caused me to be desensitized?
Some time last year, I remember watching some "investigative report" on violence and video games and such. In it they interviewed some 7 or 8 year old boy and asked them about the subject. He said something along the lines of "Just because I play Superman doesn't mean I'm going to try to jump off a building."
"If you consistently expose people to sex and violence they grow to accept it. It's as obvious as anything. It's conditioning. For instance, in Muslim countries women aren't leered at and treated as sex objects, because society conditions them not to."
I've had exposure to porn since early high school, when I figured out how to use my Hayes 2400 modem and Telemate (and don't think I haven't downloaded it!). I also know several Muslims, as there are a lot of students in my college from the Middle East. They're more sexually active than I am hands down, going down to the local clubs every weekend like clockwork.
Why? Shouldn't I, with my long exposure to pictures of naked women, be more sexually active, if not an all-out rapist? If anything, I'd say that by being shielded from these things for so long, they're more likely to over-do it. Just like all the freshmen that wake up one day and realize their parents aren't around anymore to make them go to school, do their homework, shower daily... From my own experiences, it's usually the freshmen that grew up in extremely Baptist (insert relgion of choice here) homes that end up strung up or getting somebody pregnant.
"as kids exposed to lots of swearing swear more than those in environemnts where swearing is taboo"
I've been putting up with l33t hax0rs and flamers since I was 12 or 13. My father is a merchant mariner. Find the four-letter word in this post.
"Anyone who says otherwise is only doing so because they enjoy violence and sex so much. "
Or maybe, just maybe, we're talking from our own experiences. Experiences that show, no matter how much sex and violence we've been exposed to on our computers, we're neither stalkers nor murderers. If what you say were true, the murder and sexual crime rate should be at least ten times higher than what it is in the US. Hell, crime has been going down in recent years (in spite of the improvements in graphical violence). The only thing that's gone up is news coverage of kids that shoot others instead of themselves (like they usually do).
But this is all moot. Parent's shouldn't be able to sue game companies that have been voluntarily rating themselves for most of the past decade. That's like trying to sue the liquor store that your kid robbed for letting them have alchohol.
So are you trying to say that Zelda: Majora's Mask, with it's deep plot, dark atmsohpere, and beautiful environments is just a kid's game, while Mortal Kombat with it's b-grade-esque violence and "plot" is "mature?"
I'm not saying that all the games for PSX and other systems are lame like that (there's most definately games like Metal Gear Solid), but the majority of the games I see being sold for them are sold on the basis of "Look at those breasts!" or some other lame bit of marketing.
"Screw Nintendo - they stopped making games for serious gamers a long time ago."
"Serious gamers?" What exactly is a serious game? Is that like those war games the Army plays out in the middle of the desert?
I know from experience that a roomfull of college-aged guys can have some "serious" fun with four-player Mario Party (Paddle Battle!) or Super Smash Bros. if that's what you mean. This doesn't mean that we don't deathmatch in Half-Life, and it doesn't mean we don't usually play StarCraft, but we don't feel insulted or "less mature" when we realize that we've just kicked Donkey Kong's ass with Kirby. Because, God damn it, that damned gorilla is able to pick up anybody and throw them off the edge, the damned ****er deserved it...
It seems like everybody keeps on ragging on Nintendo for being "less mature," but those people seem to measure maturity on whether a game is rated T or M, and not whether the game is fun, has lots of replay value, or generally worth the money you paid for it. Throwing all Nintendo games into the "immature" category is like saying all cartoons are immature, forsaking South Park, Futurama, Toonami...
If you want to rush out and buy a PS2 or an Xbox as soon as it comes out because they'll be making "mature" games, go for it. However, there are only two games coming out for next-generatio consoles that have me excited right now: Zelda and Metroid.
Of the 103 operating nuclear power plants in the US, 2 are in California. There used to be 3, but Rancho Seco was shut down in 1989, and hasn't put out a single kilowatt-hour of electricity since. So, no, not all of your nuclear power plants are on-line. Have a nice day.
"The reality has turned out to be somewhat different, has it not?"
The worst nuclear accident in the US was an almost-meltdown at Three Mile Island near Harrisburg, PA, and that was how many decades ago? Compare that to the various natural gas explosions that occur around the country. Boiling liquid-vapor explosion, anyone?
What was the worst accident in France, where they get 80%+ of their electricity from fission? And they're in the forefront of technology in civillian fission (though they're lagging behind the US in nuclear propulsion, as with the rest of the world).
Whatever you have to say about the spent uranium from the plants, it is still the most environmentally friendly power generation around. Not only are there no emissions involved by defintion, but there's also no off-shore drilling, no tanker spills, no strip mining, no pipelines, no explosive railray cars, no high-pressure vessels (aside from the boilers themselves)... hell, even windmills and solar arrays require lots of open land, often at the cost of the native animal and plant life.
"but it will not be solve the thrird world and california's energy problems."
Actually, California's power problems would be solved by re-activating the nuclear plants that California environmental lobbies have shut down. As the lights flicker and diesel backup generators kick in, there are perfectly good nuclear plants just waiting to be used out there.
"Fission power is what fuels the hydrogen bomb"
No. Fusion is what fuels the hydrogen bomb. While it is true that, right now, the only known way to get an exothermic fusion reaction is with the heat and energy created by fission, fission is not a requirement for fusion. Look at the sun.
"we are proposing that we put fission reactors in everyone's home? "
Just because you have a little radioacive isotopes in your home doesn't mean that it's the right kind of isotope (or even element) to make a bomb, that there's enough to make a bomb, or that you will be able to use it make the isotopes to make a bomb.
And consider how many homes in the northeast have 1000's of gallons of heating oil (and the explosive fumes involved) underneath their yards.
"possibly by doping it with Iron, which can cause nuclear meltdown if done correctly, because Fe- + H "
I could be wrong, but you still seem to be confusing fission with fusion. No hydrogen involved in fission. At best, you might claim that there's "hydrogen" involved, but that's only because that's what emitted alpha particles are (technically speaking).
Meltdowns only happen if your core is large enough to get hot enough to melt the fuel (and just about anything else), and your cooling system and your control system fails. This is generally only applicable to large-scale/naval power plants, because they have (relatively) large amounts of fuel.. If I have a fission reactor in my back yard about the size of my air conditioning unit, I'd have to be pretty damned talented to get it to melt down.
"Also, there are social implications - unemployment and the death of an industry. Do we really want to cause the death of an industry for the sake of cheap electricity? "
If the alternative is people freezing in the middle of winter, or dying of heat stroke in the summer because they can't afford their power bills, then HELL YES!
"where nuclear reactors are used responsibly by the government, will beg to differ on that one. "
Actually, this would be a boom to the nuclear power industry. Imagine if nuclear reactors were as numerous as air conditioners.
