I've oversimplified by saying "stationed in a higher orbit." It doesn't seem like they've finalized their plans yet, but they seem to prefer placing it in orbit about the 2nd Lagrangian point (about 1.5 million km from earth). That would significantly reduce its exposure to radiation from the earth, but doesn't get it away from the "interior" of the solar system, or anywhere near Jupiter.
Perhaps you're referring to earlier, more ambitious plans that I'm not aware of?
There's a lot of good news packed into this article. In addition to the Pluto, Mars, and Europa missions, they also approved funding for the Next Generation Space Telescope. And they required NASA to keep the Hubble telescope operating until the NGST is in place.
The NGST will have a primary mirror diameter at least twice that of Hubble, be stationed in higher orbit, and be capable of gathering data farther into the infrared spectrum. Pretty neat.
As a child I built many different electronic gadgets with kits. While I enjoyed doing so, I can't say I learned a lot from the experience. The instructions were usually very basic. They told you how to assemble the device, but contained little or no explantion of how it worked. While I don't expect a kit suitable for a child to contain an in depth primer on electro-magnetic theory, it would be nice if it at least provided an intuitive description of how the circuits and components functioned.
That said, does anyone know of a company that makes kits with documentation that could actually be considered educational (beyond a trivial level)?
I want all the text on the screen to relate to the story I'm watching.
I would agree with you on all points except that. I rather like the fact that the news networks (CNNHN, MSNBC Fox) are scrolling miscellaneous headlines across the bottom of the screen. Ever since 9/11, they've all been devoting nearly 24 hours a day to one or two ongoing stories (can you say anthrax?) while ignoring everything else. The scrolling text often provides the only clue that other important things are occuring in the world.
And since so much of what they call news is actually just talk (ie., some retired general speculating about what is going on in Afghanistan), the headlines often provide "harder" news than the talking heads.
But the contest to see who can fit the most US flag logos on the screen at the same time just has to end soon (please god!).
I think that it should be of concern to us. It will affect our society whether or not it directly affects us as individual computer users. Microsoft is not content to be a software monopoly; they want to be a media/communications giant as well.
In attempting to become "The Gatekeeper of the Internet", Microsoft will have enormous influence over what sites and services Windows users choose.
It isn't comforting to think a single corporation will have so much control over the information that the average internet user has access to.
Of course, AOL is trying to do the same thing. It's already hard for the novice AOL user to tell where AOL ends and the Internet begins.
Given the corporate consolidation that has already occurred in the media business and AOL's huge market share in Internet access, maybe what Microsoft is doing isn't such a bad thing. We need more competition in this area, and Microsoft may be the only company in a position to do it. A world where AOL/Time-Warner has a disproportionate influence over what we see, read, and hear isn't any better than one in which Microsoft is in charge. I just hope Microsoft isn't overly successful. No one should have a near monopoly over access to information.
Bubonic plague is still deadly, and can still be found in the unhygenic squalor of many a shanty-town in third and second world countries.
It can still be found in the unhygenic squalor of Colorado. In fact, the strain analyzed by the researchers in this study came from the United States in 1992.
I'm afraid I can't attest from first hand knowledge whether or not Colorado Springs qualifies as a shanty-town.
People playing with bio engineering could come up with a new version that could be very nasty.
Why worry about people bio-engineering nastier versions when the ones that already exist (of this and other diseases with the potential to be bio-weapons) are already quite nasty enough?
We're understandably hearing a lot of talk about diseases being used as weapons of terror. Fortunately, such attacks would require considerably more expertise than merely knowing how to fly a crop duster. While it is something to take very seriously, I'm still more concerned about hijackers. Why should terrorists trouble themselves with biological weapons when they can wreak such mayhem with box cutters?
I don't think the outlook will be necessarily as bad as you think. Take, for example, what the New York Times article said:
Without the trade commission's support for legislation, several bills that are awaiting Congressional action are likely to lose momentum... That could open the door for stepped-up regulatory efforts in the states, many of which have moved aggressively on consumer privacy issues. That could create the very situation that some companies supporting regulation had hoped to avoid: a patchwork of conflicting state legislation.
In a round about way that could be a good thing. A maze of conflicting local legislation, while a pain in the rear for business, could actually benefit the consumer. If businesses are unsure of what state's privacy laws apply in a particular case, they may have to adhere to the strictest ones by default in order to protect themselves. Thus resulting in better privacy for the public.
