... check out one of the numerous 'musician' forums that are out there... for example AMPFEA.ORG... download some stuff, find the style you like, and contact the artists you prefer.
There are thousands, and thousands of artists/musicians out on the 'net who would love to work on an Open Source-style project that can be used to promote their works. You don't need to hire them, necessarily, though you can of course. But most would love to do it just for the 'excercising of chops' such a project would provide...
I've been trying to find a quiet, non-NWO spot on this planet to live, but there ain't none left.
Give me a six-pack worth of O2 and enough water to recycle through myself for 10 years or so, and I'll oversee the robotics on any asteroid you want.
Of course, the issue of hydroponics - and what you can and cannot grow - would have to be worked out first.
Just sign me up for the standard "Human Sustenance Science Package" (strictly -NOT- from Ikea, please...) and I'm there. Got my boots on right now.
The possibilities for freedom on this planet have been long-since removed by the powers that be. Gimme another planet, or some other space body, and watch out. My descendants will be back in 50 years to re-claim Earth!:)
They don't burn all their fuel for the flight. If I recall correctly, on landing approach, if need be the pilot can start the engines again to do a 'go-around'... so it might be handy to have fuel for that circumstance...
Ummm... yeah. You're obstinately and intolerantly unable to observe that the Chinese may have 'bought their hardware', but it is still their hardware. They did improve the Soyuz design, in my opinion, and they may also have radically improved the administration of the program.
Just because 'technology is not new' does not mean that the application of that technology is not worthy of respect.
China going into space "wasn't important"? No way, dude. When the country with most of the worlds population starts to move its shit into LEO, you'll be eating those words.
thats the thing. i'm so used to the NASA "we'll explain it for you until you're sick of us" style of over-publicity, that I guess Armadillo sets... new... standards for public perception.
i'm planning a trip down under this year, and have been considering my options for beach video to bring home with me, keep me warm in the dismal greyness of europe.
i figure it'd be nice to have a wi-fi cam in a small waterproof capsule, like you can get from sony... but i haven't seen any wi-fi capable cams around... yet.
anyone know if they're available? i wouldn't mind having my laptop sitting on the beach with the folks, ready for off-loading from a digi-cam setup, but if there is something i can actually -broadcast- with, from the waves, this would be rockin'-est...
I, personally, am not responsible for the treatment of the prisoners in Abu Ghraib.
Those war crimes were committed in your name. It was your government. And it its you who allow this government to persist.
Lets see how responsible the American people are in November... maybe then, we can revive this discussion... which, while it may be moderately adversarial and thus not necessarily objectively productive, nevertheless has proven to be personally interesting, to me.
Thanks for taking the time to let us know this, John. I have to say that very little promotion of this fact by Armadillo has resulted in me being more than a little confused as to what the big fuss about your project is so far... but I guess, after you've done a 'big-vehicle' launch, the methodology of testing at scale will become a lot more clear to those paying only loose attention to these things.
"Scaled Composites" have the advantage in this PR regard, its pretty easy to figure out what they're up to on the basis of scaling composite construction... maybe Armadillo should have some sort of PR effort to demonstrate your methods and development ideology, which, if proven by a successful flight, will undoubtedly usher in a really interesting new approach to space flight by industry. Perhaps the physical technology won't be as attractive as your development methods... and face it, space exploration seems to be nothing but 'refining development method' right now...
Great stuff, anyway. Truly pioneering. Hope lives!
Dude, when was the last time you saw hot chicks at the Cape?
Baikonur?
If there were more hot chicks at these places, I guarantee you we'd have moved all heavy industry and manufacturing into the Lagrange points by now... but it appears hot chicks only like dudes with fast racey cars, and money. You ever heard of a "millionaire rocket scientist"? And no, Burt don't count, he's a full-on dork.
How is this supposed to result in a manned space-flight with a 2-week turnaround? Is Armadillo primarily a software product, with the hardware being done 'at the last stage'?
Honestly, I really just don't get it. It seems great that they've got a vertical takeoff and landing algorithm, but what about all the other hard science thats going to be required to keep a human alive during the flight?
Maybe someone familiar with their program can explain it to me, because I really want to believe that Carmack is going to take us to space, having been responsible for THE technology that has wasted so much of humanity's time so far...
By your logic, the best thing we could do would be to arm every nation in the world with nuclear warheads on missiles capable of hitting any target on earth.