As for other power generation, they'll need new jobs. Just like what happened to the ice deliverymen when the refrigerator was developed. And all those whalers that lost their jobs when people switched to fossil fuels and electric lights. If bettering society as a whole means a few people lose their jobs, so be it. Majority rules.
"We must not embrace new technologies solely because they are new, but rather because they improve our quality of life."
You don't think that having to pay a power bill isn't an improvement in the quality of life? Do you work for SoCalEd or something?
"The 1995 launch of Microsoft's revolutionary new product"
Yeah, instead of having to buy Windows 4.0 and MS-DOS 7.0 in two different packages, you could buy it all in one box!
"product's stability, appearance and intuitive interface"
Actually, when we all jumped ship, we discovered that it was about as stable as 3.11 was. And the interface wasn't all that intuitive when the whole world was used to 3.x.
"Then, as in the early 80s, when Microsoft were instrumental in the first truly personal computerThen, as in the early 80s, when Microsoft were instrumental in the first truly personal computer"
How could they be responsible for the same thing twice, unless one (or both?) of them didn't really happen?
"For the first time, the elderly, the young, and the technically illiterate were empowered to use computers"
No, they're still all on hold with Microsoft tech support.
"Although computers still betrayed some of their arcane origins of a time when computing was the real of those with genius IQs and degrees in mathematics",/I>
I first started tinkering with the BASIC package of my ADAM when I was 5. In the early 90's, I figured out how to get onto the local BBS scene with my 286/12, 2400 modem, and Telemate. I'm no genius, and neither were all the flamers and l33t hax0rs that also frequented the boards. It was an awful lot like/., actually, without the pretty HTML.
"This was achieved by always providing what the market needed"
I think you mean "convincing the market that they needed it." How much did they spend on advertising and playing that Rolling Stones song over and over? They should have let the lyrics keep going... "You make a grown man cry..."
"The Microsoft formula was to pile 'em high and sell 'em cheap"
I prefer the name "slash and burn" myself...
"Microsoft's success came through out-maneuvering the competition."
I think you meant to say "hype and intimidation."
"Revolutionary was the approach that said that a spreadsheet, which at one would have cost over a thousand dollars, could be sold for a fraction of the price",
Besides the fact that no version of Windows has ever come with a spreadsheet app, Microsoft Excel for Windows (1988, "Windows" being "Windows 2.0") cost around $200 or so.
The only reason Excel's price has come down from that is because, when all is said and done, 90% of it is still the same old code they've had since the 80's. It'd be down further if they didn't put in all those damned easer eggs and talking paperclips.
"This approach drove the computing revolution of the 80s"
If it were released in 1995...
"and the net revolution of the 90s"
95 has no intrinsic web hosting capabilities. NT still relied to heavily on NetBEUI to make it all that good of a hosting platform. It wasn't until Windows 2000 that Microsoft actually released an OS that spoke TCP/IP as a first language.
I'd say Al Gore did more to help the internet than Bill Gates.
"Microsoft's aggressive approach made computing far more affordable"
Even if you don't take into the account the price of the OS itself and the glorified bug-fixes they sell for $80, just about every major computer and buisiness magazine in publication agrees that the cost of ownership of a Windows PC is simply too high for a business.
"Microsoft's approach of providing the product the market wanted "
You're still confusing it with "convincing the market that it's what they wanted." Nobody wants built-in obsalescence.
"empowering thousands of small businesses,"
... by forcing them to bend over and pay $1000s in software and client liscences for products with 1000s of known bugs?
"often without the funds to employ dedicated IT admin staff"
If you don't need a dedicated IT staff, then why is the job market for MCSEs so good?
"to manage their own computer networks and to sell themselves on the web,"
As I said in an earlier post, the box might as well say right on the front "MCSE Not Included." The average small business without a dedicated IT department will not be able to utilize NT or 2000 in that way out of the box because the average small business owner has a business to run, which leaves them no time to spend a month reading texts and documentation.
If it were so easy, Microsoft wouldn't be telling you that it takes at least 7 months to get your MCSE cert.
"Similarly, Microsoft's masterful integration of the internet within Windows means that for most people the internet MEANS Internet Explorer."
On the other hand, instead of integrating core internet technologies like TCP/IP in their products, NT came with products like "NetBIOS over IP" and WINS, products that can only be described as shoddy work-arounds for NT's native NetBIOS networking structure. This instead of a genuine OS patch to get NT to speak TCP/IP natively.
Microsoft is at least three steps behind when it comes to the internet.
"by making their product vastly superior to the competition"
Logic time: If it were vastly superior to the competition, why is there still competition?
"the consumer sees that he is benefiting and is happy to acquiesce"
No, the consumer only sees the way that what was once done with blazing speed on a 90 MHz Pentium now all but requires gigahertz speed and gigahertz pricing. Why do you think hardware sales (and, subsequently, Windows ME sales as well) are in such a slump?
"but for the companies, small and large, who were able to compete thanks to the low barrier to entry erected by Microsoft."
Oh? By all accounts, XP won't run any MP3 software except that written by Microsoft. That sounds like a very high barrier to entry to me.
"described as an end to frustration for the millions of computer users"
By your own arguments, Windows 95 was that supposed end. Why should we believe that XP will be more of a solution than 95?
Requiring a Pentium II processor to run your OS is more indicative of a problem than a solution.
"discover the highly logical (but also deeply complicated) way that computing systems such as Windows"
I've spent the past few weeks studying to be an MCSE (I figure it'd provide income while I pursue a college degreen in physics). The more I read, the more it becomes patently appearant that what you call "logical" is more than 50% work-arounds of their old code. They insist on piling more on top of their old code instead of sitting down and actually writing something new (which, to my knowledge, Microsoft has never done). The books (published by Microsoft, mind you) spend more time telling you the ways that you CAN'T do something than the ways you can.
"Millions of dollars of research, of observation"
If you need to spend millions of dollars to learn about your customer base, how in-touch with them could you possibly be?
"a product where computing is a natural experience rather than a painful one, with effortless remote maintenance and inter-computer interaction. "
Again, I thought you said that's what 95 was.
"At the same time that Microsoft is on the brink of launching of a product that makes them feel 'super super excited'"
If I were going to launch something I expected would make me billions (if not trillions) of dollars, I'd be "super super excited," too.
"the competition is still hopeless"
Then why is it still around? Better yet, why is it gaining market share?
"Particularly for Linux, the outlook looks bleak"
In order to make that statement true, you need to replace the word 'Linux' with the phrase 'Windows 2000'
"No longer buffeted by the heady currents of the internet goldrush"
Didn't you just say that Microsoft was responsible for that gold rush? If so, then wouldn't the current economy be the fault of Microsoft as well? Can we really trust them, then?
