Yeah, that's quality reporting alright. I've read basically the same stories in the supermarket tabloids, with the addition of the yeti and aliens in the printed versions.
do a search of your loal neighborhood and see how many lawyers' names come up.
Yup, at they're all voting democratic around me, proving yet another lie coming from Kerry's mouth. You see, the "wealthy" are supposed to be in Bush's pocket and the democrats are for "the people", but I guess all these lawyers around here didn't get the memo.
I'm sure there's lots more stuff you could use this for that I haven't even thought of yet, but I'm betting it is still years away
All it does is convert sub-vocalized speach into something audible, so until you have all your wonderful home automation already working with a regular cell phone, this technology isn't going to do anything towards all the things you listed.
As for the "stealth" aspect, until ascots become all the range again I think the weird collar attached to your throat would give you away.
First off, in the last sentence this person essentially negates all his other arguments by stating that no true analysis has been done, but he probably thinks he's right.
Second, he quotes two MMOD probabilities for two individual flights, offering no average data. Due to the fact that items in orbit shift in relation to each other, the probabilities shift constantly with them. Offering only two numbers from specific historical conditions that no longer exist makes one wonder if they were chosen as extremes in an attempt to look more favorable to his argument. On top of this, given an actual impact it is much more useful to be in the vicinity of the ISS to check for damage or evacuate the vehicle if it wasn't a catastrophic event.
As for warm or cold water landing, the astronauts wear survival suits specifically designed for high altitude decompression and cold water survival. It includes a survival kit with raft. The warm water/cold water problem is a non-issue.
So, the only argument left is the engine cutoff problem. Some of the numbers quoted do not match what I can find, such as 260s instead of "about 232s" for the maximum time for an RTLS abort, reducing the gap significantly. Further, the TAL abort mode is specifically designed for use after the RTLS abort window closes but before the AOA window opens, with a safe abort to transoceanic landing sites on two main engines. This also serves as further evidence against the water landing issue.
As I and some others have pointed out, the ISS is actually riskier to get to because of it's high orbital inclination.
That's absurd and FUD. The problem is not getting to orbit, the problem is what to do if you get there and the tiles are too damaged to return. Going to the ISS means you can use it as a lifeboat until a Soyuz or two can be lauched to return all the crew over the course of a few weeks/months. You cannot, on the other hand, crawl inside the Hubble! Stop the FUD please. NASA made the decision it made for good reasons.
*sigh* I posted anonymously be accident, so I'll repost and address another point.
Name one military scenario in the last twenty five years that would be mitigated by a threat from the moon.
How nice of you to limit it to such a historically short period, but I'll still play along. Do you honestly think a new precision targeted crater in the desert of Iraq wouldn't have an impact (pun intended) on relations with that country and the Middle East?
In any case, I was pointing out how it could be of military use, which was the question, not that is was entiry practical. However, if you feel that in a war between nations that dropping a bus sized rock on someone's capital isn't going to bother them, then you might want to put a little more thought into it.
Also, tell me this: say you're a nation and you want to go to space. How are you going to build a launch platform when it's raining rocks at the launch site? There is significant military value to keeping any others from entering space if someone already has this capability on the moon.
If the threat is "total destruction", we already have that threat with nuclear subs, and that is far far more tangible than some hocus-pocus base on the moon.
Just because we have weapon A, that doesn't mean weapon B is useless. This argument is meaningless.
Of course, this is all just theory about why it could be of military value, not that any of this should be done.
Main points: 1) The moon has a lot of rocks. 2) It's relatively easy in terms of technology and cheap in terms of energy to throw them at any target on Earth. 3) Um, big profit? No, that's not right...
You forgot Europa where water was found some years ago on this day itself...
Is there actual scientific proof? Do you have a link? All I've read about is "strong evidence", just like the strong evidence we've had about Mars, but no actual scientific proof.
Yeah, I once was setting these things off with my wallet because there was a paper thin theft tag hidden in the folds. It wasn't the money. Being slightly smarter than this guy, I looked for it, found it and removed it without the use of a microwave.
It would be regrettable if this annoucement only amounted to "We have evidence from the rock layers / erosion patterns / spherule concretions that water must have been involved in the creation of these features"
Actual real proof of liquid water is a big deal! It has never been scientifically proven to exist other than on Earth. If you read your source link you will discover that your 30% figure is just speculation: "There are 5 five distinct regions where we might sometimes find surface water... Together they comprise about 30% of the planet's surface. That's not to say that liquid water really does exist in those places, just that it could." Regardless of your opinion, this is a major discovery.
If you look at the fairly solid wall of soil at the right you will see a slightly dark streak on it. That streak leads directly to a puddle on the floor.
No, it looks more like some of the obviously darker surface material slid down the side of the trench to form your "puddle", otherwise known as a pile of dirt.