Or maybe it's just the evil side of me that enjoys seeing life made difficult for companies that want to share my personal information with the world.;)
But I'm tired of hearing scientists say, "we're only a decade away!"
Pardon me, but I don't see anywhere in this article where a scientist says we're only a decade away. The submitter (not the scientist) said,
"Fusion power is 'within reach' in the next decade, with commercial plants to follow within another 10 or so years."
But all that proves is that he was more eager to submit the article than actually understand it.
All the scientist said was that fusion power was "within reach" (which could hardly be more vague) and that
"There are still very many difficulties but perhaps in a few decades we could have commercial fusion reactors in cities providing cheap pollution-free power."
[emphasis mine]
"Perhaps in a few decades" doesn't sound like wide-eyed optimism to me. And it certain doesn't mean "commerical plants in another 10 or so years."
Your needless condescension is noted. Perhaps you should get some social skills.
Stragner things than the plot of Gladiator happened in the Empire's history.
While majoring in Western Classics, albeit many years ago, I did learn a thing or two about Roman history. However, none of it is relevant to the fact that Gladiator is an utterly mindless special effects vehicle and rather silly action movie.
It's curious that the rudest responses I receive to my posts on Slashdot are always from people upset that I don't like their favorite movie. Furthermore, the movie in question is almost always a ludicrous piece of eye candy. The psychology of this is fascinating. Why is it so important to these people to believe that their chosen piece of pop-trash is really the next Citizen Kane?
Almost without fail, if everyone else loves it, Roger hates it
So basically you want groupthink from a movie reviewer.
For instance, he totally thrashed Gladiator, saying it was horrid, etc
I don't suppose you care the the plot is totally ridiculous?
then it wins Oscar for best picture
Here's a shocking piece of news for you: the Oscars are hardly more than a popularity contest. The movies nomimated for best picture are (more often than not) slickly produced but unremarkable. Once and a while something interesting wins, but most of the time not. Looking at the record of best pictures winners from many years ago reveals a few decent choices, lots of completely ignored classics, and a whole bunch of what-were-they-thinking-winners.
Well I knew the moderation system was joke, but this takes the cake. +5 Insightful for a trite piece of smug, self-satisfied spam that has been forwarded to me more times than I can count by people I wish (please God!) would lose my email address.
It's irritating on so many levels. Aside from the cut-and-paste unoriginality of people who prefer to let others do their writing for them, there is the smug self-satisfied tone already mentioned. Even worse is the way the author states the majority viewpoint on nearly every issue he mentions, while pretending to be a courageous lone wolf speaking out against the madness of the world.
And of course there are the distortions and misrepresentations of the truth. (For every silly lawsuit mentioned, how many others were thrown right out of court?)
Also maddening is its dismissive attitude towards (or malicious distortion of) opposing points of view. For example, the author wants smokers to be held accountable for their actions, but I guess I'm just a left wing lunatic if I want tobacco companies (who deliberately manipulated nicotine levels to make cigarettes more addictive, who advertised cigarettes as being healthy when they were the first to learn they were not, who lied to and defrauded the American public countless times) to held accountable for theirs. Or for example, the thing about distributing hypodermic needles. I think the government should distribute hypodermic needles to addicts for free. But that's not because I don't think addicts should be held responsible for what they are doing to themselves. It's just that if the government protect public health by doing something as easy and inexpensive as giving away needles, then why the hell shouldn't it?
Did I mention the author's complete lack of compassion? I know it's dumb to blame a rock band for your teenager's suicide. Clearly the musicians are not at fault in such cases. But I also know that losing a child to suicide is an unspeakably terrible loss. And I don't expect people who have experienced such a loss to behave entirely rationally. And I certainly wouldn't use them as fodder for my politcal email-diatribe.
This is not about "how America works lately." It's a right-wing radio host's version of how America works -- every little thing that happens is just further proof that your viewpoint is correct, further proof that your opponents are stereotypical bleeding-heart-liberal hare-brained-idiots, further proof that the values that you were raised with are the ones everyone ought to have.