By my logic, the best thing we could do is stop making 'better weapons' and start making 'better machines to feed the masses'.
$40Trillion would've solved a hell of a lot more problems in Africa than it has in the United States Military, that is for damned sure...
If you really, truly don't see any difference, then there's no point in discussing this with you. Hint: Intent Matters.
If you can't see the relationship between those who would willingly give up responsiblity for their actions by putting "a government" in between them and war crimes, then you're right.
. My definition would put Rumsfeld outside of that and, rather, within the political sphere.
WTF? Does he write freakin' War policy or not?
Honest. There's no difference between U.S. Citizen paying Taxes On The Street, and U.S. Military-Industrial Complex Using $ to Kill People. Its blood money.
And the intent of directed energy weapons is to produce nothing but subservience
Okay. What I should've said, to more clearly explain my view, was that "the intent of those who make directed energy weapons is to produce subservience and control".
Dude, we're talking about a stun gun, not mind control.
If this directed energy thing goes further in the defense 'INDUSTRY', and if the 'implant in the shoulder to make you happy' thing goes further from the other 'front' being pushed by techno-cultists, who is to say that the Fascist Dictators of the Future won't take the things we make today, and use them against future generations in terrible, terrible ways?
Wasn't this supposed to be The Lesson of the Cold War, or was nobody paying attention?
Should this generation really be responsible for having brought such things as designed-for-mass-control, 'convenient' fieldable energy weapons, to reality, just for the so-called sake of 'advancement of technology'?
And no, America and its so-called Constitution, which it has utterly failed to protect from all and sundry, is not a sufficient safeguard against such a thing occurring, very likely, in the next 100 years. Fascist Dictators Of The Future may sound 'far-fetched', or 'out there', but weapons designers are supposed to think about these things.
What would a 21st Century Dictator look like, with such wonderful, innocent things as energy weapons for crowd control at his disposal? The Slobodan M's of the future could do an awful lot of damage with such things as penetrating microwaves, and these so-called 'field deployable'/'urban crowd control' devices are as easy to steal as, say, suit-case nukes. You want The Mob to have one of these things in, say, London or Amsterdam? Or Mexico City? Or Mozambique? Or Mecca?
Man makes weapons. As you say, this is un-stoppable. So to me, I may as well get categorical about those who -do- make weapons... call it a suitable distraction from the inevitable... and so the difference between making 'soft weapons' and 'weapons of death', in my opinion, is important.
A weapon of death, as any weapon, should only be used as a final resort, as you say. A weapon should leave a -lot- of evidence of its use. A weapon should provide a lot of threat before it is used. It should be obvious. The arguments against "terrorists" are all hinged on the fact that they "don't play fair against the Geneva Cult^H^H^H^HFollowers"... 'sneaky' attacks against 'civilians' are all illegal, aren't they, by that wonderful convention?
In my view, War, is the use of weapon by man, against man, for any reason whatsoever, whether they 'are on the same side' or not. Yup, G8 protestors being bashed by Police is War. A lone China man standing in front of a tank is War.
Weapons should uphold the utmost extreme. They should not be soft. They should stop getting easier to use.
Why? Because it leaves more room at the bargaining table. Weapons which overtly kill force communication before their use. Witness Nukes. Nukes are Weapons of Mass Destruction which leave undeniable evidence of their use. It was this fact which has thus far allowed us to continue communication, and diplomacy, and politics, and thus all the while avoid actually implementing mans so-called instinct for mass destruction.
"Overt Weaponry" lifts the onus of responsibility for the two warring parties to resolve their conflict through communication first, as openly and obviously as possible, first, before deployment. This is really the only true solution to "War"... 'keep talking'.
Like it or leave it, I believe that the only weapons that should be made and deployed, if we have to make weapons, are ones that kill, directly and overtly. In plain view. Directed energy weapons do not kill; they simply prevent the other side from communicati
Slashdot Mirror
There are thousands, and thousands of artists/musicians out on the 'net who would love to work on an Open Source-style project that can be used to promote their works. You don't need to hire them, necessarily, though you can of course. But most would love to do it just for the 'excercising of chops' such a project would provide
I've been trying to find a quiet, non-NWO spot on this planet to live, but there ain't none left.
:)
Give me a six-pack worth of O2 and enough water to recycle through myself for 10 years or so, and I'll oversee the robotics on any asteroid you want.
Of course, the issue of hydroponics - and what you can and cannot grow - would have to be worked out first.
