Re:Spirit not that impressive...?
on
News from Mars
·
· Score: 1
Thank you for this post. I was thinking the same thing about contamination of the surface, but was not armed with as many facts as you.
One thing about tube-based electronics is that, in general without shielding, they are not as susceptable to radiation damage as solid-state electronics.
The pressurization requirement negates this of course, when pressurization is lost.
I believe the parent is referring to what I did on occasion at UT, but the school then required copies of all course books to be in the library. There was a flurry of "class packs" that students had to get at Kinko's too.
Amazing how academia would try to circumvent the system to profiteer off of students. BTW, the folks who were screaming the loudest about private industry doing things like this seemed to be the professors who profited the most from it.
If it were truly cheaper to maintain in the long run it would be in much wider use, ESPECIALLY in command economies like China. Welcome to the world of Economics.
Also, word to the fellow bringing up friction as a reason for maglev, welcome to the world of grease.
The giant advantage that wheeled trains have over maglev trains is that none of their energy is used to keep them standing.
Another overlooked item is that a diesel-electric wheeled train loses much electricity in transmission than a maglev train.
I might be working overseas by the time the con comes along, but if I end up with what they are talking about I will have lots of leave and will plan it around a few of the cons too. If I see you there say hi!
I was on security at H2K2, was an interesting experience but I did not get to see many panels.
Word of warning: Jello Biafra is perpetual motion. If he is there this time multiply his scheduled speaking time by 3 or 4 to get an estimate of how long he will talk/yell/rant/etc.
If I go this time it will be as just a face in the mob and attend the panels.
Actually, I did have a panel for H2K (Parents of Hackers I think was the title we agreed on) but could not go due to a last min. thing.
Maybe it's just me, but I detect a tone of "the government should be our caretakers" tone in the story.
In reality what this group is doing is exactly what should happen in our free society. Especially in this case where the government primed the pump in promoting science and an independant group comes in to provide more promotion of science.
Why the reaction of surprise? A project like this is most certainly something to be expected and welcomed.
Since we are talking about something at we will never see outside of science fiction and I wanted to stay away from that nanotube third rail, I guess we could use those.:)
the more serious: it was believed the USA had plans for US airborne troops to seize the oil installations in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in 1973." is so ancient that it is not even news. Immediatly after putting the Airborne Divisions (plus almost anything else military) on alert it was in the papers and on the news.
The next morning Henry Kissinger was throwing his famous tantrums about the word "leaking out", as if you can mobilize all of thise folks without anybody saying anything. Well, I suppose some places in the world you could, but not in the US.
Plenty was written about it then (check your local library for old newspaper articles) and plenty has been incorporated into books now. Eric Arthur Blair caviats certainly apply.
As another poster to this thread notes, also check the Johnson Tapes (they are played regularly on CSPAN radio, check your local schedule or the website) for some serious wackyness.
Well, you have another "convenience" problem fo supporting Arabic.
Granted, many of the folks in the area know both languages, but many of the folks using computers in commerce are Arabic speakers as their native language.
Of course, if OO already has good Arabic support this is not a problem.
In this case the data is not the problem it is the humans who mahe the rules for what data "counts" and who to believe.
I have been having a similar problem with one credit bureau. From numerous conversations I have concluded that the subject of the report is the last person to be believed.
Similar to the earlier post, the CBs had my address wrong, along with many other things. I called them to correct the obvious typo, they wouldn't unless I sent them a utility bill. So I sent the same utility bill that they used for the first error. That was rejected by them as "too old".
Eventually it was corrected, after more errors on their part, when I had to send them more "proof" that I had paid off other items that were being reported incorrectly and included a new utility bill.
Accordig to the representitives of the CBs, the earlier poster is quite right, they get your address from creditors. If one reports it incorrectly then the incorrect address is taken as fact. They advised me to call everybody on my credit report and verify my address. I advised them to believe the copy of my lease I sent them and I will stop calling the FTC.
The underlying problem still remains. If some creditor inputs my address wrong then it is reported wrong until I discover it.