Re:The real problem with this movie is
on
Review: The Dish
·
· Score: 1
I think it's you that need to read what was said, and I quote "I saw the trailer for this last week and it looked like a really cool film until the name flashed up on the screen"
I know. I'm not debating that. I've never said otherwise, except in your imagination.
Note he saw the trailer NOT the film.
I know. I'm not debating that. I've never said otherwise, except in your imagination.
So my arguments still stand
Your argument was essentially, "Don't judge a book by its cover." No one in this thread has disagreed with that, except in your imagination.
No one was saying it was a bad film except in your imagination. The Anonymous Coward didn't say it was a bad film. He said it had a bad title. I didn't say it was a bad film., I said it had a bad title.
if you can't admit this small point then you have a smaller mind than some house plants I have.
I have no idea why you have so much emotion invested in this issue.
Re:The real problem with this movie is
on
Review: The Dish
·
· Score: 1
I think you have missed the point.
The point is you don't judge a piece of work or art by what the artist or author happens to have called it.
The point was that you accused someone of doing that, when they did no such thing.
You judge it by its content, then make a judgement on the work and not before.
Right. I don't know who you are arguing with. No one is doing that, or suggesting that be done.
My comment was directed to a person who had admitted that they hadn't seen the movie and made a judgement without having seen it
Again, no one did that. You keep arguing with what you imagined the Anonymous Coward said, rather than what he did say. Hence the suggestion to read for comprehension. Please calm down and re-read the message that started this thread before you respond.
...If you can't understand this simple concept then I have my doubts about the comprehension comment.
It's not an insult, it's just a fact. You didn't comprehend what the Anonymous Coward said. So just go back and read it.
So the point I make is "psycho" isn't a great movie because of the title but in spite of the title - it would still have been a great movie if it had been called something like "The Bates Motel"
I like the title "Psycho" just fine. I assume the word "Psycho" had more punch to it at the time it came out, but it certainly is better than "The Bates Motel." (At least neither of them conjure up images of a dinner plate.)
But we weren't talking about whether "The Dish" or "Psycho" or any of these movies are great. We were talking about whether they had good titles.
I find "The Dish" to be a mundane and unintentionally comical title. You seem to disagree, but you won't tell me why. (Well, either you disagree, or you've confused the statement "The title of this movie is bad" with "This movie is bad.") Instead you've made ad hominem attacks against me, and against an Anonymous Coward (whose words you have now twice mischaracterized).
Re:The real problem with this movie is
on
Review: The Dish
·
· Score: 1
So what do you say about movies with names like - "casablanca" or "rear window" or "psyco"
"Psycho," you mean. I think those are wonderful titles.
Oh BTW Gone With the Wind was a book of that name before it was a movie
I am aware of that. How does that invalidate my point?
you can read can't you?
I can even do so for comprehension.
Re:The real problem with this movie is
on
Review: The Dish
·
· Score: 1
notice you only saw the trailer - I hope you aren't the type of person who opens their mouth to critisise something without actually seeing the movie.
Read for comprehension. Where in that message did he criticize the movie? What he said was he didn't like the title.
What the hell would you have called it? "The Radiotelescope" or "How the world saw the Apollo 11 moon landing" or "Four guys and a Dish" or some other catchy phrase...
At the very least a catchy phrase would have been nice. Not that any of those phrases are catchy. "The Dish" doesn't sound like they put much thought into it. It's as if "Gone With the Wind" had been called, umm, "A Plantation."
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps you're referring to earlier, more ambitious plans that I'm not aware of?
The NGST will have a primary mirror diameter at least twice that of Hubble, be stationed in higher orbit, and be capable of gathering data farther into the infrared spectrum. Pretty neat.
That said, does anyone know of a company that makes kits with documentation that could actually be considered educational (beyond a trivial level)?
I would agree with you on all points except that. I rather like the fact that the news networks (CNNHN, MSNBC Fox) are scrolling miscellaneous headlines across the bottom of the screen. Ever since 9/11, they've all been devoting nearly 24 hours a day to one or two ongoing stories (can you say anthrax?) while ignoring everything else. The scrolling text often provides the only clue that other important things are occuring in the world.
And since so much of what they call news is actually just talk (ie., some retired general speculating about what is going on in Afghanistan), the headlines often provide "harder" news than the talking heads.