"Linux-based companies - which have never made any appreciable amount of money "
IBM what?
"they are also recognizing that companies required by their underlying philosophy to give their product away, do not have significant revenue opportunities. "
Then in what way is the price-slashing you espoused earlier better?
"relies on ideas stolen directly from Windows. "
1.) Windows was stolen from Apple and Xerox
2.) I've yet to see anything in KDE or Gnome that were anything but an improvement on what Windows offered. Really. Name one thing about the Windows interface that is better than either of those two.
"and enormous goodwill to shoddy workmanship and incomplete and buggy software (the likes of which would not be tolerated from commercial software)"
If it really weren't tolerated, then Microsoft wouldn't have gotten away with releasing Windows 98 (Windows 4.1) or Windows ME (Windows 4.9)after releasing Windows 95 (Windows 4.0). Each with a premium price.
"The in-fighting and lack of commercial rigor of the Unix and open source world has left a system of wild inconsistencies and rough edges, "
... which makes the way Windows 2000 is steadily losing market share to them all the more damning...
"For everyone else, Linux remains something that is frustrating to use, with its bewildering array of arcane concepts (file permissions,
Linux's short list of file permissions (user, group, everyone each can have read/write/execute permissions) pales in comparison with the monolithic list of NT/2000 file permissions (many of which seemingly overlap).
"symbolic links"
And what would you call a Windows 95 shortcut? Oh, and speaking of which, a "new" feater of Windows 2000 is the ability to mount a hard drive partition to a folder...
"compilers to install software"
Haven't touched a compiler since that C course 5 years ago.
(something users used to InstallShield would find troubling))"
I find InstallShield more difficult to use and comprehend than RedHat's Packagme Manager.
If all of these concepts were so bad, why is Windows trying so hard to include them? And if they really are bad, what does this say about Windows' efforts to include them?
"The almost total lack of co-operation between projects means that there is no consistent graphical configuration tool to match Windows' Control Panel. "
If you want something that puts Control Panel to shame, look at Mandrake 8.0.
"The ultimate cause of it in many cases is probably human nature, as there is no doubt that we are programmed to be resentful of success and to be envious of those who succeed -"
Then we should be hating IBM, not Microsoft. Of the two, IBM has more money (and is therefore more "successful.")
"That these feelings should be directed at a company largely responsible for the massively improved levels of prosperity brought by bringing computing to the masses"
Again, we should also be hating IBM for their open-architecture PC.
"since as humans are essentially selfish beings, personal reassurance is a far more important emotion than altruism."
Then we should be far more concerned about the interests of Microsoft and it's One True Leader than the Linux collective. How can we counteract any selfishness on the part of Bill Gates? Claiming that Bill Gates is altruistic and may be the only non-selfish person out there sounds a little too close to Nazi propoganda for comfort.
", resentful in part that computing should become accessible to the uninitiated,"
No, I'm resentful of the time I worked in Dell tech support, and all the times I had to tell an angry customer that there was nothing I could do for them, because the problem was a "feature" of Windows. I'm resentful of the fact that networking with Windows 2000 has such a high barrier to entry due to its price and liscencing racket. I'm resentful that the latest and greatest operating systems from Microsoft shuts down my dial-up networking connection for no appearant reason. I'm resentful of the fact that, as a Windows user, I cannot choose to not use IE. I'm resentful of the fact that I need a minimum of 100 MB of hard drive space to install a Microsoft product that's marginally equivalent to WordPerfect 5.1. I'm resentful of the fact that Microsoft would knowingly ship a product with 65,000 known bugs, and then try to push for these products to be used in mission-critical environments. I'm resentful of the fact that Microsoft is single-handedly responsible for the anti-virus software market, with the way they leave security holes through their "functionality" that no well-informed person would accept. I'm resentful of the way that Microsoft works hard to make sure that there are as few "well-informed" people as possible. I'm resentful of the fact that my parents had to pay for and learn a new operating system when they paid for a new computer. I'm resentful of the way I have to tell my parents that their new $2000 machine has bugs like the aforementioned dial-up problems, and that the only explaination I can offer them is "It's Windows." I'm resentful of the fact that a Pentium 233 MMX with 96 MB of RAM boots Windows 98 faster than a Pentium 4 1.3 GHz with 256 MB of RAM boots Windows ME (even with the fast boot option configured in the BIOS). And, last but not least, I resent any company that works planned obsolescence into their product, and then has the balls to say to a court of law that it's "innovation."
OK, I now return you to your regularly scheduled flame war.
I don't think the state of Mississippi has seen a larger congegation of people in one place since Vicksburg. They were NOT prepared for the crowd that showed up. Personally, I'd say more people showed up for this than usually show up along NASA Causeway for a shuttle launch.
The scheduled firing was scheduled for 8:00. I got to the gate around 7:00, and spent the next hour stuck in traffic along the five-mile stretch to the designated parking area. In that traffic jam, most of the lisence plates were from Mississippi and Louisiana. There were plenty from Alabama (70+ miles away), too many for them all to be military. There was even one from Ontario.
Upon reaching the parking area (where the people trying to organize parking ran out of designated space), I joined the crowd of 400-500 people waiting on about 4-5 busses (and I only saw one bus owned and operated by NASA). 8:00 came and went with no firing, and around 8:45 (still in line for a bus) somebody started moving through the crowd with a bullhorn saying something about "indefinately postponed" because of technical difficulties.
I can't really blame them for not expecting the turnout they got. I don't know how well the press release was covered in the Biloxi area, but I know that the bit barely got three paragraphs in some sidebar in New Orlean's Times-Picayune. I guess everybody wanted to get an up-close view of part of that thing that sets off everybody's car alarm whenever it comes in for a landing.
There's been no official word that I can see yet when they'll try again, and whether it will be public again or not.
All in all, anybody who think Americans don't care about their space program deserves to get smacked hard.
John Walker (of Autodesk fame) has his own site at http://www.fourmilab.ch with a lot of nifty stuff. Amongst other things is his astronomy section, where he has the Earth and Moon Viewer, which allows you to see beautiful images of what the earth or moon look like at any time, and from various viewpoints (including from satellites), Solar System Live, which is a virtual orrery that shows you what positions the planets are in at any time, and Home Planet, which is a Windows program that combines the first two sites with a few other features. There's also a few public domain UNIX programs (w/ source), but they're a bit old (OpenWindows, anyone?) and will require a bit of tinkering to convert to run natively in KDE or Gnome. (If only I knew how to program well...)
If you get Home Planet, other useful things are NISTime (freeware time synch program from NIST) available here, and you can get two-line satellite tracking (TLE) info (also useful at the Earth and Moon Viewer site) from NORAD's satellite catalog here. It's all text files, and there are several that are designed for automated downloads for the real fanatics.
