Thanks for the spelling help. I was irked that Professional was giving a guy a hard time for being depressed by the changes at NASA--plus he didn't understand or show much knowledge. I shouldn't have called him an idiot. I just have the urge to defend people against bullies.
If an idiot to you is someone who misspells. So be it. Somehow I feel OK. Strange that you are so much more familiar with a popular, colorful childrens drink...
It is morning in America. Yes, the Nazi party felt the same way.
Don't forget that the Nazi-ism was a religion. They believed in a final end of the world and that they were superior in the eyes of God, we've traded Evangelicals for blonde hair and blue eyes.
They invaded Poland for the excuse that it was a Preemptive strike against the Polish having nerve gas.
An important government building was blown up (later revealed that it was done by the Nazis themselves) and this gave their movement sympathy and put fear into the public.
The Nazis gained power by taking control of the media. Gerbils was a genius at that.
They rigged elections and changed their laws so that majority vote in the Parliament was all that was required to change protocol (see current news). All the atrocities of Hitler were legal. Doesn't that comfort you, he never broke the law?
Their government printed paper to pay off the French war debt, making the Mark worthless.
Prescott Bush, made his fortune from bank-rolling Buchenwald and later helping Nazis move their money overseas. I could site a lot more recent events of war profiteering in this family--it's a tradition.
I'm not saying Bush and his supporters actually are Nazis, but they do work from the same playbook. Ends justifies the means and all that. You can be intolerant, treat people poorly, kill innocents in wars, as long as you don't curse and go to church. My dad mentioned to me that the German troops were very polite and well behaved--more so than the French.
Oh well, I don't think this will change any minds...
As to the other part of what you were saying; So if President Clinton did it, it must be OK to us tree huggers, right? President Clinton was a decent Republican if you look at his political agenda. He reduced government waste and spending and the number of employees. He forced the military to use "off the shelf parts". I never voted for him, I actually voted for Ross Perot--twice. Because he was talking about the REAL issue of corruption and how the special interests (mostly from businesses) were taking control of the entire process. I started supporting Clinton after the attempted coup that Ken Starr started. Talk about being hard on the president... Bush couldn't carry Clinton's jock strap. He doesn't have a tenth of his intelligence or his stamina. Clinton took himself out of a double-wide and into the White House while Bush had a silver spoon on both ends, got bailed out of failure after failure. You can't compare the two. I say this while not liking the politics of either.
But it has nothing to do with my issue about the Anti-science movement in Bush-land. There are about a dozen scientific groups with protest petitions complaining about the anti-science crap of the white house. Is it always "Commies" that are complaining? If you want to judge "anti-science" then wouldn't that be influenced by the opinions of scientists.
In the movie, 1984, the main character saw beautiful sunny skies whenever he listened to the government propaganda and started to believe. It was an escape from the dismal destruction around him.
Just keep your frickin' moralizing out of my government. You "Born Again" supporters of Bush are letting him sell the country off while you argue about gay marriage. You are fools.
I am sorry for this. The team that worked on Voyager are world class engineers. You are never going to get the recognition or money you deserve. That seems to be the price of following a higher calling.
Just remember to the "people that matter", guys like you are the real heroes. I work on websites, multimedia and videos, but uncharacteristically, when people ask me who my heroes are I respond; "my dad, Richard Feynman, and physicists." Sometimes Jimmy Carter because he was one of the few polliticians who pushed our country towards things that had long-term benefits. I don't look up to athletes except to admire their discipline. But having met actors, athletes, scientists, polliticians and clergy, I have to say that scientists are by far the most interesting and heroic of the group.
Sadly, I don't think NASA or America is going to see a silver lining for some time. The fact that few of the NeoCon supporters have realized what a total failure things have become means that any realizations will have to wait until after a 2nd great depression, after sea levels have risen, and after America has become 2nd rate. When things are obvious, and blaming someone else will be little consolation for hungry, sick kids without a future.
I recommend you find another place to work. You are only going to prolong the pain by watching NASA slowly die. I could be wrong, but that's just how I see it. I felt the same way on November 3rd, when, in direct opposition to what the exit polls inidicated, Bush won reelection of a sort. I knew I had to give up my dream that America was anything but a corporation with good PR.
Wow, "Professionalism" is a class 4 gass giant. Low density specific gravity, yet enough volume to create a signifigant gravity well. Lots of heat escapes, but not much light.
To translate for "Professionalism", I just called you an asshole.
NASA may have to die and be reborn to save space science. But the Mars Mission will do nothing to help space science. At a guess, a ham-fisted science hating Bushy bureaucrat will strut in and close this and boost that, without any understanding of its scientific or fiscal effect (note; projects that cost more to shut down than continue have already had this treatment).
A broken clock is right, twice a day. So NASA will be gutted, turned into military research, and the rest will be painted over with PR. It would not surprise me to see 25% of the funding going to TV commercials.
I expect to see a few NASA scientists in bell towers surrounded by SWAT teams shortly. Only kidding a little.
I would call my representative, only they are ignoring outrage over Social Security privatization, the FDA covering for bad drugs, the EPA covering for polluters, and new Bankruptcy laws to bring back indentured servitude. If there were any concern over voter backlash, I don't see it. Calling a representative presumes that voting in this country is actually fair. Democracy died about 2 years ago--it's just too big and slow to know it yet.