So, what to do about it? We in the US are a pretty mobile society and folks in general do not inform the credit bureau when they move. Most landlords have no relationship with the CBs either. In fact, where I live the vast majority of landlords rent "off book" ayway, so using landlords as a source is not a good solution.
As much as I am not thrilled with government solutions, the recent changes in credit reporting and lending rules for consumers seem to be a good solutiion to this problem. All of my experience would have been for nothing a few years ago, but now the CBs do correct errors when you document them. Unfortunately, when they make another error you have to document that correction too. The FTC actually does listen now when you call them about recurring problems and they do seem to get results.
None of the underlying data systems have anything to do with this and if it becomes faster it will most probably result in human errors becoming instant disasters rather than minor annoyances.
As for the general complaint in the story that barious gadgets do not use a common language, perhaps Adam Smith would advise to make an invention and create a demand for it. Happened with the FAX machine and with Perl, plus millions of other things.
Apparently, you were a Private in some Military of a foreign nation. I happen to be a Field Grade Aviator in the Service of The President of the United States of America and quite literate.
Save your feats of literature for the trainees as you shant fool me.
I happen to know with certainty that the only Enforcement Branch of the US Government is the Branch of the Executive.
Run along with your BS and you had best keep all of the $20's out of your pockets least Mr. Jackson do to your ass what he thought of doing to Judge Marshall's.
Well, no the parent to your post is not being partisan at all. The grandparent is blaming this situation on parties who had nothing to do with it purly because the parties are Republican, while they ignore that all of the decision makers in this situation were Democrats.
workindev, by pointing this out is not behaving in a partisan manner at all, they are merely getting the facts straight.
Both may have their biases, as you and I do, but one is being fair and the other is trying to bash the Republicans with a baseless partisan arguement.
Well, it hasn't helped me either because my Handspring GSM phone was already portable before the regulation took effect. I just unplug it and use the built-in battery.
The handy part is that it is a Tennessee number, but I work in Northern VA, so it cuts down on the annoying calls from my employer, but everybody I know with a mobile phone has no-extra-charge Long Distance service, as I do.:-)
Humm, well, even as clueless nonsense like yours deserves as much a response as "how do you know the sky is blue, prove it to me", I will anyway.
warriors, combatants, fighters. Please tell me the difference between these. What makes a fighter illegal? If we call warriors, fighters does that change the way we should treat them. You my friend are looking at a very big grey hole created by the current administration.
The answer is in the Geneva Conventions, one important bit was already posted in this discussion by me. Consult my journal for a link to the post too. Now, run along and read them so you may return to ask something intelligent.
Is there a war in afghanistan?
Why Yes there is! "Discovering" this well known fact is much easier than "discovering" that the text of the Geneva Conventions are available online too, so I have no faith that you will find any information on this either.
Try looking at Article I about treaties, making the laws of land and sea, that sort of thing.
Also, since I work with the military I get to hear if reality is matching the news. Unfortunately, people like you are drowning out reality right now.
You must be peering in the mirror when you find your fools. Thomas Jefferson, for one would surely disagree with your silly post about trying to bring the modern Barbary Pirates into the protective pocket of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
I have already poosted the law on this. I am sticking with the facts. You seem to want to wax romantic across all of the laws of War and Peace.
Now, take your silly stretches, leaps and tumbles of logic, along with your irrelevance, back to your poetry class. You are not worth any more of any thinking person's time.
(So that means we can ignore those environmental wackos, right? Nope: imagine what happens to the atmosphere if we keep ramping up the rate at which we burn this stuff.)
Well, yes it still does mean we can ignore them as CO2 absorbtion by sea water covers the excess not "eaten" by plants. SO2 gets washed away, but it can be a localized problem, like was in Copper Hill, TN and other places where intense smelting was conducted.
Do you feel it's okay for the state to perform certain actions just because the law says it's legal (or, more to the point, doesn't say it's NOT legal)? For example, there are provisions in the PATRIOT act for holding citizens indefinitely... do you think it's okay for the US to exercise those rights, simply because it's codified in the law?
No I do not and I have been quite clear on that too.