Just sign me up for the standard "Human Sustenance Science Package" (strictly -NOT- from Ikea, please...) and I'm there. Got my boots on right now.
The possibilities for freedom on this planet have been long-since removed by the powers that be. Gimme another planet, or some other space body, and watch out. My descendants will be back in 50 years to re-claim Earth!
Whatever. You are a bigot.
They don't burn all their fuel for the flight. If I recall correctly, on landing approach, if need be the pilot can start the engines again to do a 'go-around' ... so it might be handy to have fuel for that circumstance ...
Ummm... yeah. You're obstinately and intolerantly unable to observe that the Chinese may have 'bought their hardware', but it is still their hardware. They did improve the Soyuz design, in my opinion, and they may also have radically improved the administration of the program.
Just because 'technology is not new' does not mean that the application of that technology is not worthy of respect.
Bigot.
And here is a good link if you don't really know what a thread is ...
Watch any show without a laughtrack and you'll see how sick, twisted, and degrading most of the 'humour' really is...
Television convinces people its okay to degrade your fellow man, as long as everyone else is laughing at it.
Oh man, I've never heard a more bigoted view.
China going into space "wasn't important"? No way, dude. When the country with most of the worlds population starts to move its shit into LEO, you'll be eating those words.
Ignoramus.
when the nano-vats can be powered by a few kilo's worth of any fresh bio-mass consisting of mostly water.
"RTFM" theory of publicity
... new ... standards for public perception.
thats the thing. i'm so used to the NASA "we'll explain it for you until you're sick of us" style of over-publicity, that I guess Armadillo sets
i'm planning a trip down under this year, and have been considering my options for beach video to bring home with me, keep me warm in the dismal greyness of europe.
i figure it'd be nice to have a wi-fi cam in a small waterproof capsule, like you can get from sony
anyone know if they're available? i wouldn't mind having my laptop sitting on the beach with the folks, ready for off-loading from a digi-cam setup, but if there is something i can actually -broadcast- with, from the waves, this would be rockin'-est...
no shit, i sure would like to see photo's of that era and find out just what sorta groupies those mercury nerds were pulling
I, personally, am not responsible for the treatment of the prisoners in Abu Ghraib.
... maybe then, we can revive this discussion ... which, while it may be moderately adversarial and thus not necessarily objectively productive, nevertheless has proven to be personally interesting, to me.
Those war crimes were committed in your name. It was your government. And it its you who allow this government to persist.
Lets see how responsible the American people are in November
Thanks for taking the time to let us know this, John. I have to say that very little promotion of this fact by Armadillo has resulted in me being more than a little confused as to what the big fuss about your project is so far ... but I guess, after you've done a 'big-vehicle' launch, the methodology of testing at scale will become a lot more clear to those paying only loose attention to these things.
... maybe Armadillo should have some sort of PR effort to demonstrate your methods and development ideology, which, if proven by a successful flight, will undoubtedly usher in a really interesting new approach to space flight by industry. Perhaps the physical technology won't be as attractive as your development methods ... and face it, space exploration seems to be nothing but 'refining development method' right now...
"Scaled Composites" have the advantage in this PR regard, its pretty easy to figure out what they're up to on the basis of scaling composite construction
Great stuff, anyway. Truly pioneering. Hope lives!
Dude, when was the last time you saw hot chicks at the Cape?
... but it appears hot chicks only like dudes with fast racey cars, and money. You ever heard of a "millionaire rocket scientist"? And no, Burt don't count, he's a full-on dork.
Baikonur?
If there were more hot chicks at these places, I guarantee you we'd have moved all heavy industry and manufacturing into the Lagrange points by now
Put SpaceShip One up there, with the Armadillo rocket as payload. 3 stages to orbit.
I think the 'fuel' is the silver plates that the hydrogen peroxide passes over and reacts with, producing thrust.
How is this supposed to result in a manned space-flight with a 2-week turnaround? Is Armadillo primarily a software product, with the hardware being done 'at the last stage'?
...
Honestly, I really just don't get it. It seems great that they've got a vertical takeoff and landing algorithm, but what about all the other hard science thats going to be required to keep a human alive during the flight?
Maybe someone familiar with their program can explain it to me, because I really want to believe that Carmack is going to take us to space, having been responsible for THE technology that has wasted so much of humanity's time so far
By your logic, the best thing we could do would be to arm every nation in the world with nuclear warheads on missiles capable of hitting any target on earth.
