That's an entirely different war. Thats not US vs China. That's Corporate feudalists in BOTH countries vs common folk.
Thats right. You heard me. Bush and the neo-cons DON'T believe in democracy. They have cast their lot in with the totalitarianists in China. Their only goal is to have the upper hand.
Robots take a nuclear battery or solar panel to keep alive. They don't weight that much. They don't add much extra.
I was talking about the life support systems necessary for a robot. In this case, a nuclear battery or solar panels.
This is Comparatively. It's like saying I have a "light" car. A one ton car is light. The equipment and supplies necessary to keep astronauts alive add tremendous weight to a vehicle.
There are also multiple automatic failover redundancies necessary in human flight that aren't necessary for robots. A robot can go to fail for a while and then be revived (like SOHO). Obviously, once a human being expires, it's permanent.
The cost between a robot mission to mars and a human mission to mars is tens of millions vs hundreds of billions. Most likely, a manned mission to mars will cost upwards of 1 trillion. Remmber, government aerospace projects ALWAYS run overbudget. The reason is simple, if a 2 billion dollar project runs over, your not going to scrap it because you've already invested too much in it.
Now regarding the weight of robots. Our terrestial industrial robots are pretty heavy. Thats because they deal with heavy things and must be durable. NASA robots aren't heavy lifters and are designed out of exotic materials that squeeze every ounce out of the design.
NASA robots are eyes and ears. They are more akin to spy gadgets than Caterpillar lifters.
Since the student is submitting to the plagarism detector himself, he can plagarize, then tweak then test and if it fails the test, he can tweak it some more until eventually it passes the plagarism test. Since he now has the official stamp of approval from the infallible computer - there is no need for a human to check for plagarism.
Well. If he is tweaking the actual content, becomes less akin to plagirism. At that point, it becomes work again. If your going to work, you might as well do the assignment instead of some elaborate word morphing. Effectively, it makes purchasing papers wholesale impossible.
When your Universities allow their students to cheat, it diminishes the value of your degree. It becomes akin to something you paid for instead of something you earned.
All of that is an aside. The college takes on the roll of an employer here, and has full rights to whatever works you produce. When I was in college, I constantly heard grumbles (far more justified) about professors assigning graduate students programming tasks that the professors would collect and string into marketable products. At the University of Illinois professors are allowed to profit from side projects, though this is not true for all universities.
Full time grad students in tech fields are PAID to go to school. So your works literally are "works for hire".
The fact that the prof gets rights over the university is between U Illinois and their faculty. It's likely part compensation for the fact that most of them could go into industry and make double their academic salary.
I recall a certain president saying something to the effect of "Trust but verify".
First, let us consult Dictionary.com
trust ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trst) n. Firm reliance on the integrity, ability, or character of a person or thing. Custody; care. Something committed into the care of another; charge.
The condition and resulting obligation of having confidence placed in one: violated a public trust. One in which confidence is placed. Reliance on something in the future; hope. Reliance on the intention and ability of a purchaser to pay in the future; credit. Law. A legal title to property held by one party for the benefit of another. The confidence reposed in a trustee when giving the trustee legal title to property to administer for another, together with the trustee's obligation regarding that property and the beneficiary. The property so held. A combination of firms or corporations for the purpose of reducing competition and controlling prices throughout a business or an industry.
v. trusted, trusting, trusts v. intr. To have or place reliance; depend: Trust in the Lord. Trust to destiny. To be confident; hope. To sell on credit.
v. tr. To have or place confidence in; depend on. To expect with assurance; assume: I trust that you will be on time. To believe: I trust what you say. To place in the care of another; entrust. To grant discretion to confidently: Can I trust them with the boat? To extend credit to.
Idiom: in trust In the possession or care of a trustee.
You can look at this statement two ways.
1) Reagan was making an ironic statement. Effectively he meant SAY you trust someone. But you don't trust. You look over their shoulder and make sure they do what they say. You always keep up your guard and be a skeptic.
2) Reagan didn't know what trust meant. He was an ideological babbling idiot.
Personally. I don't mind making up new words and phrases. However, I HATE when people redefine existing words. Especially when they use those words to label and then demonize. They make a wreck out of English and make rational conversation imposssible.
Today the terms liberal and conservative no longer have ANY meaning. They've been gutted and warped by ideologues on both sides of the aisles.