I think half of that is to link a half-dozen radio telescopes together and process the signal (kind of like a multi-lens (composite telescope). One radio telescope IMHO, would not be sensitive enough--just a guess. The square of the distance is the electromagnetic strength of the signal. So a walky-talky at the edge of our solar system is a pretty "attenuated" signal.
Some of these geeks at NASA are absolutely amazing. We do not appreciate how good these engineers are. It's just the bureaucracy that has grown their that seems to have diminished the shine they once had.
Back to topic; for the $100k employee, you have about as much again in support, services and tax. So you get 10 employees to analyze the data from the composite radio-telescope (that covers the other $2 million). It doesn't seem like this is an exorbitant operation. Running a high-tech business is not cheap.
They could however, outsource the whole thing to India for $200,000, for those who want everything "cost effective".
I think a manned mission to Mars will get so much commercial attention at the outset, that there will be "Mars fatigue" on the part of the American public well before they reach Mars. Unless they find two-headed advanced alien civilization (one head just won't be enough), people will have turned off daily updates of the mission. The only ones who will stick with and care about the Mars mission are dedicated geeks. But they will be turned off by the whole "McMars" approach.
Meanwhile Fox will pick it up, and will re-vamp the whole "Mars Mission" as a reality TV experience. Mission specialists will be coached to; "have more attitude, stir things up." Mars feaver will pick up again and be a smash hit.
Meanwhile, China and India will have developed FTL drives and be sending images back from Jupiter, which won't do as well due to poor dubbing. The entire U.S. economy will go into a tailspin, however, once Tarantino is recruited to improve the Chinese space program documentaries.
There is going to be a lot of real science that ends (for more money than continuing it) and we are going to get little out of this Mars Mission. Because it is just PR and will be run that way. Real science at NASA will get short-shrift. They might as well apply to weapons manufacturing companies because that is where this slush fund is going. Yippee!
Please give me credit for having coined "Mars Fatigue" first. Just my 5 minutes of fame.
In Iraq they might use terrorist practices, but they are fighting an occupation in their own country. At least we don't call them "Freedom Fighters". I think Insurgent is a good compromise.
We use a lot of terrorist practices ourselves. Yet you don't hear much about the death squads we are starting up in Iraq (remember what we did in Latin America?). We are also doing our fare share of torture--though not yet to the extent of Saddam. I think if we don't want the label, we should improve our standards.
What was "Shock and Awe?" When a bomb lands on your house and your children burn to death at a wedding party, arent' you terrorized?
So I think it is OK that they use these non-loaded words. Reporters should just stick to what happened. The rest is opinion and we have enough of those.
many Video Rental Companies all Department Store Credit Accounts all Medical related company all Credit related company all Accountants, Brokers, or Financial Service professionals all Utilities you have to deal with any recurring service like Broadband or Telephone most any large company that says; "well, this is our Policy." most monopolies you must purchase from, because hey, what are you going to do--go somewhere else? all Account transfer from a Prince in Bangalor/Taiwan/Dubai
But, this all means that SS# theft is difficult and that people stealing your identity is a rare occurrence. The government would protect you if that were the case. [/irony]
I think what they will do is grab some nice things from Longhorn, shoehorn them into XP and create XP Me.
4 years is too long to wait for the upgrade revenue. They will cut bait and ship what they have, and spend lots of ad revenue in various PC magazines. PC mags will then produce articles saying; "You gotta get XP Me!" Add in a purchase of the clipart from Corel and a few "independent testing labs" (wink, wink) and you've got yourself a killer app.
I could have saved them billions just telling them what they've done in the past. Why the hell are they wasting so much on development?
Embryonic stem cells have not adopted a DNA pattern yet. The importance of them is because they are not rejected and can be used for any sort of cell.
That's why this only worked by re-injecting the persons own cells. Yet this is just a story, it has not been independantly verified. There are a lot of anectdotal cases like this, but I would wait before getting too hopeful on any of them. You can find similiar stories of faith healers from the last decade. Suffering people will grab at any hope.
It would be nice if it were so easy. But it probably isn't. That is why it takes a lot of government money (long-term, not profit motivated) to get basic research done.
The other issue is; is it better to throw embryonic stem cells in the garbage or use them to help people? Because that is what is happening. The embryonic cells are produced every day in clinics trying to help couples get pregnant. So they stay frozen, thow them away, or use them for research. Thought you'd want to know.
It's more like, Bush plows into a schoolbus full of kids, desperate to escape the ensuing flames, he starts throwing bodies onto the blaze. The next days headliens read; "Heroic Bush puts out fire, saves bus driver."
You think a few timid questions about the economy is the press being hard on the President? When you don't here about negotiations with Canada, Germany and Chile to stop war crimes suites so our President, Cheney or Rumsfeld can visit, you have a press that is asleep or complicit.
I really don't have the stomach to talk about Neil Bush's $15 Billion windfall from the savings and loan debacle of the 1980's. The $25 million to Bush's oil company from the Bin Laden family--or how they traded oil with Saddam even during the embargo, his new drivers license after 72 arrests, the abortion he gave his socialite girlfriend, the banking his family did with Buchenwald or the protecting of Nazi bank accounts 10 years after WWII. The incredible profits all members of his family have made on weapons sales or the connection all his cronies have with the Carlysle Group.
Has he even been to any veteran funerals yet? Has he pushed one policy that didn't rob returning vets or old folks?