...
By my logic, the best thing we could do is stop making 'better weapons' and start making 'better machines to feed the masses'.
$40Trillion would've solved a hell of a lot more problems in Africa than it has in the United States Military, that is for damned sure
If you really, truly don't see any difference, then there's no point in discussing this with you. Hint: Intent Matters.
If you can't see the relationship between those who would willingly give up responsiblity for their actions by putting "a government" in between them and war crimes, then you're right.
This discussion is over.
. My definition would put Rumsfeld outside of that and, rather, within the political sphere.
WTF? Does he write freakin' War policy or not?
Honest. There's no difference between U.S. Citizen paying Taxes On The Street, and U.S. Military-Industrial Complex Using $ to Kill People. Its blood money.
For me, source == documentation.
And the intent of directed energy weapons is to produce nothing but subservience
... call it a suitable distraction from the inevitable ... and so the difference between making 'soft weapons' and 'weapons of death', in my opinion, is important.
... 'sneaky' attacks against 'civilians' are all illegal, aren't they, by that wonderful convention?
... 'keep talking'.
Okay. What I should've said, to more clearly explain my view, was that "the intent of those who make directed energy weapons is to produce subservience and control".
Dude, we're talking about a stun gun, not mind control.
If this directed energy thing goes further in the defense 'INDUSTRY', and if the 'implant in the shoulder to make you happy' thing goes further from the other 'front' being pushed by techno-cultists, who is to say that the Fascist Dictators of the Future won't take the things we make today, and use them against future generations in terrible, terrible ways?
Wasn't this supposed to be The Lesson of the Cold War, or was nobody paying attention?
Should this generation really be responsible for having brought such things as designed-for-mass-control, 'convenient' fieldable energy weapons, to reality, just for the so-called sake of 'advancement of technology'?
And no, America and its so-called Constitution, which it has utterly failed to protect from all and sundry, is not a sufficient safeguard against such a thing occurring, very likely, in the next 100 years. Fascist Dictators Of The Future may sound 'far-fetched', or 'out there', but weapons designers are supposed to think about these things.
What would a 21st Century Dictator look like, with such wonderful, innocent things as energy weapons for crowd control at his disposal? The Slobodan M's of the future could do an awful lot of damage with such things as penetrating microwaves, and these so-called 'field deployable'/'urban crowd control' devices are as easy to steal as, say, suit-case nukes. You want The Mob to have one of these things in, say, London or Amsterdam? Or Mexico City? Or Mozambique? Or Mecca?
Man makes weapons. As you say, this is un-stoppable. So to me, I may as well get categorical about those who -do- make weapons
A weapon of death, as any weapon, should only be used as a final resort, as you say. A weapon should leave a -lot- of evidence of its use. A weapon should provide a lot of threat before it is used. It should be obvious. The arguments against "terrorists" are all hinged on the fact that they "don't play fair against the Geneva Cult^H^H^H^HFollowers"
In my view, War, is the use of weapon by man, against man, for any reason whatsoever, whether they 'are on the same side' or not. Yup, G8 protestors being bashed by Police is War. A lone China man standing in front of a tank is War.
Weapons should uphold the utmost extreme. They should not be soft. They should stop getting easier to use.
Why? Because it leaves more room at the bargaining table. Weapons which overtly kill force communication before their use. Witness Nukes. Nukes are Weapons of Mass Destruction which leave undeniable evidence of their use. It was this fact which has thus far allowed us to continue communication, and diplomacy, and politics, and thus all the while avoid actually implementing mans so-called instinct for mass destruction.
"Overt Weaponry" lifts the onus of responsibility for the two warring parties to resolve their conflict through communication first, as openly and obviously as possible, first, before deployment. This is really the only true solution to "War"
Like it or leave it, I believe that the only weapons that should be made and deployed, if we have to make weapons, are ones that kill, directly and overtly. In plain view. Directed energy weapons do not kill; they simply prevent the other side from communicati
So, what, you're telling me that the U.S. War Machine isn't capable of producing more Rumsfelds?
Ooh yeah. Keep believing that...
Yeah, they're just happy to rip off starving Iraqi kids and pocket the profits.
...
oh, right, sure, the UN are evil.
and next months U.S. military scandal: U.S. Marines and their pocketing of any freakin' thing they want in those house to house scans of theirs
no system is perfect. that americans consider theirs above reproach just proves it even further.