This seems like a lot of hype for just that kind of announcement. NASA looking for a PR boost I guess.
A lot of hype?! Are you kidding? Liquid water has never been seen naturally anywhere but on Earth. This IS a big deal! It's like the difference between deciding the Earth wasn't flat and actually sailing all the way around it. Yeah, "everyone knows" Mars probably had water, but no one has ever proven it, which is the important part.
We are sitting on a planet that has everything we could possibly want
Yes, just like explorers never should have left Europe to find the spice route, or the New World, etc. Because, as you say, they had everything they needed right at home! Why don't we all build walls around ourselves and just live our lives out in the dark?
And if writing free software for other people DOES fulfill you, it seems to me that it would be an obvious choice to do that and starve even if it meant dying.
In all seriousness, and I mean no disrespect, but if you truly believed what you just said you would already have died for some cause, as there are plenty of them out there worth dying for. By even being alive you prove your argument false!
You, and all the other flamebate replies to my post have said with AUTHORITY (your caps, not mine) that this is the way it will work, that time machines "designs" make this the only possibility, etc, etc. Guess what? I can come up with a time machine design that only allows me to travel into the future. Does that mean that I'm right? No, because until someone actually builds one we are all pretty much wrong. So don't complain to me about not believing in your one and only true time travel machine that doesn't exist and is based off of quantum physics you learned from TV.
PS: To the replies about looking it up: Thanks for not providing even a starting point. It truly makes your post completely useless.
Let's try this again. The raw data is "private" until they figure out that it's actually useful data and not absolute crap due to hardware, software or other random issues. You are annoyingly trying to argue that scientists release completely unverified data without taking even a single day to check that it's valid, even though they have immediately released an initial summary. My response to you is to go away, you have no idea what you are even talking about.
Slashdot Mirror
With optical mice why would anyone need a mouse pad?
To rest the edge of my palm on. It's a hell of a lot softer than the oak desk.
question: wouldn't the magnets de-magnitize after a while?
The last time I checked, permanent magnets were, um, permanent...
Yeah, that's quality reporting alright. I've read basically the same stories in the supermarket tabloids, with the addition of the yeti and aliens in the printed versions.
do a search of your loal neighborhood and see how many lawyers' names come up.
Yup, at they're all voting democratic around me, proving yet another lie coming from Kerry's mouth. You see, the "wealthy" are supposed to be in Bush's pocket and the democrats are for "the people", but I guess all these lawyers around here didn't get the memo.
Because they're planning to swing around Venus to get there, and more than once.
Wow, I've seen RTFM, RTFA and now we have a case of RYOFP. :)
I'm sure there's lots more stuff you could use this for that I haven't even thought of yet, but I'm betting it is still years away
All it does is convert sub-vocalized speach into something audible, so until you have all your wonderful home automation already working with a regular cell phone, this technology isn't going to do anything towards all the things you listed.
As for the "stealth" aspect, until ascots become all the range again I think the weird collar attached to your throat would give you away.
Don't know how he got the virus though
You have answered your own question already: "then he noticed in Outlook"
They already have terahertz frequency scanners in the works as an airport security imaging solution, pretty much exactly like Total Recall.
Dick Rutan did a similar flight with two pilots back in 1986 with Voyager.
:)
Talk about similar designs... Burt Rutan designed Voyager.
First off, in the last sentence this person essentially negates all his other arguments by stating that no true analysis has been done, but he probably thinks he's right.
Second, he quotes two MMOD probabilities for two individual flights, offering no average data. Due to the fact that items in orbit shift in relation to each other, the probabilities shift constantly with them. Offering only two numbers from specific historical conditions that no longer exist makes one wonder if they were chosen as extremes in an attempt to look more favorable to his argument. On top of this, given an actual impact it is much more useful to be in the vicinity of the ISS to check for damage or evacuate the vehicle if it wasn't a catastrophic event.
As for warm or cold water landing, the astronauts wear survival suits specifically designed for high altitude decompression and cold water survival. It includes a survival kit with raft. The warm water/cold water problem is a non-issue.
So, the only argument left is the engine cutoff problem. Some of the numbers quoted do not match what I can find, such as 260s instead of "about 232s" for the maximum time for an RTLS abort, reducing the gap significantly. Further, the TAL abort mode is specifically designed for use after the RTLS abort window closes but before the AOA window opens, with a safe abort to transoceanic landing sites on two main engines. This also serves as further evidence against the water landing issue.
As I and some others have pointed out, the ISS is actually riskier to get to because of it's high orbital inclination.
That's absurd and FUD. The problem is not getting to orbit, the problem is what to do if you get there and the tiles are too damaged to return. Going to the ISS means you can use it as a lifeboat until a Soyuz or two can be lauched to return all the crew over the course of a few weeks/months. You cannot, on the other hand, crawl inside the Hubble! Stop the FUD please. NASA made the decision it made for good reasons.