Why didn't he order jets to shoot down planes for 2+1/2 hours during 9/11 -- oh I'm sorry, move on.
Why did Bush only pick up votes where electronic voting machines were installed (OK, generalization, but statistically, it was shown it was the only factor that could account for his "win").
I could go for days covering crap that you never heard of and sound like a tin foil hat wearer. Unfortuneatly, I'll have to wait for that stupid look on Republican faces when the Northwest is a desert and we have snow at the Equator and we have attrocities we can't ignore, and people scraping by in another great depression, and they stand their, rubbing their eyes like waking from a deep sleep saying; "I didn't know". It is inevitable. Some will of course be waiting for the rapture that never comes, they'll be saying; "OK, we hastened the end of the world--now what?" Oh no, abusing the planet and your fellow man does not get you a free ride to heaven, no matter how much you pray.
OK. Flame over. Just pisses me off when people whine about Bush never getting a break no matter how great he is. When has he ever done anything right? I mean, besides the total screwups like "No child left behind" that are whitewashed and the books cooked. We might here of a few freedom uprisings in the Middle East--but that was inevitable because there is plenty of resentment against tyrannical rule in the Middle East. They are just taking advantage of our threatening presance. If Russia had invated Iraq, they would be doing the same thing. They can fix elections as well as we can.
Where are you getting this info? How could they be influencing news organizations here in the U.S.? Really, I'm just curious, I don't know anything about this conflict.
I think "militant" is the right word. They are people fighting with military armaments for a cause and not a country. It has not been "weighted" yet. It is neither PC or politically incorrect. It is just a descriptive word.
Terrorist just means that you are fighting against U.S. interests, which has yet to be determined. Watch Fox news closely to keep track of their status. If they use the term; "terrorist", then it is going to cost U.S. taxpayers. If they use "extremists", "gorilla fighters" or "rebels", then it won't cost U.S. taxpayers. If the term "freedom fighters", "patriots", or "uprising" is used, it will cost taxpayers money, but we will be on their side. Militant just means that no decision has been made by Homeland PsyOps specialists, so you can safely ignore any pain and suffering in that country and reserve righteous indignation for things that are deemed appropriate.
this is an example of how our government has ceased to represent us. Face it, we are in a corpritocracy; or a government for the purpose of corporations. Mostly influenced by larger, multinational concerns which rarely report profits in the countries where they are earned.
We invaded Chile years ago to keep low the price of copper for our phone systems. This has been going on for a long time but is now pervasive. The only conflict now is which coprorations get to have the say; when energy overlaps the financial houses, who gets to control which policy is followed? When there is no longer enough largess of the population to steal, it's really going to be dangerous when Drug Manufacturers turn against HMOs and Big Oil fights against Weapons Dealers (UNICOL vs. GM).
To understand what is really going on, you have to read; "Confessions of an Economic Hitman".
What is IRONIC is that the push for decency usually comes from the biggist crooks and frauds.
How many have we seen? Jesse Helms, New Gingrich (caught with pants down, bribed by Rupert Murdoch with $3million book deal), Sun Young Moon (religion for profit and influence), Rush Limbaugh (drug abuser, propagandist on the take), Donald Rumsfeld (outsourcing torture), Bush Family (renowned war profiteering, multi-billion dollar crooks), Jimmy Swaggert (hookers),.. I could go on. I would sooner trust the average man sitting in the overnight jail then I would any one of these people proclaiming their virtue.
It's not saying that this is a result of belief or religion--it's moralizers. As my dad used to say; "if anyone starts out by telling you what a good Christian they are--hold on to your wallet".
I couldn't even think like people such as Pat Robertson if I tried. Too warped. Parents must have beat him silly for playing with himself, and then telling him how he is so loved--then smacked him again at random.
In fact, my young boy gets a breast shoved in is face a few times a day. Doc tells me it's good for him.
So at what point does this become wrong? Seems to me, that some people out there "create evil" by preaching sin. You look anywhere in the world where there is the most misery and screwed up people--it is usually in relation to how devout those people are. All the fundamentalist countries are really lousy places to hang out, for example.
Who doesn't want to visit denmark or bangkok? Yeah, I thought so.
1) No. You're pretty much wrong on that. Many have been fired from science jobs in government for reporting their studies accurately. Scientists saying that global warming is an issue have been fired. Government money has been spent on commercials that say how dangerous abortion is (than what? certainly not more dangerous than pregnancy). The current chief scientist (forgot his name), has been quoted as saying, generally; "Science is dangerous, and suspect in general." Almost out of the closet as a Luuddite. Also there is the government study that shows in the last four years that the level of Mercury in pregnant women has doubled (forget exact figure, but it was pretty high), and other studies showing that 80% of Cancer is due to environmental factors like the air we breathe. The EPA is now covering up environmental issues, and if you've been watching the news, we now know that the FDA has been shilling for drug companies by covering their butts with VIOX... there are about half a dozen examples if you look for them. I could sight the complaints of about a dozen non-partisan science commissions that have gone on record protesting the treatment of science under the Bush administration.
Oh, and the embrios we are talking about are ALREADY here. This has nothing to do with creating life to destroy it. The embrios in question are the overage created when couples go to fertility doctors to get pregnant. They ferilize a few thousand cells and implant some. So either we throw them in the trash (like current policy) or we use them to help people already living. It is understandable that people are confused on this point, because this Bush administration has credibility through consistent and widespread lying. It has been opposite day for about 5 years now. I could point out every program and almost every statement he has made and show you how it is cynically a nice phrase covering a lot of corruption.