In general, everything is surprisingly simple, and it doesn't take much to, say, get the latest telemtry on Endeavor (STS-100) here, cut-and-paste it into a Home Planet satellite database (text file), and see exactly where the shuttle is.
"Since when does picometers/s^2 times s give picometers? Don't try your latest buzzwords with me until you get that straight."
It's called "normal differential equations."
Acceleration = a
Velocity = v
Displacement = x
Time = t
v = dx/dt
a = dv/dt
v(0) = 0
x(0) = 0
dv = a*dt
v = integral of a * dt
v = at + C (something Galileo figured out w/o calculus)
v(0) = 0
0 = a*0 + C1
C1 = 0
v = at
dx/dt = at
dx = at*dt
x = integral of at*dt
x = 0.5*at^2 + C2 (something Galileo figured out w/o calculus)
x(0) = 0
0 = 0.5*a*0^2 + C2
C2 = 0
x = 0.5*at^2
a(t) = 3.15E-19 m/s
t = 520 s
x = 0.5*(3.15E-19 m/s)*(520 s)^2
x = 4.25E-14 m
Is that a rigorous enough explaination for you, or do I need to explain what "derivative" and "integral" mean? How about "limit?"
The only problem I see is that I stated the wrong metric prefix (0.0425 pm), but you failed to mention that. The inch figure still stands (4.25E-14 m = 1.67E-12 in), which suggests that the raw numbers I was using work fine.
The only real fault you've caught me on so far is momentarily confusing "momentum" with "kinetic energy" during some on-the-fly calculations. If I really wanted to spend time and effort on this problem, I would have taken into account:
1.) The motion of the earth during the 520 seconds (which is affected by #4, below)
2.) The deformation of the steel frame and concrete block due to the firing (after finding veritable blueprints of the structure, information on the type of steel and concrete used, as well as the surrounding soil)
3.) The height of the combustion chamber above sea level (before, during, and after deformation of the frame, producing differential equations for the affects of time on thrust produced)
4.) The angular momentum imparted on the earth by the deflection of the exhaust gasses by the concrete block (which will require a formula for the curved surface of the block, and a second formula for how the first one changes during firing)
5.) What kind of gimballing the engine will be going through (if any) during the testing process
And this is still not an exhaustive list.
However, if you take such infinite delight in my brainfart of confusing mv with 0.5mv^2, then good for you. I only wish I were so easily amused.
My calculations considered neither the rocket's exhaust nor the people to be part of the earth, so it's not a closed system. Do you know what a "frame of reference" is?
Re:Is there a "randomize" feature?
on
Mood Home
·
· Score: 2
I should have pointed out that the 5+ million Danes will only have to jump once. If you want a bunch of people jumping for the entire 520 seconds, you'll only need about 10,235 people, roughly the population of Satellite Beach, FL. (Thank you, Google)
"How much will this change the orbit of the earth?"
Hrmm... an SSME puts out 1862 kilonewtons of thrust at sea level. The earth is about 5.92E24 kilograms. Newton tells us that the earth will experience an acceleration of 3.15E-19 m/s^2, or 0.000000315 picometers per second per second. Newton also tells us that the 520 second firing time means that the earth will move 0.000425 picometers, or 1.67 trillionths of an inch. Not accounting for the angle the engine will sweep as the earth turns, of course...
"Will having all the people in India stamp their feet for those 9 minutes cancel the effect?"
We'll use conservation of momentum. 1862 kilonewtons for 520 s is 9.68E8 kg*m/s.
Let's say the average person masses in at 75 kilograms and can jump 30 cm up in the air. Newton tells us that they will be leaving the ground at 2.43 m/s. 75 kg moving at 2.43 m/s is 181.9 kg*m/s. We'll assume for simplicity's sake that they can jump once per second. We'll also assume that it's enough time to gently absorb the shock of their landing with their knees, making the momentum change of the landing negligible compared to the jumping.
At that rate, it will take about 5,322,000 people to counteract the rocket. According to the CIA World Factbook, the nearest match is Denmark's 5,336,394.
Unfortunately for the Danes, in order to work, they'll have to be jumping on the other side of the world as the engine. Stennis Space Center is located at 30.369 degrees north latitude, 89.613 degrees west longitude. The opposite side of the earth would be 30.369 degrees south latitude, 90.387 degrees east longitude, or about half-way between Bangladesh and Antarctica, in the middle of the Southern Indian Ocean. Only about a 1400 mile swim due east to Perth, Australia, though...
---
Ask a silly question, inspire somebody to give you a serious answer...
"Or you could describe a riculously impossible to implement Rube Goldberg device for karma whore points!"
Nah, if you make it too complicated, you'll get that much more pissed when those "damned kids" run over your mailbox again.:) Unless you work in a Stinger or a TOW missile into the design somehow...
Nah. If you go down that road, you'll end up with ED-209 as your mailbox. I can see Halloween now...
This mailbox is owned and operated by the federal government. You have ten seconds to drop the eggs and step away from the premises.
On the flip side, your local mailman/lady would be too scared to put ads in your mailbox, or bills for that matter...
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, it measn that all people, no matter where they come from, have the opportunity to become US citizens. They didn't become citizens before hacking US computers, so...
"I always thought that we hold our rights to such a high standard that they apply universally."
We, as Americans, have the right to decide (through democracy) what laws do or do not apply to us and our property. A people's right to self-government. If the suspects made no effort to be a part of our self-government, why should we force it upon them?
"If a country does not have these protections, don't we call them 'undemocratic' and threaten them with sanctions or worse?"
The suspects were made aware of their rights when they were arrested. They have the right to a lawyer. If they cannot afford legal consul, it will be provided to them free-of-charge. They have a right to only be held in prison for a year and a day before being put on trial. They have a right not to be interrogated without consul available. They have the right to a trial before a judge or a jury (their choice), where they have the right to challenge any and all evidence presented against them. They have the right to continue to have some contact with the outside world while incarcerated (probably with the local Russian Consulate). They have a right not to be denied bail without due process of law. They have the right to appeal a guilty verdict. And, last but not least, they have a right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment.
It's not like they're being dragged off into a dark alley and shot. They haven't "disappeared" like Chinese dissidents.
"But it is ok for the US to do any damned thing to people who are not inside it's borders because the Constitution does not apply."
The computers attacked were owned and operated by US citizens on US soil. Once the suspects entered US territory, the Constitution applied to them. It does not, however, apply to the evidence-gathering while they were outside the US.
However, there was no kidnapping involved in this case. They flew to the US voluntarily. Bait-and-switch, yes, but no kidnapping.
"Law enforcement agencies have no jurisdiction outside of the country."
