Nuclear submarines have been able to stay submerged for months at a time, so I'm sure the military has experience that could help a trip to Mars be successful.
I'd actually be very interested in seeing some honest discussion produced as to how we could populate Mars so the inhabitants wouldn't die terrible deaths.
First, Mars does have oxygen. It has oxygen all over the place. The planet is red, it's so oxygenated. The air is mostly CO2, with trace amounts of Nitrogen, Oxygen, water vapour, and a few other elements and compounds. The problem isn't that there isn't an atmosphere, but that it's 1/100 of the pressure of earth's. This isn't a problem. Humans have had air compressor technology for hundreds of years. We can easily compress the atmosphere of Mars to earth standard pressure.
This leaves a problem, however: The atmosphere of Mars is fatal to humans. Recently, humans have developed the technology to use electricity and a semiconductor device to convert CO2 into oxygen and carbon monoxide. The former can be used to sustain life, the latter is an important chemical feedstock that can also be converted into synthetic petroleum. We can also use earth plant life to change the CO2 into oxygen and useful compounds like glucose and cellulose.
Once we have a local source of oxygen, life becomes significantly easier, but there's still an important chemical we're missing: Hydrogen. Great news is, the pH of martian soil is quite high; There's Hydrogen all over the place. Even if there's no natural water on the planet, we can create water from oxygen and hydrogen, and get some heat out of the process.
So we've got a readily available source of oxygen, hydrogen, and carbon. The basic fundamentals for maintaining existence exist.
The next element we need is more difficult: nitrogen. Nitrogen is a large portion of our atmosphere, and a key part of our ecology. A source of nitrogen is essential for a sustainable colony. We may be in luck. Analysis of the mars lander showed perchlorate salts, which may include ammonium perchlorate, which can be easily processed into oxygen, nitrogen, and water.
Obviously, all this chemistry is going to require energy, and I can only see one means to acquire this much energy: A nuclear power plant. A 10MW CANDU-style reactor would require 87 fuel bundles per year(with a size of a 10cm wide by 50cm tall cylinder, but most of that is air). If we found uranium on the planet, then the colony could be self-sustaining. After a few decades, it could be completely self-sufficient, smelting iron for repairs, producing its own energy, air, water, fertilizer, and food. Lots of people would be more interested in using solar, but it simply isn't practical for the industrial processes you'd need for the project to work.
The best way to start would probably be gathering the parts for these industrial plants on earth and sending them ahead of people, then using remotely-controlled robots to construct them. Once a basic colony was prepared, humans could be sent, and from there a society could begin.
I think you're wrong about extremely humid mars night air, for two reasons:
1. The presence of water on mars hasn't been confirmed. How could the air be humid if there's no water to supply humidity?
2. Nights on mars are incredibly cold. The poles are covered in solid CO2. Anyone who has ever lived in a very cold climate can tell you that 'high humidity' in -40C is complete dryness.
Publicly lobbying for reform on patents they themselves own, doesn't this seem like a more defensive move than a necessarily malicious one?
I'm sure every doctor protesting tort reform has liability insurance regardless. Why shouldn't Google get some insurance of their own? It's a cut-throat world out there, after all. If you don't tread carefully, you'll get shut down.
It must be nice having such a simple and stable life that you can be so self-righteous about DVDs.
Personally, I've moved around so much and lost so many games(When you've just found out you've got 3 days to pack for a 1000 mile move, sometimes things get lost or thrown out), I just gave up. Now I tend to buy games from services like Steam and X-box live, because then I don't need to worry about having some bauble to maintain access to my software.
These screen-shots have been available for months. This is old news.
Frankly, I think worrying about minor details like whether the tabs are above or below the taskbar sort of shows how far browsers have come. On the list of things I was worried about 5 or 10 years ago, it's near the bottom.
The point is you have a false sense of security using most other encryption as well, so it's stupid as hell to treat wireless as a secure line in the first place. Treat it as inherently insecure and stick to wired signals for important data.
As far as I'm concerned, there's no functional difference betweeen a series of easy to crack encryption methods. Who cares that it's a passive attack if the alternative is to type "WEPCRACK" into your command line to get the password? or "WPACRACK"?