For the record, the only real liberals are Anarchists and Libertarians. The only real conservatives are Amish;-)
I guess us honorable moderate achievers will have to rely on God to punish cheating overachievers. The system in academia and business seems rigged towards cheating. Or, it's rigged towards "de-regulation" as Republicans would call it.;-)
I'm pretty sure the prececpt of almost ALL academic ventures is that it goes into the open domain. Once a professor publishes a paper, it's made freely available for use provided that you make the correct citations.
Here, you can consider a students work part of the "public domain". Once you right it, it's fair use for other academics to cite it, or reference it. "Turnitin" just provides a cross referencing service. They aren't "selling" your paper. It's like doing a public records search.
I'm all for robots doing space research. Robots are cheap (relatively) and get the job done. Plus, no one claims that sending robots to Mars will cure cancer or invent the next big breakfast beverage;-)
The robots aren't cheap, human beings are cheap animals, we have LOTS of them. They are actually plentiful and resourceful.
Keeping human beings alive takes a lot of heavy equipment, food and water. That makes the rocket requirements WAAAAYYYY bigger. That costs lots and lots of extra money.
Robots take a nuclear battery or solar panel to keep alive. They don't weight that much. They don't add much extra.
Relative to human flight, robots costs pennies on the ten thousand dollar bill.
Robots are slow. They take quite a bit of babysitting by controllers but so do astronauts. Their is an advantage to having intelligence on the spot. But the cost makes it prohibitive. Given time and patience, the robots do just as good a job.
Robots make for even crappier TV than astronauts. But it's supposed to be about science, not photo-ops.
I am just looking at the complexity of the trip, and the distance and other hurdles they covered for the time.
What complexity??? They put supplies in a boat and sailed west. To reach the appropriate spot all they needed was a sextent.
I'm sure that 17th century sailing ship cost a lot of money. But I'm equally sure that a spaceship takes MILLIONS more in resources to build.
The fact that one group set forth for a fertile paradise and the other would set forth for a frozen desert is probably immaterial to you. For me, it means that colonizing Mars is a waste of time and resources.
Waste your own money if you like. Don't expect fellow citizens to pay for the boondoggle of a few over trekked adventurers. Real adventurers finance their own journeys and strike out alone.
Yeah, after the Micron/Rambus case I got the impression that those Euro judges don't take shit from anybody. I'm impressed with that french judge who is going after Dick Cheney.
I don't think SCO will get any takers in Europe. There laws aren't 100% dictated by corporations like ours are.
Actually one way tickets were how America was founded like 250 years ago. Probably took as long for those ships to get here from England as it is going to take a manned space ship to get to Mars, so...
The big difference being:
1) North America has a breathable atmosphere. 2) That atmosphere keeps the sun from turning you to mush. 3) There was liquid water. 4) There was food. 5) The journey was privately financed. 6) Home was just 3 months away. 7) Approaching the coast of the US didn't cause a ship to burst into flames.
Don't give me that colonization crap. If we truly had a need for a new landmass, we would colonize Antarctica. It has 1,000 times more available resources and would be a billions of times cheaper.
If you do research, you need control subjects. How would you perform a controlled research experiment on the effects of Mars. That would be like sending some seventy something year old guy up on a single shuttle mision and... ooops, did that and it was a waste of time too.
Beyond this, exactly what would the benefit of people on Mars be to civilization???? Every time space missions our brought up, advocates are very quick to point to the few scurrilous benefits to "society". What they rarely point out is that they really don't care about any benefits to society. They just think space travel is cool and want to do it.
I might as rob someone of gold and claim that I saved them orthopedic problems because they no longer have to carry it.
Why anyone would want to live on a barren lifeless rock is beyond my comprehension. People have been programmed by Science Fiction to think that alien worlds are exotic and adventuring.
In reality, they are lifeless, perilous and deadly. The slightest wrong move will get you killed.
Of course, the worst part will be the 18 month journey aboard something not much larger than a school-bus. Target recruing audience... couch potatos. Active people ho would be the MOST fit for colonization would be the most likely to go mad en route.
I would hope to see NEW characters and NEW stuff instead of the same old people.