The computers being hacked were within the US.
"This is against international law."
The crime was against US citizens and US property within US territory. What you're saying sounds like we don't have the right to attack a ship shooting missiles at the US if the ship is outside territorial waters.
This is wholly outside the jurisdiction of any US state or federal laws. The only "laws" that do apply are international treaties, and I have yet to hear of any that forbids a nation-state from taking nessecary action to protect itself from outside threat.
If the US were trying to enforce Constitutional law outside its borders, then the Chinese and others are right: We really ARE hegemonic. And I'd hate to be part of the military that tries to enforce those laws on the rest of the world.
The only odd thing I see here is that I think this might have been the CIA's jurisdiction, since they're the ones usually in charge of information-gathering outside US borders.
If you want to argue that the US Constitution protects the rights of those nowhere near our borders, then I hope you're one of the first to volunteer for the military as they're deployed to China to enforce our Constitution on them.
Would you rather the FBI try to argue that it can arrest people in Russia? The still have their nukes, ya know...
"but women are now the majority of US Internet users,"
According to the link, it says that out of all the users on the internet, 33% are brand new (less than a year), and 60% of that are women. 60% * 33% = 20%. Of course, this says nothing about any previous gender ratios, so it could mean anything.
"the average age of net users is up too."
As is, I don't see how that means anything. If five years ago, the average net user was 18, and now the average user is 23, it's still the same people. All it means is that we've aged five years in the past five years.
... that the US will supplement its ICBMs with inter-continental cruise missiles? These would have the advantage of flying in under the radar, so to speak...
No no no, what the Chinese are doing is a sign of respect and honor for our EP-3's incredible dog-fighting ability, taking out one of their jet fighters with only a propellor. I don't think the UAV's accomplishment can compare. :)
The internet is widespread throughout the US, in spite of the recent economic downturn that has yet to really stop. It seems that with each passing day, porn takes up a larger part of the internet economy. Do you think that this "porn boom" will help change opinions about sex in the US?
Notice I said "strip mining." A pound of uranium will last years, while a pound of oil, coal, natural gas, etc. may last you a half-hour, depending on what you do with it. One or two mines in the entire US would provide all the fuel we'd need. And they'd be small/slow enough to to be way more environment-friendly than your average coal mine.
"Most people freak at the thought of meltdowns and at the radioactive waste produced. We're already used to accepting the smog produced by Coal & oil plants, but radioactive disasters seem so utterly scary to the States, possibly as a result of years of Global Thermo Nuclear War fear?"
Nah, the big problem are the people (*cough* Californians *cough*) that want NO new power plants, no matter how the electricity is produced. :)
There are times when being able to see everything all at once isn't the best way of learning something. If I lay out out complete blueprints for the space shuttle, you're not going to have that much better an understanding of it (unless, of course, you've already know how to deal with situations like that).
I've enjoyed Wolfenstein 3D, Doom, Duke 3D, Quake II, Half-Life, etc. since I've had a computer to play them on. I've played through and beaten all of the above listed games, taking perverse pleasure in all the ways to kill a bad guy.
Most of my friends own guns of some sort, be it pistols, rifles, or shotguns. They often go to the local shooting range to use some ammunition. Now, even though I've played FPSes more than any of them, I've never had the urge to join them at the range and go shooting.
I've never even so much as participated in a fist fight, even though I had another friend who wanted to get me to work as a bouncer with him.
Why are these statements true? Shouldn't my decades-long exposure to violence have caused me to be desensitized?
Some time last year, I remember watching some "investigative report" on violence and video games and such. In it they interviewed some 7 or 8 year old boy and asked them about the subject. He said something along the lines of "Just because I play Superman doesn't mean I'm going to try to jump off a building."
"If you consistently expose people to sex and violence they grow to accept it. It's as obvious as anything. It's conditioning. For instance, in Muslim countries women aren't leered at and treated as sex objects, because society conditions them not to."
I've had exposure to porn since early high school, when I figured out how to use my Hayes 2400 modem and Telemate (and don't think I haven't downloaded it!). I also know several Muslims, as there are a lot of students in my college from the Middle East. They're more sexually active than I am hands down, going down to the local clubs every weekend like clockwork.
Why? Shouldn't I, with my long exposure to pictures of naked women, be more sexually active, if not an all-out rapist? If anything, I'd say that by being shielded from these things for so long, they're more likely to over-do it. Just like all the freshmen that wake up one day and realize their parents aren't around anymore to make them go to school, do their homework, shower daily... From my own experiences, it's usually the freshmen that grew up in extremely Baptist (insert relgion of choice here) homes that end up strung up or getting somebody pregnant.
"as kids exposed to lots of swearing swear more than those in environemnts where swearing is taboo"
I've been putting up with l33t hax0rs and flamers since I was 12 or 13. My father is a merchant mariner. Find the four-letter word in this post.
"Anyone who says otherwise is only doing so because they enjoy violence and sex so much. "
Or maybe, just maybe, we're talking from our own experiences. Experiences that show, no matter how much sex and violence we've been exposed to on our computers, we're neither stalkers nor murderers. If what you say were true, the murder and sexual crime rate should be at least ten times higher than what it is in the US. Hell, crime has been going down in recent years (in spite of the improvements in graphical violence). The only thing that's gone up is news coverage of kids that shoot others instead of themselves (like they usually do).
But this is all moot. Parent's shouldn't be able to sue game companies that have been voluntarily rating themselves for most of the past decade. That's like trying to sue the liquor store that your kid robbed for letting them have alchohol.
I'm not saying that all the games for PSX and other systems are lame like that (there's most definately games like Metal Gear Solid), but the majority of the games I see being sold for them are sold on the basis of "Look at those breasts!" or some other lame bit of marketing.
"Screw Nintendo - they stopped making games for serious gamers a long time ago."
"Serious gamers?" What exactly is a serious game? Is that like those war games the Army plays out in the middle of the desert?
I know from experience that a roomfull of college-aged guys can have some "serious" fun with four-player Mario Party (Paddle Battle!) or Super Smash Bros. if that's what you mean. This doesn't mean that we don't deathmatch in Half-Life, and it doesn't mean we don't usually play StarCraft, but we don't feel insulted or "less mature" when we realize that we've just kicked Donkey Kong's ass with Kirby. Because, God damn it, that damned gorilla is able to pick up anybody and throw them off the edge, the damned ****er deserved it...
It seems like everybody keeps on ragging on Nintendo for being "less mature," but those people seem to measure maturity on whether a game is rated T or M, and not whether the game is fun, has lots of replay value, or generally worth the money you paid for it. Throwing all Nintendo games into the "immature" category is like saying all cartoons are immature, forsaking South Park, Futurama, Toonami...