2) Adult stem cells are not the same as embryonic.
3) Bone marrow cells are not hte same as embryonic.
Part of the problem of degenerative diseases is that there is a genetic problem with the adult, so transplanting cells with the same genetic makeup within the same adult will not magically create a missing protein... that is where we need to initiate aditional research with inter-adult stem cell research, and proceed from there. You understand genetics less than I do. Your statement would seem to make sense, but it isn't true. Genes, even faulty genetic disorders, are turned on at different times. The genetic errors may not be expressed on new stem cells because the adult is not a baby anymore... so different genes are used. Even with that, if you have a degenerative kidney then even if the cells eventually die, you at least have new kidney cells for a few years and where there is life there is hope. But there seems to be more magic going on here, and contrary to common sense, embryonic stem cells are healing disorders where they shouldn't. That's why we need research.
Let me make my point about ethics here; If the U.S. puts money into research and has ethical guidelines not to clone new people for transplants and not to create life to destroy it,.. it will mean the important research gets done while life is respected. By NOT supporting research, we have less ethical tests going on in Mexico and China where doctors are buying all the cells they can and injecting them everywhere they can (and still getting some good results). Ethics takes more money. By turning a blind eye on something that has so much demand (like drug treatment, for example), we create a black market.
Abortions have doubled under Bush, even though the rhetoric has been really strongly against it. Are we all going to be pleased with ourselves because we condemned something, or should we try to create an environment where less abortions need to happen. Because it is an economic and education issue. The rise in poverty and the lack of sex education have caused the increase in abortions. But since the admin
I remember reading an interesting article a few years back about research into not using a "clock". There is a lot of waste in modern processors it parts waiting for other parts. Out of order execution helps some, but you can just look at the techniques like the IBM G5 processor that uses NOps (Non Operations) to stuff the processor to handle non-optimized instructions or waiting on threads.
Some laptop processors achieve efficiency by allowing parts to cycle slower or do little "naps".
But getting rid of the dependence on clocked chips has enoromous advantages to heat, engergy and calculation efficiency. Current processors run every bit as fast as they can and then function at the lowest common denominator so that everything arrives "just in time", otherwise it will lose a cycle.
It would be interesting in this discussion if someone who knew more on the subject of CPU designs without clocks could add something. The term is "Asynchronous Logic". I found a few articles on the topic; http://www.embedded.com/story/OEG20020824S 0001 http://www.win.tue.nl/async-bib/ And even Dvorak posits some ideas (which doesn't bode well); http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,12122 87,00.as p
Personally, before we see clockless CPUs in the wild, we will probably see many more custom ASICs and architectures that bypass the CPU (many new bus designs allow this). But it makes me look back at how AMIGA got it right so many years ago. They had a chip to control sound, the mouse... many functions were separated and the sum of the parts could do impressive things.
Apple's new CoreGraphics and CoreVIdeo will finally move many imaging processes to the graphics card which can do them much faster than the CPU.
The new CELL chip might be party towards this.
A lot could be improved with a custom text processor or a few TI chips for DSP (like the early 640AV from Apple-again the innovator).
In real world, USB 2 does not even come close to the AVERAGE throughput of FireWire 400. USB is bursty, and so gets the data across --but not at a guaranteed rate. So the "isochronous" nature of FireWire (guaranteed amounts of data at a certain time) is essential for video. USB uses more overhead from the host system while firewire can be transferred independantly from the processor.
USB is good for mice and keyboards. FIreWire for moving data and especially video.
The researchers used reported vulnerabilites as their guideline, and 'days of risk;' quote: "the period from when a vulnerability is first reported to when a patch is issued."
Note the real trick here in this study; getting an installation to test is just a shiney object to distract you. They used reports.
So why did they need a computer at all? I think that most everyone on/. will think the same thing about this study. It's really just some piece of external paper for marketing to point at.
Fast forward 6 months to when it is revealed the "researchers" have a grant from a think tank that is funded by Microsoft.
I don't see any suprise that an average Linux distro wouldn't be all that secure by default. But stability is a big issue in this debate. Since a knowledgeable admin can set it up correctly and forget about the box for 18 months... for Windows, you'll be lucky not to have to reinstall the OS during that time. As a business, you can spend more money on fewer knowledgeable people and still save money. Pointless, stupid patching takes boots on the ground. UNIX gives you more time and money left over. If you cared to secure something, then there is more control.
But really, if they wanted to prove "security", they would have chosen a *NIX that was oriented towards secure like OpenBSD/Berkley or something else --I'm not a *NIX expert and even I know that. So the "experts" grab a copy of RedHat and some other $45 distro and throw it on a box vs. Windows... but then ran out of money to just grab any dang OS X Mac and just turn it on? Turn on the Mac, start web server, be more secure than Windows after 300 patches and tweaks. Or spend less money and more time and learn to admin a *NIX.
And both the Mac and the UNIX don't have activeX or vbscript as a virus/trojan platform. 90% of all computer insecurity comes from this.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the spelling help. I was irked that Professional was giving a guy a hard time for being depressed by the changes at NASA--plus he didn't understand or show much knowledge. I shouldn't have called him an idiot. I just have the urge to defend people against bullies.
If an idiot to you is someone who misspells. So be it. Somehow I feel OK. Strange that you are so much more familiar with a popular, colorful childrens drink...