Lucas specifically stated at one point that he wanted the actors to be aged for the sequels. So I think it would be Luke in Yoda's role. Leia is Chancellor (this happens in the books), Han is probably an old geiser, Lando is a businessman, etc... They'll be dealing with a new generation of actors. Perhaps with one of Han and Leia's kids (or grandkids).
Just makes you wonder if Orson Welles was allowed to keep making movies (hollywood blacklisted him), would people yell at him the rest of his life for not measuring up to 'Citizen Cane'.
Agreed, the story in the original Star Wars isn't that great. I think it was just everything else in the movie that was just so mind blowing. Lucas created a complete world and brought it to the screen.
I think people see things when they are young and attach strongly to them. When you watch them again as an adult, you kinda get a different perspective.
All that being said, I think the stories are grander and futher reaching in the first two movies. Though I too thought that Jar-Jar was a Dufus and little Anakin was a shitty actor.
The first three movies aren't just about Anakin. They are about a Republic handing their freedoms over to a tyrant who waves insecurity in front of their eyes. I think it's a lesson that everyone should take to heart givin certain modern political realities.
They stopped throwing away the defects to save on cost;-)
Though, I remember that Leigh commented that Luke was too short to be a Storm Trooper.
This does seem continuous because Bobba Fett is dressed a LOT like storm troopers and stays masked just as they do. If he took off his mask, everyone would know that he is a clone.
Well, the sword fighting in Episode 1 was better than anything I've ever seen in movies. Those guys really went at it with Darth Maul.
The fights in episode 2 looked a lot more like the lightsaber duels of the original trilogy. I'm hoping to see more bad-ass light-saber action in episode 3.
Actually the power plants in cells are WAY more efficient than mechanical engines.
BTW, not all organic materials are weak and flimsy. Creatures can secrete armour and do all kinds of wonderful things. The idea that these things could be engineered isn't bizarre.
Slashdot Mirror
That's an entirely different war. Thats not US vs China. That's Corporate feudalists in BOTH countries vs common folk.
Thats right. You heard me. Bush and the neo-cons DON'T believe in democracy. They have cast their lot in with the totalitarianists in China. Their only goal is to have the upper hand.
N Korea should be more concerned with delivering rice to it's citizen's tables.
Robots take a nuclear battery or solar panel to keep alive. They don't weight that much. They don't add much extra.
I was talking about the life support systems necessary for a robot. In this case, a nuclear battery or solar panels.
This is Comparatively. It's like saying I have a "light" car. A one ton car is light. The equipment and supplies necessary to keep astronauts alive add tremendous weight to a vehicle.
There are also multiple automatic failover redundancies necessary in human flight that aren't necessary for robots. A robot can go to fail for a while and then be revived (like SOHO). Obviously, once a human being expires, it's permanent.
The cost between a robot mission to mars and a human mission to mars is tens of millions vs hundreds of billions. Most likely, a manned mission to mars will cost upwards of 1 trillion. Remmber, government aerospace projects ALWAYS run overbudget. The reason is simple, if a 2 billion dollar project runs over, your not going to scrap it because you've already invested too much in it.
Now regarding the weight of robots. Our terrestial industrial robots are pretty heavy. Thats because they deal with heavy things and must be durable. NASA robots aren't heavy lifters and are designed out of exotic materials that squeeze every ounce out of the design.
NASA robots are eyes and ears. They are more akin to spy gadgets than Caterpillar lifters.
Since the student is submitting to the plagarism detector himself, he can plagarize, then tweak then test and if it fails the test, he can tweak it some more until eventually it passes the plagarism test. Since he now has the official stamp of approval from the infallible computer - there is no need for a human to check for plagarism.
Well. If he is tweaking the actual content, becomes less akin to plagirism. At that point, it becomes work again. If your going to work, you might as well do the assignment instead of some elaborate word morphing. Effectively, it makes purchasing papers wholesale impossible.
Mod the parent up.
When your Universities allow their students to cheat, it diminishes the value of your degree. It becomes akin to something you paid for instead of something you earned.
All of that is an aside. The college takes on the roll of an employer here, and has full rights to whatever works you produce. When I was in college, I constantly heard grumbles (far more justified) about professors assigning graduate students programming tasks that the professors would collect and string into marketable products. At the University of Illinois professors are allowed to profit from side projects, though this is not true for all universities.
Full time grad students in tech fields are PAID to go to school. So your works literally are "works for hire".