If you want to rush out and buy a PS2 or an Xbox as soon as it comes out because they'll be making "mature" games, go for it. However, there are only two games coming out for next-generatio consoles that have me excited right now: Zelda and Metroid.
Of the 103 operating nuclear power plants in the US, 2 are in California. There used to be 3, but Rancho Seco was shut down in 1989, and hasn't put out a single kilowatt-hour of electricity since. So, no, not all of your nuclear power plants are on-line. Have a nice day.
"or that you will be able to use it make the isotopes to make a bomb."
I meant "or you'll be able to use the reacter as a breeder to make weapons-grade isotopes."
"At best, you might claim that there's "hydrogen" involved, but that's only because that's what emitted alpha particles are (technically speaking). "
I typed "hydrogen," but I was really thinking "helium." H... He... what's the difference? A proton? :)
The worst nuclear accident in the US was an almost-meltdown at Three Mile Island near Harrisburg, PA, and that was how many decades ago? Compare that to the various natural gas explosions that occur around the country. Boiling liquid-vapor explosion, anyone?
What was the worst accident in France, where they get 80%+ of their electricity from fission? And they're in the forefront of technology in civillian fission (though they're lagging behind the US in nuclear propulsion, as with the rest of the world).
Whatever you have to say about the spent uranium from the plants, it is still the most environmentally friendly power generation around. Not only are there no emissions involved by defintion, but there's also no off-shore drilling, no tanker spills, no strip mining, no pipelines, no explosive railray cars, no high-pressure vessels (aside from the boilers themselves)... hell, even windmills and solar arrays require lots of open land, often at the cost of the native animal and plant life.
"but it will not be solve the thrird world and california's energy problems."
Actually, California's power problems would be solved by re-activating the nuclear plants that California environmental lobbies have shut down. As the lights flicker and diesel backup generators kick in, there are perfectly good nuclear plants just waiting to be used out there.
"Fission power is what fuels the hydrogen bomb"
No. Fusion is what fuels the hydrogen bomb. While it is true that, right now, the only known way to get an exothermic fusion reaction is with the heat and energy created by fission, fission is not a requirement for fusion. Look at the sun.
"we are proposing that we put fission reactors in everyone's home? "
Just because you have a little radioacive isotopes in your home doesn't mean that it's the right kind of isotope (or even element) to make a bomb, that there's enough to make a bomb, or that you will be able to use it make the isotopes to make a bomb.
And consider how many homes in the northeast have 1000's of gallons of heating oil (and the explosive fumes involved) underneath their yards.
"possibly by doping it with Iron, which can cause nuclear meltdown if done correctly, because Fe- + H "
I could be wrong, but you still seem to be confusing fission with fusion. No hydrogen involved in fission. At best, you might claim that there's "hydrogen" involved, but that's only because that's what emitted alpha particles are (technically speaking).
Meltdowns only happen if your core is large enough to get hot enough to melt the fuel (and just about anything else), and your cooling system and your control system fails. This is generally only applicable to large-scale/naval power plants, because they have (relatively) large amounts of fuel.. If I have a fission reactor in my back yard about the size of my air conditioning unit, I'd have to be pretty damned talented to get it to melt down.
"Also, there are social implications - unemployment and the death of an industry. Do we really want to cause the death of an industry for the sake of cheap electricity? "
If the alternative is people freezing in the middle of winter, or dying of heat stroke in the summer because they can't afford their power bills, then HELL YES!
"where nuclear reactors are used responsibly by the government, will beg to differ on that one. "
Actually, this would be a boom to the nuclear power industry. Imagine if nuclear reactors were as numerous as air conditioners.
As for other power generation, they'll need new jobs. Just like what happened to the ice deliverymen when the refrigerator was developed. And all those whalers that lost their jobs when people switched to fossil fuels and electric lights. If bettering society as a whole means a few people lose their jobs, so be it. Majority rules.
"We must not embrace new technologies solely because they are new, but rather because they improve our quality of life."
You don't think that having to pay a power bill isn't an improvement in the quality of life? Do you work for SoCalEd or something?
"The 1995 launch of Microsoft's revolutionary new product"
Yeah, instead of having to buy Windows 4.0 and MS-DOS 7.0 in two different packages, you could buy it all in one box!
"product's stability, appearance and intuitive interface"
Actually, when we all jumped ship, we discovered that it was about as stable as 3.11 was. And the interface wasn't all that intuitive when the whole world was used to 3.x.
"Then, as in the early 80s, when Microsoft were instrumental in the first truly personal computerThen, as in the early 80s, when Microsoft were instrumental in the first truly personal computer"
How could they be responsible for the same thing twice, unless one (or both?) of them didn't really happen? "For the first time, the elderly, the young, and the technically illiterate were empowered to use computers"
No, they're still all on hold with Microsoft tech support.
"Although computers still betrayed some of their arcane origins of a time when computing was the real of those with genius IQs and degrees in mathematics",/I>
I first started tinkering with the BASIC package of my ADAM when I was 5. In the early 90's, I figured out how to get onto the local BBS scene with my 286/12, 2400 modem, and Telemate. I'm no genius, and neither were all the flamers and l33t hax0rs that also frequented the boards. It was an awful lot like /., actually, without the pretty HTML.
"This was achieved by always providing what the market needed"
I think you mean "convincing the market that they needed it." How much did they spend on advertising and playing that Rolling Stones song over and over? They should have let the lyrics keep going... "You make a grown man cry..."
"The Microsoft formula was to pile 'em high and sell 'em cheap"
I prefer the name "slash and burn" myself...
"Microsoft's success came through out-maneuvering the competition."
I think you meant to say "hype and intimidation."
"Revolutionary was the approach that said that a spreadsheet, which at one would have cost over a thousand dollars, could be sold for a fraction of the price",
Besides the fact that no version of Windows has ever come with a spreadsheet app, Microsoft Excel for Windows (1988, "Windows" being "Windows 2.0") cost around $200 or so.
The only reason Excel's price has come down from that is because, when all is said and done, 90% of it is still the same old code they've had since the 80's. It'd be down further if they didn't put in all those damned easer eggs and talking paperclips.
"This approach drove the computing revolution of the 80s" If it were released in 1995...
"and the net revolution of the 90s"
95 has no intrinsic web hosting capabilities. NT still relied to heavily on NetBEUI to make it all that good of a hosting platform. It wasn't until Windows 2000 that Microsoft actually released an OS that spoke TCP/IP as a first language.
I'd say Al Gore did more to help the internet than Bill Gates.
"Microsoft's aggressive approach made computing far more affordable"
Even if you don't take into the account the price of the OS itself and the glorified bug-fixes they sell for $80, just about every major computer and buisiness magazine in publication agrees that the cost of ownership of a Windows PC is simply too high for a business.