It is morning in America. Yes, the Nazi party felt the same way.
Don't forget that the Nazi-ism was a religion. They believed in a final end of the world and that they were superior in the eyes of God, we've traded Evangelicals for blonde hair and blue eyes.
They invaded Poland for the excuse that it was a Preemptive strike against the Polish having nerve gas.
An important government building was blown up (later revealed that it was done by the Nazis themselves) and this gave their movement sympathy and put fear into the public.
The Nazis gained power by taking control of the media. Gerbils was a genius at that.
They rigged elections and changed their laws so that majority vote in the Parliament was all that was required to change protocol (see current news). All the atrocities of Hitler were legal. Doesn't that comfort you, he never broke the law?
Their government printed paper to pay off the French war debt, making the Mark worthless.
Prescott Bush, made his fortune from bank-rolling Buchenwald and later helping Nazis move their money overseas. I could site a lot more recent events of war profiteering in this family--it's a tradition.
I'm not saying Bush and his supporters actually are Nazis, but they do work from the same playbook. Ends justifies the means and all that. You can be intolerant, treat people poorly, kill innocents in wars, as long as you don't curse and go to church. My dad mentioned to me that the German troops were very polite and well behaved--more so than the French.
Oh well, I don't think this will change any minds...
As to the other part of what you were saying;
So if President Clinton did it, it must be OK to us tree huggers, right? President Clinton was a decent Republican if you look at his political agenda. He reduced government waste and spending and the number of employees. He forced the military to use "off the shelf parts". I never voted for him, I actually voted for Ross Perot--twice. Because he was talking about the REAL issue of corruption and how the special interests (mostly from businesses) were taking control of the entire process. I started supporting Clinton after the attempted coup that Ken Starr started. Talk about being hard on the president... Bush couldn't carry Clinton's jock strap. He doesn't have a tenth of his intelligence or his stamina. Clinton took himself out of a double-wide and into the White House while Bush had a silver spoon on both ends, got bailed out of failure after failure. You can't compare the two. I say this while not liking the politics of either.
But it has nothing to do with my issue about the Anti-science movement in Bush-land. There are about a dozen scientific groups with protest petitions complaining about the anti-science crap of the white house. Is it always "Commies" that are complaining? If you want to judge "anti-science" then wouldn't that be influenced by the opinions of scientists.
In the movie, 1984, the main character saw beautiful sunny skies whenever he listened to the government propaganda and started to believe. It was an escape from the dismal destruction around him.
Just keep your frickin' moralizing out of my government. You "Born Again" supporters of Bush are letting him sell the country off while you argue about gay marriage. You are fools.
I am sorry for this. The team that worked on Voyager are world class engineers. You are never going to get the recognition or money you deserve. That seems to be the price of following a higher calling.
Just remember to the "people that matter", guys like you are the real heroes. I work on websites, multimedia and videos, but uncharacteristically, when people ask me who my heroes are I respond; "my dad, Richard Feynman, and physicists." Sometimes Jimmy Carter because he was one of the few polliticians who pushed our country towards things that had long-term benefits. I don't look up to athletes except to admire their discipline. But having met actors, athletes, scientists, polliticians and clergy, I have to say that scientists are by far the most interesting and heroic of the group.
Sadly, I don't think NASA or America is going to see a silver lining for some time. The fact that few of the NeoCon supporters have realized what a total failure things have become means that any realizations will have to wait until after a 2nd great depression, after sea levels have risen, and after America has become 2nd rate. When things are obvious, and blaming someone else will be little consolation for hungry, sick kids without a future.
I recommend you find another place to work. You are only going to prolong the pain by watching NASA slowly die. I could be wrong, but that's just how I see it. I felt the same way on November 3rd, when, in direct opposition to what the exit polls inidicated, Bush won reelection of a sort. I knew I had to give up my dream that America was anything but a corporation with good PR.
Wow, have I become a bummer, or what?
Wow, "Professionalism" is a class 4 gass giant. Low density specific gravity, yet enough volume to create a signifigant gravity well. Lots of heat escapes, but not much light.
To translate for "Professionalism", I just called you an asshole.
NASA may have to die and be reborn to save space science. But the Mars Mission will do nothing to help space science. At a guess, a ham-fisted science hating Bushy bureaucrat will strut in and close this and boost that, without any understanding of its scientific or fiscal effect (note; projects that cost more to shut down than continue have already had this treatment).
A broken clock is right, twice a day. So NASA will be gutted, turned into military research, and the rest will be painted over with PR. It would not surprise me to see 25% of the funding going to TV commercials.
I expect to see a few NASA scientists in bell towers surrounded by SWAT teams shortly. Only kidding a little.
I would call my representative, only they are ignoring outrage over Social Security privatization, the FDA covering for bad drugs, the EPA covering for polluters, and new Bankruptcy laws to bring back indentured servitude. If there were any concern over voter backlash, I don't see it. Calling a representative presumes that voting in this country is actually fair. Democracy died about 2 years ago--it's just too big and slow to know it yet.
I think half of that is to link a half-dozen radio telescopes together and process the signal (kind of like a multi-lens (composite telescope). One radio telescope IMHO, would not be sensitive enough--just a guess. The square of the distance is the electromagnetic strength of the signal. So a walky-talky at the edge of our solar system is a pretty "attenuated" signal.