But the contest to see who can fit the most US flag logos on the screen at the same time just has to end soon (please god!).
I think that it should be of concern to us. It will affect our society whether or not it directly affects us as individual computer users. Microsoft is not content to be a software monopoly; they want to be a media/communications giant as well. In attempting to become "The Gatekeeper of the Internet", Microsoft will have enormous influence over what sites and services Windows users choose. It isn't comforting to think a single corporation will have so much control over the information that the average internet user has access to.
Of course, AOL is trying to do the same thing. It's already hard for the novice AOL user to tell where AOL ends and the Internet begins.
Given the corporate consolidation that has already occurred in the media business and AOL's huge market share in Internet access, maybe what Microsoft is doing isn't such a bad thing. We need more competition in this area, and Microsoft may be the only company in a position to do it. A world where AOL/Time-Warner has a disproportionate influence over what we see, read, and hear isn't any better than one in which Microsoft is in charge. I just hope Microsoft isn't overly successful. No one should have a near monopoly over access to information.
It can still be found in the unhygenic squalor of Colorado. In fact, the strain analyzed by the researchers in this study came from the United States in 1992.
I'm afraid I can't attest from first hand knowledge whether or not Colorado Springs qualifies as a shanty-town.
Why worry about people bio-engineering nastier versions when the ones that already exist (of this and other diseases with the potential to be bio-weapons) are already quite nasty enough?
We're understandably hearing a lot of talk about diseases being used as weapons of terror. Fortunately, such attacks would require considerably more expertise than merely knowing how to fly a crop duster. While it is something to take very seriously, I'm still more concerned about hijackers. Why should terrorists trouble themselves with biological weapons when they can wreak such mayhem with box cutters?
In a round about way that could be a good thing. A maze of conflicting local legislation, while a pain in the rear for business, could actually benefit the consumer. If businesses are unsure of what state's privacy laws apply in a particular case, they may have to adhere to the strictest ones by default in order to protect themselves. Thus resulting in better privacy for the public.
Or maybe it's just the evil side of me that enjoys seeing life made difficult for companies that want to share my personal information with the world. ;)
Pardon me, but I don't see anywhere in this article where a scientist says we're only a decade away. The submitter (not the scientist) said,
But all that proves is that he was more eager to submit the article than actually understand it.All the scientist said was that fusion power was "within reach" (which could hardly be more vague) and that
"Perhaps in a few decades" doesn't sound like wide-eyed optimism to me. And it certain doesn't mean "commerical plants in another 10 or so years."
Your needless condescension is noted. Perhaps you should get some social skills.
Stragner things than the plot of Gladiator happened in the Empire's history.
While majoring in Western Classics, albeit many years ago, I did learn a thing or two about Roman history. However, none of it is relevant to the fact that Gladiator is an utterly mindless special effects vehicle and rather silly action movie.
It's curious that the rudest responses I receive to my posts on Slashdot are always from people upset that I don't like their favorite movie. Furthermore, the movie in question is almost always a ludicrous piece of eye candy. The psychology of this is fascinating. Why is it so important to these people to believe that their chosen piece of pop-trash is really the next Citizen Kane?
So basically you want groupthink from a movie reviewer.
For instance, he totally thrashed Gladiator, saying it was horrid, etc
I don't suppose you care the the plot is totally ridiculous?
then it wins Oscar for best picture
Here's a shocking piece of news for you: the Oscars are hardly more than a popularity contest. The movies nomimated for best picture are (more often than not) slickly produced but unremarkable. Once and a while something interesting wins, but most of the time not. Looking at the record of best pictures winners from many years ago reveals a few decent choices, lots of completely ignored classics, and a whole bunch of what-were-they-thinking-winners.
It's irritating on so many levels. Aside from the cut-and-paste unoriginality of people who prefer to let others do their writing for them, there is the smug self-satisfied tone already mentioned. Even worse is the way the author states the majority viewpoint on nearly every issue he mentions, while pretending to be a courageous lone wolf speaking out against the madness of the world.
And of course there are the distortions and misrepresentations of the truth. (For every silly lawsuit mentioned, how many others were thrown right out of court?)