"Microsoft's approach of providing the product the market wanted "
You're still confusing it with "convincing the market that it's what they wanted." Nobody wants built-in obsalescence.
"empowering thousands of small businesses,"
"often without the funds to employ dedicated IT admin staff"
If you don't need a dedicated IT staff, then why is the job market for MCSEs so good?
"to manage their own computer networks and to sell themselves on the web,"
As I said in an earlier post, the box might as well say right on the front "MCSE Not Included." The average small business without a dedicated IT department will not be able to utilize NT or 2000 in that way out of the box because the average small business owner has a business to run, which leaves them no time to spend a month reading texts and documentation.
If it were so easy, Microsoft wouldn't be telling you that it takes at least 7 months to get your MCSE cert.
"Similarly, Microsoft's masterful integration of the internet within Windows means that for most people the internet MEANS Internet Explorer."
Sites like this one put the lie to Microsoft's "integrated" claim.
On the other hand, instead of integrating core internet technologies like TCP/IP in their products, NT came with products like "NetBIOS over IP" and WINS, products that can only be described as shoddy work-arounds for NT's native NetBIOS networking structure. This instead of a genuine OS patch to get NT to speak TCP/IP natively.
Microsoft is at least three steps behind when it comes to the internet.
"by making their product vastly superior to the competition"
Logic time: If it were vastly superior to the competition, why is there still competition?
"the consumer sees that he is benefiting and is happy to acquiesce"
No, the consumer only sees the way that what was once done with blazing speed on a 90 MHz Pentium now all but requires gigahertz speed and gigahertz pricing. Why do you think hardware sales (and, subsequently, Windows ME sales as well) are in such a slump?
"but for the companies, small and large, who were able to compete thanks to the low barrier to entry erected by Microsoft."
Oh? By all accounts, XP won't run any MP3 software except that written by Microsoft. That sounds like a very high barrier to entry to me.
"described as an end to frustration for the millions of computer users"
By your own arguments, Windows 95 was that supposed end. Why should we believe that XP will be more of a solution than 95?
Requiring a Pentium II processor to run your OS is more indicative of a problem than a solution.
"discover the highly logical (but also deeply complicated) way that computing systems such as Windows"
I've spent the past few weeks studying to be an MCSE (I figure it'd provide income while I pursue a college degreen in physics). The more I read, the more it becomes patently appearant that what you call "logical" is more than 50% work-arounds of their old code. They insist on piling more on top of their old code instead of sitting down and actually writing something new (which, to my knowledge, Microsoft has never done). The books (published by Microsoft, mind you) spend more time telling you the ways that you CAN'T do something than the ways you can.
"Millions of dollars of research, of observation"
If you need to spend millions of dollars to learn about your customer base, how in-touch with them could you possibly be?
"a product where computing is a natural experience rather than a painful one, with effortless remote maintenance and inter-computer interaction. "
Again, I thought you said that's what 95 was.
"At the same time that Microsoft is on the brink of launching of a product that makes them feel 'super super excited'"
If I were going to launch something I expected would make me billions (if not trillions) of dollars, I'd be "super super excited," too.
"the competition is still hopeless"
Then why is it still around? Better yet, why is it gaining market share?
"Particularly for Linux, the outlook looks bleak"
In order to make that statement true, you need to replace the word 'Linux' with the phrase 'Windows 2000'
"No longer buffeted by the heady currents of the internet goldrush"
Didn't you just say that Microsoft was responsible for that gold rush? If so, then wouldn't the current economy be the fault of Microsoft as well? Can we really trust them, then?
"Linux-based companies - which have never made any appreciable amount of money "
IBM what?
"they are also recognizing that companies required by their underlying philosophy to give their product away, do not have significant revenue opportunities. "
Then in what way is the price-slashing you espoused earlier better?
"relies on ideas stolen directly from Windows. "
1.) Windows was stolen from Apple and Xerox
2.) I've yet to see anything in KDE or Gnome that were anything but an improvement on what Windows offered. Really. Name one thing about the Windows interface that is better than either of those two.
"and enormous goodwill to shoddy workmanship and incomplete and buggy software (the likes of which would not be tolerated from commercial software)"
If it really weren't tolerated, then Microsoft wouldn't have gotten away with releasing Windows 98 (Windows 4.1) or Windows ME (Windows 4.9)after releasing Windows 95 (Windows 4.0). Each with a premium price.
"The in-fighting and lack of commercial rigor of the Unix and open source world has left a system of wild inconsistencies and rough edges, "
"For everyone else, Linux remains something that is frustrating to use, with its bewildering array of arcane concepts (file permissions,
Linux's short list of file permissions (user, group, everyone each can have read/write/execute permissions) pales in comparison with the monolithic list of NT/2000 file permissions (many of which seemingly overlap).
"symbolic links"
And what would you call a Windows 95 shortcut? Oh, and speaking of which, a "new" feater of Windows 2000 is the ability to mount a hard drive partition to a folder...
"compilers to install software"
Haven't touched a compiler since that C course 5 years ago.
(something users used to InstallShield would find troubling))"
I find InstallShield more difficult to use and comprehend than RedHat's Packagme Manager.
If all of these concepts were so bad, why is Windows trying so hard to include them? And if they really are bad, what does this say about Windows' efforts to include them?
"The almost total lack of co-operation between projects means that there is no consistent graphical configuration tool to match Windows' Control Panel. "
If you want something that puts Control Panel to shame, look at Mandrake 8.0.
"The ultimate cause of it in many cases is probably human nature, as there is no doubt that we are programmed to be resentful of success and to be envious of those who succeed -"
Then we should be hating IBM, not Microsoft. Of the two, IBM has more money (and is therefore more "successful.")
"That these feelings should be directed at a company largely responsible for the massively improved levels of prosperity brought by bringing computing to the masses"
Again, we should also be hating IBM for their open-architecture PC.
"since as humans are essentially selfish beings, personal reassurance is a far more important emotion than altruism."
Then we should be far more concerned about the interests of Microsoft and it's One True Leader than the Linux collective. How can we counteract any selfishness on the part of Bill Gates? Claiming that Bill Gates is altruistic and may be the only non-selfish person out there sounds a little too close to Nazi propoganda for comfort.