Some of these geeks at NASA are absolutely amazing. We do not appreciate how good these engineers are. It's just the bureaucracy that has grown their that seems to have diminished the shine they once had.
Back to topic; for the $100k employee, you have about as much again in support, services and tax. So you get 10 employees to analyze the data from the composite radio-telescope (that covers the other $2 million). It doesn't seem like this is an exorbitant operation. Running a high-tech business is not cheap.
They could however, outsource the whole thing to India for $200,000, for those who want everything "cost effective".
I think a manned mission to Mars will get so much commercial attention at the outset, that there will be "Mars fatigue" on the part of the American public well before they reach Mars. Unless they find two-headed advanced alien civilization (one head just won't be enough), people will have turned off daily updates of the mission. The only ones who will stick with and care about the Mars mission are dedicated geeks. But they will be turned off by the whole "McMars" approach.
Meanwhile Fox will pick it up, and will re-vamp the whole "Mars Mission" as a reality TV experience. Mission specialists will be coached to; "have more attitude, stir things up." Mars feaver will pick up again and be a smash hit.
Meanwhile, China and India will have developed FTL drives and be sending images back from Jupiter, which won't do as well due to poor dubbing. The entire U.S. economy will go into a tailspin, however, once Tarantino is recruited to improve the Chinese space program documentaries.
There is going to be a lot of real science that ends (for more money than continuing it) and we are going to get little out of this Mars Mission. Because it is just PR and will be run that way. Real science at NASA will get short-shrift. They might as well apply to weapons manufacturing companies because that is where this slush fund is going. Yippee!
Please give me credit for having coined "Mars Fatigue" first. Just my 5 minutes of fame.
In Iraq they might use terrorist practices, but they are fighting an occupation in their own country. At least we don't call them "Freedom Fighters". I think Insurgent is a good compromise.
We use a lot of terrorist practices ourselves. Yet you don't hear much about the death squads we are starting up in Iraq (remember what we did in Latin America?). We are also doing our fare share of torture--though not yet to the extent of Saddam. I think if we don't want the label, we should improve our standards.
What was "Shock and Awe?" When a bomb lands on your house and your children burn to death at a wedding party, arent' you terrorized?
So I think it is OK that they use these non-loaded words. Reporters should just stick to what happened. The rest is opinion and we have enough of those.
You can add to that list;
many Video Rental Companies
all Department Store Credit Accounts
all Medical related company
all Credit related company
all Accountants, Brokers, or Financial Service professionals
all Utilities you have to deal with
any recurring service like Broadband or Telephone
most any large company that says; "well, this is our Policy."
most monopolies you must purchase from, because hey, what are you going to do--go somewhere else?
all Account transfer from a Prince in Bangalor/Taiwan/Dubai
But, this all means that SS# theft is difficult and that people stealing your identity is a rare occurrence. The government would protect you if that were the case. [/irony]
do you really think that the average consumer has the ability or the desire to decide what is "best" for themselves?
So, obviously, your are against privatizing Social Security, right? I mean, the consumer doesn't really have the time to know what is best for them.
Myself, I was going to demolish someone's house to build an off-ramp. Truly, in the Libertarian spirit.
You will all thank me later.
I think what they will do is grab some nice things from Longhorn, shoehorn them into XP and create XP Me.
4 years is too long to wait for the upgrade revenue. They will cut bait and ship what they have, and spend lots of ad revenue in various PC magazines. PC mags will then produce articles saying; "You gotta get XP Me!" Add in a purchase of the clipart from Corel and a few "independent testing labs" (wink, wink) and you've got yourself a killer app.
I could have saved them billions just telling them what they've done in the past. Why the hell are they wasting so much on development?
I thought VMS is what they used for Win 2000?
Embryonic stem cells have not adopted a DNA pattern yet. The importance of them is because they are not rejected and can be used for any sort of cell.
That's why this only worked by re-injecting the persons own cells. Yet this is just a story, it has not been independantly verified. There are a lot of anectdotal cases like this, but I would wait before getting too hopeful on any of them. You can find similiar stories of faith healers from the last decade. Suffering people will grab at any hope.
It would be nice if it were so easy. But it probably isn't. That is why it takes a lot of government money (long-term, not profit motivated) to get basic research done.
The other issue is; is it better to throw embryonic stem cells in the garbage or use them to help people? Because that is what is happening. The embryonic cells are produced every day in clinics trying to help couples get pregnant. So they stay frozen, thow them away, or use them for research. Thought you'd want to know.
It's more like, Bush plows into a schoolbus full of kids, desperate to escape the ensuing flames, he starts throwing bodies onto the blaze. The next days headliens read; "Heroic Bush puts out fire, saves bus driver."
You think a few timid questions about the economy is the press being hard on the President? When you don't here about negotiations with Canada, Germany and Chile to stop war crimes suites so our President, Cheney or Rumsfeld can visit, you have a press that is asleep or complicit.
I really don't have the stomach to talk about Neil Bush's $15 Billion windfall from the savings and loan debacle of the 1980's. The $25 million to Bush's oil company from the Bin Laden family--or how they traded oil with Saddam even during the embargo, his new drivers license after 72 arrests, the abortion he gave his socialite girlfriend, the banking his family did with Buchenwald or the protecting of Nazi bank accounts 10 years after WWII. The incredible profits all members of his family have made on weapons sales or the connection all his cronies have with the Carlysle Group.