Also maddening is its dismissive attitude towards (or malicious distortion of) opposing points of view. For example, the author wants smokers to be held accountable for their actions, but I guess I'm just a left wing lunatic if I want tobacco companies (who deliberately manipulated nicotine levels to make cigarettes more addictive, who advertised cigarettes as being healthy when they were the first to learn they were not, who lied to and defrauded the American public countless times) to held accountable for theirs. Or for example, the thing about distributing hypodermic needles. I think the government should distribute hypodermic needles to addicts for free. But that's not because I don't think addicts should be held responsible for what they are doing to themselves. It's just that if the government protect public health by doing something as easy and inexpensive as giving away needles, then why the hell shouldn't it?
Did I mention the author's complete lack of compassion? I know it's dumb to blame a rock band for your teenager's suicide. Clearly the musicians are not at fault in such cases. But I also know that losing a child to suicide is an unspeakably terrible loss. And I don't expect people who have experienced such a loss to behave entirely rationally. And I certainly wouldn't use them as fodder for my politcal email-diatribe.
This is not about "how America works lately." It's a right-wing radio host's version of how America works -- every little thing that happens is just further proof that your viewpoint is correct, further proof that your opponents are stereotypical bleeding-heart-liberal hare-brained-idiots, further proof that the values that you were raised with are the ones everyone ought to have.
I think it's you that need to read what was said, and I quote "I saw the trailer for this last week and it looked like a really cool film until the name flashed up on the screen"
I know. I'm not debating that. I've never said otherwise, except in your imagination.
Note he saw the trailer NOT the film.
I know. I'm not debating that. I've never said otherwise, except in your imagination.
So my arguments still stand
Your argument was essentially, "Don't judge a book by its cover." No one in this thread has disagreed with that, except in your imagination.
No one was saying it was a bad film except in your imagination. The Anonymous Coward didn't say it was a bad film. He said it had a bad title. I didn't say it was a bad film., I said it had a bad title.
if you can't admit this small point then you have a smaller mind than some house plants I have.
I have no idea why you have so much emotion invested in this issue.
I think you have missed the point. The point is you don't judge a piece of work or art by what the artist or author happens to have called it.
The point was that you accused someone of doing that, when they did no such thing.
You judge it by its content, then make a judgement on the work and not before.
Right. I don't know who you are arguing with. No one is doing that, or suggesting that be done.
My comment was directed to a person who had admitted that they hadn't seen the movie and made a judgement without having seen it
Again, no one did that. You keep arguing with what you imagined the Anonymous Coward said, rather than what he did say. Hence the suggestion to read for comprehension. Please calm down and re-read the message that started this thread before you respond.
It's not an insult, it's just a fact. You didn't comprehend what the Anonymous Coward said. So just go back and read it.
So the point I make is "psycho" isn't a great movie because of the title but in spite of the title - it would still have been a great movie if it had been called something like "The Bates Motel"
I like the title "Psycho" just fine. I assume the word "Psycho" had more punch to it at the time it came out, but it certainly is better than "The Bates Motel." (At least neither of them conjure up images of a dinner plate.)
But we weren't talking about whether "The Dish" or "Psycho" or any of these movies are great. We were talking about whether they had good titles.
I find "The Dish" to be a mundane and unintentionally comical title. You seem to disagree, but you won't tell me why. (Well, either you disagree, or you've confused the statement "The title of this movie is bad" with "This movie is bad.") Instead you've made ad hominem attacks against me, and against an Anonymous Coward (whose words you have now twice mischaracterized).
So what do you say about movies with names like - "casablanca" or "rear window" or "psyco"
"Psycho," you mean. I think those are wonderful titles.
Oh BTW Gone With the Wind was a book of that name before it was a movie
I am aware of that. How does that invalidate my point?
you can read can't you?
I can even do so for comprehension.
notice you only saw the trailer - I hope you aren't the type of person who opens their mouth to critisise something without actually seeing the movie.
Read for comprehension. Where in that message did he criticize the movie? What he said was he didn't like the title.
What the hell would you have called it? "The Radiotelescope" or "How the world saw the Apollo 11 moon landing" or "Four guys and a Dish" or some other catchy phrase...
At the very least a catchy phrase would have been nice. Not that any of those phrases are catchy. "The Dish" doesn't sound like they put much thought into it. It's as if "Gone With the Wind" had been called, umm, "A Plantation."
no wonder you posted this anonymously
You are every bit as anonymous as he is.