On an aging router such as the DI-514 without WPA2 or WPA-AES support, I'd argue the ACL is more secure in reality than WEP.
Why?
Because WEP is a standard basic security practice, and easily breakable using software available using 2 seconds on Google. By contrast, ACLs are almost never used, so unless you're someone who legitimately knows what they're doing, it just looks like you can't log into the network, compared to "Hey everyone, guess what encryption is used on this network!!"
I agree that if you know what to look for it's far easier, but the people who know what to look for are in a large minority of people who could conceivably hack a wifi network for access.
I've never called tech support for anything other than completely defective products that needed to be replaced under warranty. Why? Because they're completely useless. It's incredibly rare to get anyone who knows more about the specific product than you do, and in the meantime you've got to deal with lame "first 30 seconds" fixes.
If tech support centers had well paid people who were paid to know the product inside and out, I think that'd be really neat.
The government is investigating illegal use of a regulated substance. I agree the constitution doesn't include provisions for the FDA or other federal drug legislation, but unfortunately the supreme court sort of gave up on the constitution back around the '20s.
I was having continuous problems doing simple things like trying to watch streaming video with my old dl-514 with any sort of encryption enabled. Multiple firmwares didn't resolve the problem completely, so I tried removing encryption and using access control lists to prevent casual unauthorized use. Right away I found a much more stable, usable connection. Throughput didn't change, but connection stability did.
Actually, don't answer. Nobody who would disagree with my original statement in the manner you did could be a real person. Which firm are you working for? How much do you get paid? I'm curious because if it's good money I'd totally shill for the Republicans.
I'm sorry, are you defending the assassination squads and torture camps and people getting arrested on public property during a public event because they wore a shirt with a poor political message?
After spending some time working with crappy home routers, I've decided encryption isn't worth the hassle. If I want to ensure my communication isn't intercepted by a hostile third party, I'll use a wire instead. If I want to limit access to the internet, I'll use a MAC ACL instead. The routers aren't hefty enough to deal with anything more than light surfing with encryption active.
See, that's what's so beautiful about it. Obama actually follows the law to some degree(Though I wish he'd ignore more of the court precedent for letting the government stretch the constitution, that's not really something I'd expect to see from any president besides Ron Paul).
I shudder to think about how long the gun wielding folks in Bush's town hall meetings would last before being sent by Cheney's secret police to the secret torture centres in Europe.
I lean liberterian/right since I tend to side with Ron Paul on economic issues and thus I tend to be against the Federal government meddling in social issues at all for better or worse. Regardless, despite the flaws, Obama's administration is such a step above what we've seen for the past 8 years, you literally can't compare the two. Allowing people to do something they're legally allowed to do without bending the law to arrest them anyway(despite such people being a clear and present danger to the well-being of the president) is just one good example.
Since all you need is an e-mail, wasn't it just a matter of time before someone without the right to issue a DMCA notice issued one to take down a politically inconvenient image?
We have courts and paperwork for a reason in similar cases outside of the internet, and that reason is it's impossible to trust some letter you received. Just like you don't send DR AMHED JAFAR OF NIGERIA with your personal information, a rational legal system wouldn't allow just anyone to send an e-mail based DMCA takedown notice.
But this is what happens when the you let the content industry write their own laws.
Slashdot Mirror
Nuclear submarines have been able to stay submerged for months at a time, so I'm sure the military has experience that could help a trip to Mars be successful.
I'd actually be very interested in seeing some honest discussion produced as to how we could populate Mars so the inhabitants wouldn't die terrible deaths.
First, Mars does have oxygen. It has oxygen all over the place. The planet is red, it's so oxygenated. The air is mostly CO2, with trace amounts of Nitrogen, Oxygen, water vapour, and a few other elements and compounds. The problem isn't that there isn't an atmosphere, but that it's 1/100 of the pressure of earth's. This isn't a problem. Humans have had air compressor technology for hundreds of years. We can easily compress the atmosphere of Mars to earth standard pressure.
