What about the ISS. They have plenty of food and shuttles can dock with that.
Easy as 1,2,3?... nah but possible
Actually, totally IMPOSSIBLE. They were in to low an orbit to dock with ISS, and no where near enough fuel to get there. In space, everything comes at such a premium, that if you don't explicitly plan to do something (like docking with ISS) then you haven't a chance in hell of doing it.
I've always thought it a good idea to maintain a standby shuttle that just needs fuel and a program to go into operation.
holy shit! you've solved it!! why didn't NASA think of that?!?
[sigh] why doesn't anyone seem to understand that, with the shuttle at least, it doesn't work that way. Do you have any idea how much preparing a shuttle launch costs? And that, in order for the rescue to be effective (ie, arrive before the Columbia runs out of air, etc) that Atlantis would have had to launch with almost zero pre-flight testing. That sounds like a great idea!! Nevermind that it takes like a week to get the thing on the launchpad.
So basically, you think it's a good idea to roughly double the expense of every shuttle launch, so that in the event of a problem, you can attempt some half-witted rescue plan that has almost no chance of success. ("catch them in the cargo bay"??? please!)
Cancelling the space station and space shuttle would almost double NASA's budget.
wow, that is a *really* back-asswards way of looking at it. how about, "Cancelling the ISS and shuttle would cut NASA's expenditures by almost half." Your logic is kinda like saying that tax-cuts are a "cost", which is stupid.
In reality, cutting those 2 huge programs would most likely result in NASA's budget getting a $6B cut (according to your numbers).
It seems to me that such a "backyard bomb" would not contribute to MAD nor stop proliferation. Wouldn't you be assured that NO ONE would ever use it, no matter how threatened they felt? At least with Strategic nukes, you have a (slim) chance of hurting the other guy worse, or vice versa. A backyard bomb would kill you before it killed him. or am i missing something?
ya thats what the article was about. SMG is the (then) new system available from bmw in a M3 (I would assume the Z4 now as well.) In the sport shift mode, 200ms shifts, impressive.
i think you may be confusing the M3 (looks like a 3-series) with the Z3 (which has been replaced by the Z4). They still make the M3, and it's big brother the M5 (based on, duh, the 5-series). They used to offer the M-Roadster, which was essentially a Z3 with the M3 drivetrain. But their website doesn't reflect such a configuration for the Z4, but I'm sure they'll do it in the next year or so.
I always heard that the M-Roadster (and Coupe) were fun, but nowhere near as stable as the "normal" M3, due to it's shorter wheelbase.
Maybe part of the problem is that those in the USA put so damn little value on human life, that they are fine and dandy with killing someone... as long as they're still alive, then all is ok... Damn that's sick.
What a sanctimonious prick...
Am I "fine and dandy" with killing anyone? No.... Would I think twice before blowing away some low-life who's broken into my house and threatening my family? Yes. Would I think thrice? No!
You can pretend all you want that it can never happen to you; that you will never ever ever have to choose between an unknown assailant's life and your own (or that of a loved one). But the fact is that it does happen. What would you have me do? Just because you're a pussy, doesn't mean that I don't have a sense of self-preservation. If you are content to let the likelyhood that you will never face a life-ending encounter with an armed badguy decide your fate, then you are welcomed to. If you don't want the responsibilty of owning a gun, then hey, don't buy one. But I don't want the government telling me that I don't have the right to have protection comparable to a likely assailant. If they have guns, I want the option of a gun. If they have laser blasters, then I'll have a light-sabre. If some pulls some crazy voodoo doll shit on me, I'd like to be able to whip out some incantations. Sure, it's impossible to guarantee your own saftey, but having a gun really does give you a chance for life in that moment that could be your last. I don't own a gun yet. My fear is that I will need one before I have it.
You obviously hadn't thought about that. Maybe you haven't had to. I'm happy for you. Just give theives what they want. Hand your wallet over.... No, I'm serious. Give me your wallet!:)
My assumption is if companies consider making servers for Linux, could the same consideration be made for clients? My answer is yes.
That is a ridiculous assumption. Simply b/c there is a server market does not imply a goddamn thing about the market for client software. The two are entirely separate. I would have to agree that there is not (and proly won't be for a long time) enough interest to warrant a significant investment. Why do you think Id included Linux support? because of the untold dollars that they raked in from it? nope! I bet they didn't even break even on the Linux version of Q3. I don't know that for a fact, it's just a guess.