Has he even been to any veteran funerals yet? Has he pushed one policy that didn't rob returning vets or old folks?
Why didn't he order jets to shoot down planes for 2+1/2 hours during 9/11 -- oh I'm sorry, move on.
Why did Bush only pick up votes where electronic voting machines were installed (OK, generalization, but statistically, it was shown it was the only factor that could account for his "win").
I could go for days covering crap that you never heard of and sound like a tin foil hat wearer. Unfortuneatly, I'll have to wait for that stupid look on Republican faces when the Northwest is a desert and we have snow at the Equator and we have attrocities we can't ignore, and people scraping by in another great depression, and they stand their, rubbing their eyes like waking from a deep sleep saying; "I didn't know". It is inevitable. Some will of course be waiting for the rapture that never comes, they'll be saying; "OK, we hastened the end of the world--now what?" Oh no, abusing the planet and your fellow man does not get you a free ride to heaven, no matter how much you pray.
OK. Flame over. Just pisses me off when people whine about Bush never getting a break no matter how great he is. When has he ever done anything right? I mean, besides the total screwups like "No child left behind" that are whitewashed and the books cooked. We might here of a few freedom uprisings in the Middle East--but that was inevitable because there is plenty of resentment against tyrannical rule in the Middle East. They are just taking advantage of our threatening presance. If Russia had invated Iraq, they would be doing the same thing. They can fix elections as well as we can.
Where are you getting this info? How could they be influencing news organizations here in the U.S.? Really, I'm just curious, I don't know anything about this conflict.
I think "militant" is the right word. They are people fighting with military armaments for a cause and not a country. It has not been "weighted" yet. It is neither PC or politically incorrect. It is just a descriptive word.
Terrorist just means that you are fighting against U.S. interests, which has yet to be determined. Watch Fox news closely to keep track of their status. If they use the term; "terrorist", then it is going to cost U.S. taxpayers. If they use "extremists", "gorilla fighters" or "rebels", then it won't cost U.S. taxpayers. If the term "freedom fighters", "patriots", or "uprising" is used, it will cost taxpayers money, but we will be on their side. Militant just means that no decision has been made by Homeland PsyOps specialists, so you can safely ignore any pain and suffering in that country and reserve righteous indignation for things that are deemed appropriate.
Does it make sense now?
this is an example of how our government has ceased to represent us. Face it, we are in a corpritocracy; or a government for the purpose of corporations. Mostly influenced by larger, multinational concerns which rarely report profits in the countries where they are earned.
We invaded Chile years ago to keep low the price of copper for our phone systems. This has been going on for a long time but is now pervasive. The only conflict now is which coprorations get to have the say; when energy overlaps the financial houses, who gets to control which policy is followed? When there is no longer enough largess of the population to steal, it's really going to be dangerous when Drug Manufacturers turn against HMOs and Big Oil fights against Weapons Dealers (UNICOL vs. GM).
To understand what is really going on, you have to read; "Confessions of an Economic Hitman".
What is IRONIC is that the push for decency usually comes from the biggist crooks and frauds.
How many have we seen? Jesse Helms, New Gingrich (caught with pants down, bribed by Rupert Murdoch with $3million book deal), Sun Young Moon (religion for profit and influence), Rush Limbaugh (drug abuser, propagandist on the take), Donald Rumsfeld (outsourcing torture), Bush Family (renowned war profiteering, multi-billion dollar crooks), Jimmy Swaggert (hookers),.. I could go on. I would sooner trust the average man sitting in the overnight jail then I would any one of these people proclaiming their virtue.
It's not saying that this is a result of belief or religion--it's moralizers. As my dad used to say; "if anyone starts out by telling you what a good Christian they are--hold on to your wallet".
I couldn't even think like people such as Pat Robertson if I tried. Too warped. Parents must have beat him silly for playing with himself, and then telling him how he is so loved--then smacked him again at random.
I don't see any proof for sex being damaging.
In fact, my young boy gets a breast shoved in is face a few times a day. Doc tells me it's good for him.
So at what point does this become wrong? Seems to me, that some people out there "create evil" by preaching sin. You look anywhere in the world where there is the most misery and screwed up people--it is usually in relation to how devout those people are. All the fundamentalist countries are really lousy places to hang out, for example.
Who doesn't want to visit denmark or bangkok? Yeah, I thought so.
1) No. You're pretty much wrong on that. Many have been fired from science jobs in government for reporting their studies accurately. Scientists saying that global warming is an issue have been fired. Government money has been spent on commercials that say how dangerous abortion is (than what? certainly not more dangerous than pregnancy). The current chief scientist (forgot his name), has been quoted as saying, generally; "Science is dangerous, and suspect in general." Almost out of the closet as a Luuddite. Also there is the government study that shows in the last four years that the level of Mercury in pregnant women has doubled (forget exact figure, but it was pretty high), and other studies showing that 80% of Cancer is due to environmental factors like the air we breathe. The EPA is now covering up environmental issues, and if you've been watching the news, we now know that the FDA has been shilling for drug companies by covering their butts with VIOX... there are about half a dozen examples if you look for them. I could sight the complaints of about a dozen non-partisan science commissions that have gone on record protesting the treatment of science under the Bush administration.