Tell them how annoyed your are that they'd try and win in the court of public opinion instead of following regular, non-annoying negotiations:
Viacom
1515 Broadway
New York, NY 10036
tel.(212) 258-6000
fax: (212) 258-6464
*sigh* I posted anonymously be accident, so I'll repost and address another point.
Name one military scenario in the last twenty five years that would be mitigated by a threat from the moon.
How nice of you to limit it to such a historically short period, but I'll still play along. Do you honestly think a new precision targeted crater in the desert of Iraq wouldn't have an impact (pun intended) on relations with that country and the Middle East?
In any case, I was pointing out how it could be of military use, which was the question, not that is was entiry practical. However, if you feel that in a war between nations that dropping a bus sized rock on someone's capital isn't going to bother them, then you might want to put a little more thought into it.
Also, tell me this: say you're a nation and you want to go to space. How are you going to build a launch platform when it's raining rocks at the launch site? There is significant military value to keeping any others from entering space if someone already has this capability on the moon.
If the threat is "total destruction", we already have that threat with nuclear subs, and that is far far more tangible than some hocus-pocus base on the moon.
Just because we have weapon A, that doesn't mean weapon B is useless. This argument is meaningless.
Of course, this is all just theory about why it could be of military value, not that any of this should be done.
How does the moon have military value?
Read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by Heinlein.
Main points:
1) The moon has a lot of rocks.
2) It's relatively easy in terms of technology and cheap in terms of energy to throw them at any target on Earth.
3) Um, big profit? No, that's not right...
You forgot Europa where water was found some years ago on this day itself...
Is there actual scientific proof? Do you have a link? All I've read about is "strong evidence", just like the strong evidence we've had about Mars, but no actual scientific proof.
Yeah, I once was setting these things off with my wallet because there was a paper thin theft tag hidden in the folds. It wasn't the money. Being slightly smarter than this guy, I looked for it, found it and removed it without the use of a microwave.
That entire site is a complete loon-fest.
It would be regrettable if this annoucement only amounted to "We have evidence from the rock layers / erosion patterns / spherule concretions that water must have been involved in the creation of these features"
Actual real proof of liquid water is a big deal! It has never been scientifically proven to exist other than on Earth. If you read your source link you will discover that your 30% figure is just speculation: "There are 5 five distinct regions where we might sometimes find surface water... Together they comprise about 30% of the planet's surface. That's not to say that liquid water really does exist in those places, just that it could." Regardless of your opinion, this is a major discovery.
If you look at the fairly solid wall of soil at the right you will see a slightly dark streak on it. That streak leads directly to a puddle on the floor.
No, it looks more like some of the obviously darker surface material slid down the side of the trench to form your "puddle", otherwise known as a pile of dirt.
I don't know you tell me
This seems like a lot of hype for just that kind of announcement. NASA looking for a PR boost I guess.
A lot of hype?! Are you kidding? Liquid water has never been seen naturally anywhere but on Earth. This IS a big deal! It's like the difference between deciding the Earth wasn't flat and actually sailing all the way around it. Yeah, "everyone knows" Mars probably had water, but no one has ever proven it, which is the important part.
We are sitting on a planet that has everything we could possibly want
Yes, just like explorers never should have left Europe to find the spice route, or the New World, etc. Because, as you say, they had everything they needed right at home! Why don't we all build walls around ourselves and just live our lives out in the dark?
And if writing free software for other people DOES fulfill you, it seems to me that it would be an obvious choice to do that and starve even if it meant dying.
In all seriousness, and I mean no disrespect, but if you truly believed what you just said you would already have died for some cause, as there are plenty of them out there worth dying for. By even being alive you prove your argument false!
You, and all the other flamebate replies to my post have said with AUTHORITY (your caps, not mine) that this is the way it will work, that time machines "designs" make this the only possibility, etc, etc. Guess what? I can come up with a time machine design that only allows me to travel into the future. Does that mean that I'm right? No, because until someone actually builds one we are all pretty much wrong. So don't complain to me about not believing in your one and only true time travel machine that doesn't exist and is based off of quantum physics you learned from TV.
PS: To the replies about looking it up: Thanks for not providing even a starting point. It truly makes your post completely useless.
Releasing a summary, picking out the important bits and posting them after only one day sounds pointless.
That is not what they are doing, nor is it what I said they are doing and you are still complaining about something that isn't even happening.
What is pointless, is keeping raw data private.
Let's try this again. The raw data is "private" until they figure out that it's actually useful data and not absolute crap due to hardware, software or other random issues. You are annoyingly trying to argue that scientists release completely unverified data without taking even a single day to check that it's valid, even though they have immediately released an initial summary. My response to you is to go away, you have no idea what you are even talking about.