", resentful in part that computing should become accessible to the uninitiated,"
No, I'm resentful of the time I worked in Dell tech support, and all the times I had to tell an angry customer that there was nothing I could do for them, because the problem was a "feature" of Windows. I'm resentful of the fact that networking with Windows 2000 has such a high barrier to entry due to its price and liscencing racket. I'm resentful that the latest and greatest operating systems from Microsoft shuts down my dial-up networking connection for no appearant reason. I'm resentful of the fact that, as a Windows user, I cannot choose to not use IE. I'm resentful of the fact that I need a minimum of 100 MB of hard drive space to install a Microsoft product that's marginally equivalent to WordPerfect 5.1. I'm resentful of the fact that Microsoft would knowingly ship a product with 65,000 known bugs, and then try to push for these products to be used in mission-critical environments. I'm resentful of the fact that Microsoft is single-handedly responsible for the anti-virus software market, with the way they leave security holes through their "functionality" that no well-informed person would accept. I'm resentful of the way that Microsoft works hard to make sure that there are as few "well-informed" people as possible. I'm resentful of the fact that my parents had to pay for and learn a new operating system when they paid for a new computer. I'm resentful of the way I have to tell my parents that their new $2000 machine has bugs like the aforementioned dial-up problems, and that the only explaination I can offer them is "It's Windows." I'm resentful of the fact that a Pentium 233 MMX with 96 MB of RAM boots Windows 98 faster than a Pentium 4 1.3 GHz with 256 MB of RAM boots Windows ME (even with the fast boot option configured in the BIOS). And, last but not least, I resent any company that works planned obsolescence into their product, and then has the balls to say to a court of law that it's "innovation."
OK, I now return you to your regularly scheduled flame war.
The scheduled firing was scheduled for 8:00. I got to the gate around 7:00, and spent the next hour stuck in traffic along the five-mile stretch to the designated parking area. In that traffic jam, most of the lisence plates were from Mississippi and Louisiana. There were plenty from Alabama (70+ miles away), too many for them all to be military. There was even one from Ontario.
Upon reaching the parking area (where the people trying to organize parking ran out of designated space), I joined the crowd of 400-500 people waiting on about 4-5 busses (and I only saw one bus owned and operated by NASA). 8:00 came and went with no firing, and around 8:45 (still in line for a bus) somebody started moving through the crowd with a bullhorn saying something about "indefinately postponed" because of technical difficulties.
I can't really blame them for not expecting the turnout they got. I don't know how well the press release was covered in the Biloxi area, but I know that the bit barely got three paragraphs in some sidebar in New Orlean's Times-Picayune. I guess everybody wanted to get an up-close view of part of that thing that sets off everybody's car alarm whenever it comes in for a landing.
There's been no official word that I can see yet when they'll try again, and whether it will be public again or not.
All in all, anybody who think Americans don't care about their space program deserves to get smacked hard.
If you get Home Planet, other useful things are NISTime (freeware time synch program from NIST) available here, and you can get two-line satellite tracking (TLE) info (also useful at the Earth and Moon Viewer site) from NORAD's satellite catalog here. It's all text files, and there are several that are designed for automated downloads for the real fanatics.
In general, everything is surprisingly simple, and it doesn't take much to, say, get the latest telemtry on Endeavor (STS-100) here, cut-and-paste it into a Home Planet satellite database (text file), and see exactly where the shuttle is.
It's called "normal differential equations."
Acceleration = a
Velocity = v
Displacement = x
Time = t
v = dx/dt
a = dv/dt
v(0) = 0
x(0) = 0
dv = a*dt
v = integral of a * dt
v = at + C (something Galileo figured out w/o calculus)
v(0) = 0
0 = a*0 + C1
C1 = 0
v = at
dx/dt = at
dx = at*dt
x = integral of at*dt
x = 0.5*at^2 + C2 (something Galileo figured out w/o calculus)
x(0) = 0
0 = 0.5*a*0^2 + C2
C2 = 0
x = 0.5*at^2
a(t) = 3.15E-19 m/s
t = 520 s
x = 0.5*(3.15E-19 m/s)*(520 s)^2
x = 4.25E-14 m
Is that a rigorous enough explaination for you, or do I need to explain what "derivative" and "integral" mean? How about "limit?"
The only problem I see is that I stated the wrong metric prefix (0.0425 pm), but you failed to mention that. The inch figure still stands (4.25E-14 m = 1.67E-12 in), which suggests that the raw numbers I was using work fine.
The only real fault you've caught me on so far is momentarily confusing "momentum" with "kinetic energy" during some on-the-fly calculations. If I really wanted to spend time and effort on this problem, I would have taken into account:
And this is still not an exhaustive list.However, if you take such infinite delight in my brainfart of confusing mv with 0.5mv^2, then good for you. I only wish I were so easily amused.
My calculations considered neither the rocket's exhaust nor the people to be part of the earth, so it's not a closed system. Do you know what a "frame of reference" is?
What's next, then? A multi-colored "housesaver?"
I should have pointed out that the 5+ million Danes will only have to jump once. If you want a bunch of people jumping for the entire 520 seconds, you'll only need about 10,235 people, roughly the population of Satellite Beach, FL. (Thank you, Google)
Hrmm... an SSME puts out 1862 kilonewtons of thrust at sea level. The earth is about 5.92E24 kilograms. Newton tells us that the earth will experience an acceleration of 3.15E-19 m/s^2, or 0.000000315 picometers per second per second. Newton also tells us that the 520 second firing time means that the earth will move 0.000425 picometers, or 1.67 trillionths of an inch. Not accounting for the angle the engine will sweep as the earth turns, of course...
"Will having all the people in India stamp their feet for those 9 minutes cancel the effect?"
We'll use conservation of momentum. 1862 kilonewtons for 520 s is 9.68E8 kg*m/s.
Let's say the average person masses in at 75 kilograms and can jump 30 cm up in the air. Newton tells us that they will be leaving the ground at 2.43 m/s. 75 kg moving at 2.43 m/s is 181.9 kg*m/s. We'll assume for simplicity's sake that they can jump once per second. We'll also assume that it's enough time to gently absorb the shock of their landing with their knees, making the momentum change of the landing negligible compared to the jumping.
At that rate, it will take about 5,322,000 people to counteract the rocket. According to the CIA World Factbook, the nearest match is Denmark's 5,336,394.
Unfortunately for the Danes, in order to work, they'll have to be jumping on the other side of the world as the engine. Stennis Space Center is located at 30.369 degrees north latitude, 89.613 degrees west longitude. The opposite side of the earth would be 30.369 degrees south latitude, 90.387 degrees east longitude, or about half-way between Bangladesh and Antarctica, in the middle of the Southern Indian Ocean. Only about a 1400 mile swim due east to Perth, Australia, though...
---
Ask a silly question, inspire somebody to give you a serious answer...
Nah, if you make it too complicated, you'll get that much more pissed when those "damned kids" run over your mailbox again. :) Unless you work in a Stinger or a TOW missile into the design somehow...
Nah. If you go down that road, you'll end up with ED-209 as your mailbox. I can see Halloween now...
On the flip side, your local mailman/lady would be too scared to put ads in your mailbox, or bills for that matter...