The Geneva Convention expressly forbids the display of prisoners. What was the first thing the US did when moving people into Guantanamo Bay?
They are not POWs anyway, so this is irrelevant, othar than to add proof that the US is treating them in the spirit of actual POWs.
The USA prevented the press from seeing them and covering their heads with bags to protect their identities (as well as for the safety of the guards), as can be witnessed by all of the howling about the press not getting to see them paraded around. The complaints were that they had to point their cameras through the fence, wherever Fidel Castro allowed them to stand.
Now, I seem to recall that US POWs were shown on arab television, which sparked howls of outrage in the US based on that very part of the Geneva Convention.
Because they were real POWs and the Iraqis were using them for propoganda purposes. This is relevant.
The obvious question here is: why should the US expect protection of its troops under the CG, when it does not extend that same protection to it's opponents, justified by some loose concept of "illegal combatant"? Either the US is engaged in combat with an enemy, or they are not. If they are, the GC should be applicable equally to both sides (otherwise we are dragged down to the level of the fundamentalist fanatics) or neither side should expect protection.
We do not expect that US Citizen mercenaries be extended GC protections at all. Doing that, in many cases, can invalidate US Citizenship. Try reading your passport then looking up the applicable provisions.
I am puzzled now. When did the US ever demand US born mercenaries be protected under the GC? Just kidding, we never did.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you for this post. I was thinking the same thing about contamination of the surface, but was not armed with as many facts as you.
One thing about tube-based electronics is that, in general without shielding, they are not as susceptable to radiation damage as solid-state electronics.
The pressurization requirement negates this of course, when pressurization is lost.
I believe the parent is referring to what I did on occasion at UT, but the school then required copies of all course books to be in the library. There was a flurry of "class packs" that students had to get at Kinko's too.
Amazing how academia would try to circumvent the system to profiteer off of students. BTW, the folks who were screaming the loudest about private industry doing things like this seemed to be the professors who profited the most from it.
I have narrowed it down.
1) It is a hardware problem. OR
2) It is a software problem.
I lean towards (1) as nobody that I work with created the software for this device.
It is an error to think of them as anything other than trains because they meet the definition of a train.
However, thinking of them as locomotives may be a bit off.
If it were truly cheaper to maintain in the long run it would be in much wider use, ESPECIALLY in command economies like China. Welcome to the world of Economics.
Also, word to the fellow bringing up friction as a reason for maglev, welcome to the world of grease.
The giant advantage that wheeled trains have over maglev trains is that none of their energy is used to keep them standing.
Another overlooked item is that a diesel-electric wheeled train loses much electricity in transmission than a maglev train.
Hey man! How ya been?
I might be working overseas by the time the con comes along, but if I end up with what they are talking about I will have lots of leave and will plan it around a few of the cons too. If I see you there say hi!
I was on security at H2K2, was an interesting experience but I did not get to see many panels.
Word of warning: Jello Biafra is perpetual motion. If he is there this time multiply his scheduled speaking time by 3 or 4 to get an estimate of how long he will talk/yell/rant/etc.
If I go this time it will be as just a face in the mob and attend the panels.
Actually, I did have a panel for H2K (Parents of Hackers I think was the title we agreed on) but could not go due to a last min. thing.
Carl Sagan's computer modeling of the effects of Saddam igniting oil wells in Kuwait (1991), indicated a "mini-nuclear winter".
The oil wells were lit, no climate change attributable AT ALL to Sagan's prediction.
There was also a large volcano eruption not long after and it DID produce a measurable climate change.
So, why should I trust this again?
Yea, I hear that all of the time:
The computer says so, it must be right
Umm, no I don't live there, I live here (showing utility bill).
No, the computer says you live someplace else. . . .
Maybe it's just me, but I detect a tone of "the government should be our caretakers" tone in the story.
In reality what this group is doing is exactly what should happen in our free society. Especially in this case where the government primed the pump in promoting science and an independant group comes in to provide more promotion of science.
Why the reaction of surprise? A project like this is most certainly something to be expected and welcomed.