I'd not say that AOL is a company that I trust, by any stretch of the imagination. But the fact is that AOL has systmatically ignored Nullsoft so completely that, the brandname is no further along than it would be without the AOL name. Winamp stands on it's own merits, without a doubt. It's just good software. And frankly I trust it. If I get burned by Nullsoft, then I see little hope for mankind, and will promptly kill myself. (not really, but try to see my point)
but I'd still ask, why is it that C|Net ended up with com.com out of all the possible owners? And why would anyone ever link to news.com.com? it all seems very odd to me... any clues?
Did someone actually follow the link? Even though it appears to be coming from News.com, it is actually coming from News.com.com
Some owns the domain name: com.com - but it probably isn't C|Net.
I say April Fools! =P
dang, not so fast:
% whois com.com
Whois Server Version 1.3
Domain Name: COM.COM
Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC.
Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com
Referral URL: http://www.networksolutions.com
Name Server: NS.CNET.COM
Name Server: NS2.CNET.COM
Updated Date: 04-dec-2001
If the mine is found by the machine, it is likely to be dispatched appropriately. If the mine isn't found by the robot, then a person can find it and still use the robot to dispose of it in a safe manner. Your math is definitely fictional and doesn't support your case at all.
Exactly. Have the machines working in tandem with ppl. The machines doing their thing, and the ppl "tagging" mines that they find (low power radio xmitter markers, or something) so that the machines can find and dispose. At least until the tech is better.
Whatever. The LZW patent is set to expire at the end of this year, making the algorithm that produces GIFs free for use.
But I suppose GIFs are ancient technology and nobody has used them years, right?
come on. video codecs are a little bit more fast paced. I promise you, before too long MPEG4 will be obsolete and no one will care if it's public domain. Think "student projects". Think "historical purposes". But don't even think "cutting edge video".
I think he was just making a point. The DHCP protocol lets an administrator specify *lots* of information, not just about routing. I write a DHCP server for a living, and the vast majority of our broadband customers just want the clients to renew their lease on a regular basis so they have the option of changing the information they're giving out.
Yeah, thanks. But I understood his point. *My* point was that he said that ISP's use DHCP to send routing info. That simply isn't true, unless you consider a default gateway to be routing, which I don't.
There is a good reasons for frequent lease renewals that does not have anything to do with changing the IP. Since a handful of other info is renewed with the lease, including routing info, this allows them to make changes to the network topology without having to contact everyone every time.
ummm, what routing info exactly are you referring to? I promise you, that neither Cox, nor Comcast, nor AT&T, nor RoadRunner, nor any broadband provider sends any routing info to customers other than a default route. Even if they did, it would have *nothing* to do with DHCP. But there'd be no point anyway, unless you're an ISP. It's called BGP.
Re:The lack of localization of the net
on
Browsing Alone
·
· Score: 1
A large % of normal citizens would have no problem with their browser transmitting their location
A large % of normal citizens have no problem handing over their SSN to anyone who asks for it. Doesn't make it a good idea.
You see I hope that you've never argued that Microsoft has to be restrained in any way (because capitalism says that Linux is a much better system right? It should be on 98% of systems!)
umm, I never said that "capitalism says that Linux is much better". It's obvious that the mainstream desktop market has up to now rejected Linux. Hence, it is NOT on 98% of systems. Don't put words in my mouth and then try to use them to defeat my argument.
Ebay is a monopoly in the auction world simply because of the network effect, and here you are stating that it's good enough.
If that is how my statement was interpreted, then that was not my intent. I just chose Ebay as an example. Any site could add such a feature. And while I agree that Ebay is a defacto monopoly, as far as I know they have engaged in minimal anit-competitive practices. But whatever, Ebay could explode tomorrow and I wouldn't care. Ebay's virtues are not the topic here.
In any case geolocation tags and the dearth of local content are two totally separate topics, and my comments on the lack of local information is largely a social observation rather than a "we must fix this!" tirade.
Your original post, partnered with your sig, seemed to imply that you see geolocation tags as a solution to the problem being discussed. I mean, you do, right? You are right, the social causes are a separate topic, but your solution raises more frightful social issues than the problem does. I do see all the benefits that you list (to a point, actually I really could give a flying fsck whether I buy my car stereo from Joe's Electronics or buy.com), but I still contend that I could open up www.localshopsinatlanta.com, spend a little capital on local advertising and accomplish the same thing. My locale has a similiar type of site, and it's actually very popular with the locals.
I suppose I could live with geolocation tags, provide 2 things: 1)That is disabled by default. and 2)that I was absolutely certain that no malicious 3rd party (insert personal phobia here, the Feds, script kiddies, Walmart, whatever) could use one of the numerous MS (or any software vendor. I'm not MS bashing here, so don't even start) security holes to enable it without my knowledge.