Oh, and the embrios we are talking about are ALREADY here. This has nothing to do with creating life to destroy it. The embrios in question are the overage created when couples go to fertility doctors to get pregnant. They ferilize a few thousand cells and implant some. So either we throw them in the trash (like current policy) or we use them to help people already living. It is understandable that people are confused on this point, because this Bush administration has credibility through consistent and widespread lying. It has been opposite day for about 5 years now. I could point out every program and almost every statement he has made and show you how it is cynically a nice phrase covering a lot of corruption.
2) Adult stem cells are not the same as embryonic.
3) Bone marrow cells are not hte same as embryonic.
Part of the problem of degenerative diseases is that there is a genetic problem with the adult, so transplanting cells with the same genetic makeup within the same adult will not magically create a missing protein... that is where we need to initiate aditional research with inter-adult stem cell research, and proceed from there.
You understand genetics less than I do. Your statement would seem to make sense, but it isn't true. Genes, even faulty genetic disorders, are turned on at different times. The genetic errors may not be expressed on new stem cells because the adult is not a baby anymore... so different genes are used. Even with that, if you have a degenerative kidney then even if the cells eventually die, you at least have new kidney cells for a few years and where there is life there is hope. But there seems to be more magic going on here, and contrary to common sense, embryonic stem cells are healing disorders where they shouldn't. That's why we need research.
Let me make my point about ethics here; If the U.S. puts money into research and has ethical guidelines not to clone new people for transplants and not to create life to destroy it,.. it will mean the important research gets done while life is respected. By NOT supporting research, we have less ethical tests going on in Mexico and China where doctors are buying all the cells they can and injecting them everywhere they can (and still getting some good results). Ethics takes more money. By turning a blind eye on something that has so much demand (like drug treatment, for example), we create a black market.
Abortions have doubled under Bush, even though the rhetoric has been really strongly against it. Are we all going to be pleased with ourselves because we condemned something, or should we try to create an environment where less abortions need to happen. Because it is an economic and education issue. The rise in poverty and the lack of sex education have caused the increase in abortions. But since the admin
I remember reading an interesting article a few years back about research into not using a "clock". There is a lot of waste in modern processors it parts waiting for other parts. Out of order execution helps some, but you can just look at the techniques like the IBM G5 processor that uses NOps (Non Operations) to stuff the processor to handle non-optimized instructions or waiting on threads.
S 00012 87,00.as p
Some laptop processors achieve efficiency by allowing parts to cycle slower or do little "naps".
But getting rid of the dependence on clocked chips has enoromous advantages to heat, engergy and calculation efficiency. Current processors run every bit as fast as they can and then function at the lowest common denominator so that everything arrives "just in time", otherwise it will lose a cycle.
It would be interesting in this discussion if someone who knew more on the subject of CPU designs without clocks could add something. The term is "Asynchronous Logic". I found a few articles on the topic;
http://www.embedded.com/story/OEG20020824
http://www.win.tue.nl/async-bib/
And even Dvorak posits some ideas (which doesn't bode well);
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1212
Personally, before we see clockless CPUs in the wild, we will probably see many more custom ASICs and architectures that bypass the CPU (many new bus designs allow this). But it makes me look back at how AMIGA got it right so many years ago. They had a chip to control sound, the mouse... many functions were separated and the sum of the parts could do impressive things.
Apple's new CoreGraphics and CoreVIdeo will finally move many imaging processes to the graphics card which can do them much faster than the CPU.
The new CELL chip might be party towards this.
A lot could be improved with a custom text processor or a few TI chips for DSP (like the early 640AV from Apple-again the innovator).
In real world, USB 2 does not even come close to the AVERAGE throughput of FireWire 400. USB is bursty, and so gets the data across --but not at a guaranteed rate. So the "isochronous" nature of FireWire (guaranteed amounts of data at a certain time) is essential for video. USB uses more overhead from the host system while firewire can be transferred independantly from the processor.
USB is good for mice and keyboards. FIreWire for moving data and especially video.
The researchers used reported vulnerabilites as their guideline, and 'days of risk;' quote: "the period from when a vulnerability is first reported to when a patch is issued."
/. will think the same thing about this study. It's really just some piece of external paper for marketing to point at.
Note the real trick here in this study; getting an installation to test is just a shiney object to distract you. They used reports.
So why did they need a computer at all? I think that most everyone on
Well, at least they are being honest. Legal briefs is about all that they do produce.
Fast forward 6 months to when it is revealed the "researchers" have a grant from a think tank that is funded by Microsoft.
I don't see any suprise that an average Linux distro wouldn't be all that secure by default. But stability is a big issue in this debate. Since a knowledgeable admin can set it up correctly and forget about the box for 18 months... for Windows, you'll be lucky not to have to reinstall the OS during that time. As a business, you can spend more money on fewer knowledgeable people and still save money. Pointless, stupid patching takes boots on the ground. UNIX gives you more time and money left over. If you cared to secure something, then there is more control.
But really, if they wanted to prove "security", they would have chosen a *NIX that was oriented towards secure like OpenBSD/Berkley or something else --I'm not a *NIX expert and even I know that. So the "experts" grab a copy of RedHat and some other $45 distro and throw it on a box vs. Windows... but then ran out of money to just grab any dang OS X Mac and just turn it on? Turn on the Mac, start web server, be more secure than Windows after 300 patches and tweaks. Or spend less money and more time and learn to admin a *NIX.
And both the Mac and the UNIX don't have activeX or vbscript as a virus/trojan platform. 90% of all computer insecurity comes from this.
Absolute drivel.