Since we are talking about something at we will never see outside of science fiction and I wanted to stay away from that nanotube third rail, I guess we could use those. :)
Very true.
By the way, this:
the more serious: it was believed the USA had plans for US airborne troops to seize the oil installations in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in 1973." is so ancient that it is not even news. Immediatly after putting the Airborne Divisions (plus almost anything else military) on alert it was in the papers and on the news.
The next morning Henry Kissinger was throwing his famous tantrums about the word "leaking out", as if you can mobilize all of thise folks without anybody saying anything. Well, I suppose some places in the world you could, but not in the US.
Plenty was written about it then (check your local library for old newspaper articles) and plenty has been incorporated into books now. Eric Arthur Blair caviats certainly apply.
As another poster to this thread notes, also check the Johnson Tapes (they are played regularly on CSPAN radio, check your local schedule or the website) for some serious wackyness.
It is nearly impossible to trap helium in anything, but other than that you are on a good track.
Hydrogen might be doable and would probably be much safer trapped in aerofoam than in a big bag.
Well, you have another "convenience" problem fo supporting Arabic.
Granted, many of the folks in the area know both languages, but many of the folks using computers in commerce are Arabic speakers as their native language.
Of course, if OO already has good Arabic support this is not a problem.
He may be referring to hidden costs like having to learn the quirks of the way it works, i.e., the differences between it and MS Office.
Also, he may be thinking that someone has to go to each desktop rather than letting the users install.
All of that is just guessing and I have not used Open Office yet.
In this case the data is not the problem it is the humans who mahe the rules for what data "counts" and who to believe.
I have been having a similar problem with one credit bureau. From numerous conversations I have concluded that the subject of the report is the last person to be believed.
Similar to the earlier post, the CBs had my address wrong, along with many other things. I called them to correct the obvious typo, they wouldn't unless I sent them a utility bill. So I sent the same utility bill that they used for the first error. That was rejected by them as "too old".
Eventually it was corrected, after more errors on their part, when I had to send them more "proof" that I had paid off other items that were being reported incorrectly and included a new utility bill.
Accordig to the representitives of the CBs, the earlier poster is quite right, they get your address from creditors. If one reports it incorrectly then the incorrect address is taken as fact. They advised me to call everybody on my credit report and verify my address. I advised them to believe the copy of my lease I sent them and I will stop calling the FTC.
The underlying problem still remains. If some creditor inputs my address wrong then it is reported wrong until I discover it.
So, what to do about it? We in the US are a pretty mobile society and folks in general do not inform the credit bureau when they move. Most landlords have no relationship with the CBs either. In fact, where I live the vast majority of landlords rent "off book" ayway, so using landlords as a source is not a good solution.
As much as I am not thrilled with government solutions, the recent changes in credit reporting and lending rules for consumers seem to be a good solutiion to this problem. All of my experience would have been for nothing a few years ago, but now the CBs do correct errors when you document them. Unfortunately, when they make another error you have to document that correction too. The FTC actually does listen now when you call them about recurring problems and they do seem to get results.
None of the underlying data systems have anything to do with this and if it becomes faster it will most probably result in human errors becoming instant disasters rather than minor annoyances.
As for the general complaint in the story that barious gadgets do not use a common language, perhaps Adam Smith would advise to make an invention and create a demand for it. Happened with the FAX machine and with Perl, plus millions of other things.
Apparently, you were a Private in some Military of a foreign nation. I happen to be a Field Grade Aviator in the Service of The President of the United States of America and quite literate.
Save your feats of literature for the trainees as you shant fool me.
I happen to know with certainty that the only Enforcement Branch of the US Government is the Branch of the Executive.
Run along with your BS and you had best keep all of the $20's out of your pockets least Mr. Jackson do to your ass what he thought of doing to Judge Marshall's.
Well, no the parent to your post is not being partisan at all. The grandparent is blaming this situation on parties who had nothing to do with it purly because the parties are Republican, while they ignore that all of the decision makers in this situation were Democrats.
workindev, by pointing this out is not behaving in a partisan manner at all, they are merely getting the facts straight.