This leaves a problem, however: The atmosphere of Mars is fatal to humans. Recently, humans have developed the technology to use electricity and a semiconductor device to convert CO2 into oxygen and carbon monoxide. The former can be used to sustain life, the latter is an important chemical feedstock that can also be converted into synthetic petroleum. We can also use earth plant life to change the CO2 into oxygen and useful compounds like glucose and cellulose.
Once we have a local source of oxygen, life becomes significantly easier, but there's still an important chemical we're missing: Hydrogen. Great news is, the pH of martian soil is quite high; There's Hydrogen all over the place. Even if there's no natural water on the planet, we can create water from oxygen and hydrogen, and get some heat out of the process.
So we've got a readily available source of oxygen, hydrogen, and carbon. The basic fundamentals for maintaining existence exist.
The next element we need is more difficult: nitrogen. Nitrogen is a large portion of our atmosphere, and a key part of our ecology. A source of nitrogen is essential for a sustainable colony. We may be in luck. Analysis of the mars lander showed perchlorate salts, which may include ammonium perchlorate, which can be easily processed into oxygen, nitrogen, and water.
Obviously, all this chemistry is going to require energy, and I can only see one means to acquire this much energy: A nuclear power plant. A 10MW CANDU-style reactor would require 87 fuel bundles per year(with a size of a 10cm wide by 50cm tall cylinder, but most of that is air). If we found uranium on the planet, then the colony could be self-sustaining. After a few decades, it could be completely self-sufficient, smelting iron for repairs, producing its own energy, air, water, fertilizer, and food. Lots of people would be more interested in using solar, but it simply isn't practical for the industrial processes you'd need for the project to work.
The best way to start would probably be gathering the parts for these industrial plants on earth and sending them ahead of people, then using remotely-controlled robots to construct them. Once a basic colony was prepared, humans could be sent, and from there a society could begin.
You've gotta be careful of Martian Indians.
Them green-skins'll ex-foliate your feet. Seen 'em do it to a young woman from Australia once. Horrifying.
I think you're wrong about extremely humid mars night air, for two reasons:
1. The presence of water on mars hasn't been confirmed. How could the air be humid if there's no water to supply humidity?
2. Nights on mars are incredibly cold. The poles are covered in solid CO2. Anyone who has ever lived in a very cold climate can tell you that 'high humidity' in -40C is complete dryness.
Don't be silly. She left it to her cat.
Publicly lobbying for reform on patents they themselves own, doesn't this seem like a more defensive move than a necessarily malicious one?
I'm sure every doctor protesting tort reform has liability insurance regardless. Why shouldn't Google get some insurance of their own? It's a cut-throat world out there, after all. If you don't tread carefully, you'll get shut down.
It must be nice having such a simple and stable life that you can be so self-righteous about DVDs.
Personally, I've moved around so much and lost so many games(When you've just found out you've got 3 days to pack for a 1000 mile move, sometimes things get lost or thrown out), I just gave up. Now I tend to buy games from services like Steam and X-box live, because then I don't need to worry about having some bauble to maintain access to my software.
These screen-shots have been available for months. This is old news.
Frankly, I think worrying about minor details like whether the tabs are above or below the taskbar sort of shows how far browsers have come. On the list of things I was worried about 5 or 10 years ago, it's near the bottom.
Internet-connected neural implants will mean the end of humanity.
Why eat? Why sleep? Why do anything but sit around drinking coffee thinking about wikipedia?
The point is you have a false sense of security using most other encryption as well, so it's stupid as hell to treat wireless as a secure line in the first place. Treat it as inherently insecure and stick to wired signals for important data.
Yeah, one among a whole crew of laws that were found constitutional under extremely strained readings of the constitution.
On the other hand, Lincoln started it. The whole civil war was basically "Fuck it, the federal government isn't limited anymore."
A passive attack is still an attack.
As far as I'm concerned, there's no functional difference betweeen a series of easy to crack encryption methods. Who cares that it's a passive attack if the alternative is to type "WEPCRACK" into your command line to get the password? or "WPACRACK"?
On an aging router such as the DI-514 without WPA2 or WPA-AES support, I'd argue the ACL is more secure in reality than WEP.
Why?