Unfortunately, I don't see the latter happening any time soon. By adding geolocation to HTTP, you expose all users to significant threats that are beyond their control. I don't mind a browser identifying itself, or even identifying my OS. But that's it.
Re:The lack of localization of the net
on
Browsing Alone
·
· Score: 1
please realize that your browser is already telling plenty about you
indeed. too much, imho. Watch your step on the slippery-slope. Just because my browser software is acting against my interests, doesn't mean that I should be OK with augmenting those capabilities.
I don't expect it to fly among the paranoid, anti-commercial, anti-capitalism Slashdot crowd
Do you work for the FBI or something? All of the sudden, being privacy concious makes me a facist, or anit-social? Just because I've done nothing wrong, I should have nothing to fear?
Imagine if every tiny little retailer could target only people within 3 KM of their location...of course advertising is evil so let's pretend I didn't say that
I'd rather not imagine that. Think the RIAA would ignore this (just to solidy my position as/. facist)? Imagine if every lonely, love sick guy could target only single women under 30. Why not send a/s/l info as well? Wouldn't that be great? (of course, adultery is evil so lets pretend I didn't say that).
yet the few who tried found that the classic inertia/network effect came into play: No one is selling because there are no buyers, and no one is buying because there's no sellers.
Ok, mr super-capitalist. If there is a demand, then the supply will come. With or without amending HTTP. It sounds like a "Search by Location" feature on Ebay would solve your problem just fine. For all I know, it already exists (or is in the works). And don't forget local news sites. I can go to my newspaper's website, and find their complete classified listings.
I suppose that we will never come to an aggreement on this. You are obviously very committed to it (that is, if your sig on an anit-capitalist "news" site like slashdot can be considered committment). I can only take solice in the fact that there hundreds of pre-existing ways to violate my privacy, so hopefully this particular abomination will never come to fruitation.
Re:The lack of localization of the net
on
Browsing Alone
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
but if people were just sitting around, waiting for some local content to gobble up, then there would be thousands of mycommunity.com's out there. Other posters have made the point that it seems that people simply don't care about local content/discussion. You can argue the virtue of that fact (if it is in fact true), but what can you do about that? Pass a law? All residents must log into "mycommunity.com" once a week or be fined? And adding a geographic feature set to the HTTP standard won't solve this. It may actually create some vile new problems, like geographic descrimination. Example: George W's reelection campaign. "Well sir, it seems that voters in FL are more receptive to Social Security issues, and NJ voters to Crime. No worry, we'll just alter our geographic targeting to account for this." It just seems that all should have access to the same info. I realize that there are many other means to selectively inform/promise on a geographic basis, but I'm just saying that such tools need not be added to an open standard. I don't know a whole lot about the standard you are proposing, so I am talking out of my ass a little bit. But even if there is a client side option to turn this off, it will almost certainly be defeated with some Active-X exploit or something, and users wouldn't even realize that they were being geo-targeted. The content is abound; no new technology is needed to deliver the content; and there is no demand for it. What can you do? Buy a newspaper or something. Shit, you can proly read most of it on the papers website anyway. It just seems like a lot of work (both software/standard implementation, and content formatting), for almost no benefit. Ok, i'm done rambling.
Slashdot Mirror
I could be wrong, but wasn't it Ashcroft that covered the statue?
Easy as 1,2,3?... nah but possible
Actually, totally IMPOSSIBLE. They were in to low an orbit to dock with ISS, and no where near enough fuel to get there. In space, everything comes at such a premium, that if you don't explicitly plan to do something (like docking with ISS) then you haven't a chance in hell of doing it.
holy shit! you've solved it!! why didn't NASA think of that?!?
[sigh] why doesn't anyone seem to understand that, with the shuttle at least, it doesn't work that way. Do you have any idea how much preparing a shuttle launch costs? And that, in order for the rescue to be effective (ie, arrive before the Columbia runs out of air, etc) that Atlantis would have had to launch with almost zero pre-flight testing. That sounds like a great idea!! Nevermind that it takes like a week to get the thing on the launchpad.
So basically, you think it's a good idea to roughly double the expense of every shuttle launch, so that in the event of a problem, you can attempt some half-witted rescue plan that has almost no chance of success. ("catch them in the cargo bay"??? please!)
Have you even read any of this thread?
wow, that is a *really* back-asswards way of looking at it. how about, "Cancelling the ISS and shuttle would cut NASA's expenditures by almost half." Your logic is kinda like saying that tax-cuts are a "cost", which is stupid.
In reality, cutting those 2 huge programs would most likely result in NASA's budget getting a $6B cut (according to your numbers).