The fact that the prof gets rights over the university is between U Illinois and their faculty. It's likely part compensation for the fact that most of them could go into industry and make double their academic salary.
I recall a certain president saying something to the effect of "Trust but verify".
;-)
First, let us consult Dictionary.com
trust ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trst)
n.
Firm reliance on the integrity, ability, or character of a person or thing.
Custody; care.
Something committed into the care of another; charge.
The condition and resulting obligation of having confidence placed in one: violated a public trust.
One in which confidence is placed.
Reliance on something in the future; hope.
Reliance on the intention and ability of a purchaser to pay in the future; credit.
Law.
A legal title to property held by one party for the benefit of another.
The confidence reposed in a trustee when giving the trustee legal title to property to administer for another, together with the trustee's obligation regarding that property and the beneficiary.
The property so held.
A combination of firms or corporations for the purpose of reducing competition and controlling prices throughout a business or an industry.
v. trusted, trusting, trusts
v. intr.
To have or place reliance; depend: Trust in the Lord. Trust to destiny.
To be confident; hope.
To sell on credit.
v. tr.
To have or place confidence in; depend on.
To expect with assurance; assume: I trust that you will be on time.
To believe: I trust what you say.
To place in the care of another; entrust.
To grant discretion to confidently: Can I trust them with the boat?
To extend credit to.
Idiom:
in trust
In the possession or care of a trustee.
You can look at this statement two ways.
1) Reagan was making an ironic statement. Effectively he meant SAY you trust someone. But you don't trust. You look over their shoulder and make sure they do what they say. You always keep up your guard and be a skeptic.
2) Reagan didn't know what trust meant. He was an ideological babbling idiot.
Personally. I don't mind making up new words and phrases. However, I HATE when people redefine existing words. Especially when they use those words to label and then demonize. They make a wreck out of English and make rational conversation imposssible.
Today the terms liberal and conservative no longer have ANY meaning. They've been gutted and warped by ideologues on both sides of the aisles.
For the record, the only real liberals are Anarchists and Libertarians. The only real conservatives are Amish
I guess us honorable moderate achievers will have to rely on God to punish cheating overachievers. The system in academia and business seems rigged towards cheating. Or, it's rigged towards "de-regulation" as Republicans would call it. ;-)
I'm pretty sure the prececpt of almost ALL academic ventures is that it goes into the open domain. Once a professor publishes a paper, it's made freely available for use provided that you make the correct citations.
Here, you can consider a students work part of the "public domain". Once you right it, it's fair use for other academics to cite it, or reference it. "Turnitin" just provides a cross referencing service. They aren't "selling" your paper. It's like doing a public records search.
I'm all for robots doing space research. Robots are cheap (relatively) and get the job done. Plus, no one claims that sending robots to Mars will cure cancer or invent the next big breakfast beverage
BTW, please don't call me an idiot.
The robots aren't cheap, human beings are cheap animals, we have LOTS of them. They are actually plentiful and resourceful.
Keeping human beings alive takes a lot of heavy equipment, food and water. That makes the rocket requirements WAAAAYYYY bigger. That costs lots and lots of extra money.
Robots take a nuclear battery or solar panel to keep alive. They don't weight that much. They don't add much extra.
Relative to human flight, robots costs pennies on the ten thousand dollar bill.
Robots are slow. They take quite a bit of babysitting by controllers but so do astronauts. Their is an advantage to having intelligence on the spot. But the cost makes it prohibitive. Given time and patience, the robots do just as good a job.
Robots make for even crappier TV than astronauts. But it's supposed to be about science, not photo-ops.
I am just looking at the complexity of the trip, and the distance and other hurdles they covered for the time.
What complexity??? They put supplies in a boat and sailed west. To reach the appropriate spot all they needed was a sextent.
I'm sure that 17th century sailing ship cost a lot of money. But I'm equally sure that a spaceship takes MILLIONS more in resources to build.
The fact that one group set forth for a fertile paradise and the other would set forth for a frozen desert is probably immaterial to you. For me, it means that colonizing Mars is a waste of time and resources.
Waste your own money if you like. Don't expect fellow citizens to pay for the boondoggle of a few over trekked adventurers. Real adventurers finance their own journeys and strike out alone.