Because WEP is a standard basic security practice, and easily breakable using software available using 2 seconds on Google. By contrast, ACLs are almost never used, so unless you're someone who legitimately knows what they're doing, it just looks like you can't log into the network, compared to "Hey everyone, guess what encryption is used on this network!!"
I agree that if you know what to look for it's far easier, but the people who know what to look for are in a large minority of people who could conceivably hack a wifi network for access.
The WRT54g is sort of legendary though, thanks to the open source linux firmware. It only makes sense that it would work better.
Other linksys routers weren't as great, however. I've never had a great connection from anything but a commercial grade wifi router.
Most of the models of the era are bad. I had a few brands, and it wasn't common to find much stability.
I've never called tech support for anything other than completely defective products that needed to be replaced under warranty. Why? Because they're completely useless. It's incredibly rare to get anyone who knows more about the specific product than you do, and in the meantime you've got to deal with lame "first 30 seconds" fixes.
If tech support centers had well paid people who were paid to know the product inside and out, I think that'd be really neat.
The government is investigating illegal use of a regulated substance. I agree the constitution doesn't include provisions for the FDA or other federal drug legislation, but unfortunately the supreme court sort of gave up on the constitution back around the '20s.
Sure, it can handle it, but it can't handle it well. Connections start bugging out and eventually you end up with problems.
Horribly engineered devices, consumer wireless routers.
I was having continuous problems doing simple things like trying to watch streaming video with my old dl-514 with any sort of encryption enabled. Multiple firmwares didn't resolve the problem completely, so I tried removing encryption and using access control lists to prevent casual unauthorized use. Right away I found a much more stable, usable connection. Throughput didn't change, but connection stability did.
Actually, don't answer. Nobody who would disagree with my original statement in the manner you did could be a real person. Which firm are you working for? How much do you get paid? I'm curious because if it's good money I'd totally shill for the Republicans.
I'm sorry, are you defending the assassination squads and torture camps and people getting arrested on public property during a public event because they wore a shirt with a poor political message?
Do you even know what libertarian means?
After spending some time working with crappy home routers, I've decided encryption isn't worth the hassle. If I want to ensure my communication isn't intercepted by a hostile third party, I'll use a wire instead. If I want to limit access to the internet, I'll use a MAC ACL instead. The routers aren't hefty enough to deal with anything more than light surfing with encryption active.
See, that's what's so beautiful about it. Obama actually follows the law to some degree(Though I wish he'd ignore more of the court precedent for letting the government stretch the constitution, that's not really something I'd expect to see from any president besides Ron Paul).
I shudder to think about how long the gun wielding folks in Bush's town hall meetings would last before being sent by Cheney's secret police to the secret torture centres in Europe.
As for your proof, Wear an anti-Bush T-shirt, get arrested, lose your job, and Article: Sheehan arrested before Bush address: Woman was wearing protest T-shirt under clothing that she revealed upon taking her seat and further, Woman Arrested at McCain Event for "McCain=Bush" Sign
I lean liberterian/right since I tend to side with Ron Paul on economic issues and thus I tend to be against the Federal government meddling in social issues at all for better or worse. Regardless, despite the flaws, Obama's administration is such a step above what we've seen for the past 8 years, you literally can't compare the two. Allowing people to do something they're legally allowed to do without bending the law to arrest them anyway(despite such people being a clear and present danger to the well-being of the president) is just one good example.
To be fair, the actions of the two administrations are completely different.
Obama lets people with GUNS protest at his rallies. Bush had people arrested for shirts with mean words on them.
I never attack this part of the DMCA for being too harsh, I'm attacking it for being too stupid.
Frankly, it sounds like you agree.
Since all you need is an e-mail, wasn't it just a matter of time before someone without the right to issue a DMCA notice issued one to take down a politically inconvenient image?
We have courts and paperwork for a reason in similar cases outside of the internet, and that reason is it's impossible to trust some letter you received. Just like you don't send DR AMHED JAFAR OF NIGERIA with your personal information, a rational legal system wouldn't allow just anyone to send an e-mail based DMCA takedown notice.
But this is what happens when the you let the content industry write their own laws.