Both may have their biases, as you and I do, but one is being fair and the other is trying to bash the Republicans with a baseless partisan arguement.
Well, it hasn't helped me either because my Handspring GSM phone was already portable before the regulation took effect. I just unplug it and use the built-in battery.
:-)
The handy part is that it is a Tennessee number, but I work in Northern VA, so it cuts down on the annoying calls from my employer, but everybody I know with a mobile phone has no-extra-charge Long Distance service, as I do.
Humm, well, even as clueless nonsense like yours deserves as much a response as "how do you know the sky is blue, prove it to me", I will anyway.
warriors, combatants, fighters. Please tell me the difference between these. What makes a fighter illegal? If we call warriors, fighters does that change the way we should treat them. You my friend are looking at a very big grey hole created by the current administration.
The answer is in the Geneva Conventions, one important bit was already posted in this discussion by me. Consult my journal for a link to the post too. Now, run along and read them so you may return to ask something intelligent.
Is there a war in afghanistan?
Why Yes there is! "Discovering" this well known fact is much easier than "discovering" that the text of the Geneva Conventions are available online too, so I have no faith that you will find any information on this either.
Try looking at Article I about treaties, making the laws of land and sea, that sort of thing.
Also, since I work with the military I get to hear if reality is matching the news. Unfortunately, people like you are drowning out reality right now.
You must be peering in the mirror when you find your fools. Thomas Jefferson, for one would surely disagree with your silly post about trying to bring the modern Barbary Pirates into the protective pocket of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
I have already poosted the law on this. I am sticking with the facts. You seem to want to wax romantic across all of the laws of War and Peace.
Now, take your silly stretches, leaps and tumbles of logic, along with your irrelevance, back to your poetry class. You are not worth any more of any thinking person's time.
Humm, then where did the C come from to begin with?
Just a hunch, but I *think* that almost with anything on earth Carbon in it captured that Carbon from the air.
One thing that we do know, man can try all he wants to perminantly change the earth and the earth erases his efforts with great efficiency.
(So that means we can ignore those environmental wackos, right? Nope: imagine what happens to the atmosphere if we keep ramping up the rate at which we burn this stuff.)
Well, yes it still does mean we can ignore them as CO2 absorbtion by sea water covers the excess not "eaten" by plants. SO2 gets washed away, but it can be a localized problem, like was in Copper Hill, TN and other places where intense smelting was conducted.
Do you feel it's okay for the state to perform certain actions just because the law says it's legal (or, more to the point, doesn't say it's NOT legal)? For example, there are provisions in the PATRIOT act for holding citizens indefinitely... do you think it's okay for the US to exercise those rights, simply because it's codified in the law?
No I do not and I have been quite clear on that too.
The Geneva Convention expressly forbids the display of prisoners. What was the first thing the US did when moving people into Guantanamo Bay?
They are not POWs anyway, so this is irrelevant, othar than to add proof that the US is treating them in the spirit of actual POWs.
The USA prevented the press from seeing them and covering their heads with bags to protect their identities (as well as for the safety of the guards), as can be witnessed by all of the howling about the press not getting to see them paraded around. The complaints were that they had to point their cameras through the fence, wherever Fidel Castro allowed them to stand.
Now, I seem to recall that US POWs were shown on arab television, which sparked howls of outrage in the US based on that very part of the Geneva Convention.
Because they were real POWs and the Iraqis were using them for propoganda purposes. This is relevant.
The obvious question here is: why should the US expect protection of its troops under the CG, when it does not extend that same protection to it's opponents, justified by some loose concept of "illegal combatant"? Either the US is engaged in combat with an enemy, or they are not. If they are, the GC should be applicable equally to both sides (otherwise we are dragged down to the level of the fundamentalist fanatics) or neither side should expect protection.
We do not expect that US Citizen mercenaries be extended GC protections at all. Doing that, in many cases, can invalidate US Citizenship. Try reading your passport then looking up the applicable provisions.
I am puzzled now. When did the US ever demand US born mercenaries be protected under the GC? Just kidding, we never did.