Yeah, after the Micron/Rambus case I got the impression that those Euro judges don't take shit from anybody. I'm impressed with that french judge who is going after Dick Cheney.
I don't think SCO will get any takers in Europe. There laws aren't 100% dictated by corporations like ours are.
Actually one way tickets were how America was founded like 250 years ago. Probably took as long for those ships to get here from England as it is going to take a manned space ship to get to Mars, so ...
The big difference being:
1) North America has a breathable atmosphere.
2) That atmosphere keeps the sun from turning you to mush.
3) There was liquid water.
4) There was food.
5) The journey was privately financed.
6) Home was just 3 months away.
7) Approaching the coast of the US didn't cause a ship to burst into flames.
Don't give me that colonization crap. If we truly had a need for a new landmass, we would colonize Antarctica. It has 1,000 times more available resources and would be a billions of times cheaper.
Yes, scientific advancement is paramount to human advancement. Unfortunately, manned space flight has NOTHING to do with science.
It's a Safari first. The "experiments" are their to justify the Safari.
I would just presume to let the cheap robots collect data.
WHAT RESEARCH!!!!
... ooops, did that and it was a waste of time too.
If you do research, you need control subjects. How would you perform a controlled research experiment on the effects of Mars. That would be like sending some seventy something year old guy up on a single shuttle mision and
Beyond this, exactly what would the benefit of people on Mars be to civilization???? Every time space missions our brought up, advocates are very quick to point to the few scurrilous benefits to "society". What they rarely point out is that they really don't care about any benefits to society. They just think space travel is cool and want to do it.
I might as rob someone of gold and claim that I saved them orthopedic problems because they no longer have to carry it.
Darwin award winners for 2010.
... couch potatos. Active people ho would be the MOST fit for colonization would be the most likely to go mad en route.
Why anyone would want to live on a barren lifeless rock is beyond my comprehension. People have been programmed by Science Fiction to think that alien worlds are exotic and adventuring.
In reality, they are lifeless, perilous and deadly. The slightest wrong move will get you killed.
Of course, the worst part will be the 18 month journey aboard something not much larger than a school-bus. Target recruing audience
I would hope to see NEW characters and NEW stuff instead of the same old people.
Lucas specifically stated at one point that he wanted the actors to be aged for the sequels. So I think it would be Luke in Yoda's role. Leia is Chancellor (this happens in the books), Han is probably an old geiser, Lando is a businessman, etc... They'll be dealing with a new generation of actors. Perhaps with one of Han and Leia's kids (or grandkids).
What about Spaceballs 0: The Phantom Prequel
Of all actors, I think that "Chewie" would be the most replaceable. After all, he's in a shag rug costume the whole time.
;-)
There are plenty of NBA forwards out there who cuold fill the suit
Just makes you wonder if Orson Welles was allowed to keep making movies (hollywood blacklisted him), would people yell at him the rest of his life for not measuring up to 'Citizen Cane'.
Agreed, the story in the original Star Wars isn't that great. I think it was just everything else in the movie that was just so mind blowing. Lucas created a complete world and brought it to the screen.
I think people see things when they are young and attach strongly to them. When you watch them again as an adult, you kinda get a different perspective.
All that being said, I think the stories are grander and futher reaching in the first two movies. Though I too thought that Jar-Jar was a Dufus and little Anakin was a shitty actor.
The first three movies aren't just about Anakin. They are about a Republic handing their freedoms over to a tyrant who waves insecurity in front of their eyes. I think it's a lesson that everyone should take to heart givin certain modern political realities.
They stopped throwing away the defects to save on cost ;-)
Though, I remember that Leigh commented that Luke was too short to be a Storm Trooper.
This does seem continuous because Bobba Fett is dressed a LOT like storm troopers and stays masked just as they do. If he took off his mask, everyone would know that he is a clone.
Well, the sword fighting in Episode 1 was better than anything I've ever seen in movies. Those guys really went at it with Darth Maul.
The fights in episode 2 looked a lot more like the lightsaber duels of the original trilogy. I'm hoping to see more bad-ass light-saber action in episode 3.
Actually the power plants in cells are WAY more efficient than mechanical engines.
BTW, not all organic materials are weak and flimsy. Creatures can secrete armour and do all kinds of wonderful things. The idea that these things could be engineered isn't bizarre.
BTW, Moia ROCKS!!!!!