It seems to me that such a "backyard bomb" would not contribute to MAD nor stop proliferation. Wouldn't you be assured that NO ONE would ever use it, no matter how threatened they felt? At least with Strategic nukes, you have a (slim) chance of hurting the other guy worse, or vice versa. A backyard bomb would kill you before it killed him. or am i missing something?
i think you may be confusing the M3 (looks like a 3-series) with the Z3 (which has been replaced by the Z4). They still make the M3, and it's big brother the M5 (based on, duh, the 5-series). They used to offer the M-Roadster, which was essentially a Z3 with the M3 drivetrain. But their website doesn't reflect such a configuration for the Z4, but I'm sure they'll do it in the next year or so.
I always heard that the M-Roadster (and Coupe) were fun, but nowhere near as stable as the "normal" M3, due to it's shorter wheelbase.
What a sanctimonious prick... :)
Am I "fine and dandy" with killing anyone? No.... Would I think twice before blowing away some low-life who's broken into my house and threatening my family? Yes. Would I think thrice? No!
You can pretend all you want that it can never happen to you; that you will never ever ever have to choose between an unknown assailant's life and your own (or that of a loved one). But the fact is that it does happen. What would you have me do? Just because you're a pussy, doesn't mean that I don't have a sense of self-preservation. If you are content to let the likelyhood that you will never face a life-ending encounter with an armed badguy decide your fate, then you are welcomed to. If you don't want the responsibilty of owning a gun, then hey, don't buy one. But I don't want the government telling me that I don't have the right to have protection comparable to a likely assailant. If they have guns, I want the option of a gun. If they have laser blasters, then I'll have a light-sabre. If some pulls some crazy voodoo doll shit on me, I'd like to be able to whip out some incantations. Sure, it's impossible to guarantee your own saftey, but having a gun really does give you a chance for life in that moment that could be your last. I don't own a gun yet. My fear is that I will need one before I have it.
You obviously hadn't thought about that. Maybe you haven't had to. I'm happy for you. Just give theives what they want. Hand your wallet over.... No, I'm serious. Give me your wallet!
or..... how 'bout, oh i don't know..... A WATCH!! ;)
That is a ridiculous assumption. Simply b/c there is a server market does not imply a goddamn thing about the market for client software. The two are entirely separate. I would have to agree that there is not (and proly won't be for a long time) enough interest to warrant a significant investment. Why do you think Id included Linux support? because of the untold dollars that they raked in from it? nope! I bet they didn't even break even on the Linux version of Q3. I don't know that for a fact, it's just a guess.
how wide spread is this trend? Are you saying that Edison was ultimately right to back DC?
nice fucking job moron.... if i even thought that you'd actually respond non-anonymously.
that's not my point... you fucking troll... it's obviously lost... forget i even mentioned it...
I'd not say that AOL is a company that I trust, by any stretch of the imagination. But the fact is that AOL has systmatically ignored Nullsoft so completely that, the brandname is no further along than it would be without the AOL name. Winamp stands on it's own merits, without a doubt. It's just good software. And frankly I trust it. If I get burned by Nullsoft, then I see little hope for mankind, and will promptly kill myself. (not really, but try to see my point)
--XI
dang, not so fast:
% whois com.com
Whois Server Version 1.3
Domain Name: COM.COM
Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC.
Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com
Referral URL: http://www.networksolutions.com
Name Server: NS.CNET.COM
Name Server: NS2.CNET.COM
Updated Date: 04-dec-2001
haha... that's really funny!! :)
Exactly. Have the machines working in tandem with ppl. The machines doing their thing, and the ppl "tagging" mines that they find (low power radio xmitter markers, or something) so that the machines can find and dispose. At least until the tech is better.
come on. video codecs are a little bit more fast paced. I promise you, before too long MPEG4 will be obsolete and no one will care if it's public domain. Think "student projects". Think "historical purposes". But don't even think "cutting edge video".
yeah that's pretty much what he's saying. no way, no how. nice troll, tho ;)
But that's not what he said. I believe he was speaking of this one scene being a Matrix parody. Jesus christ, pay attentions ;)
Yeah, thanks. But I understood his point. *My* point was that he said that ISP's use DHCP to send routing info. That simply isn't true, unless you consider a default gateway to be routing, which I don't.
ummm, what routing info exactly are you referring to? I promise you, that neither Cox, nor Comcast, nor AT&T, nor RoadRunner, nor any broadband provider sends any routing info to customers other than a default route. Even if they did, it would have *nothing* to do with DHCP. But there'd be no point anyway, unless you're an ISP. It's called BGP.
A large % of normal citizens have no problem handing over their SSN to anyone who asks for it. Doesn't make it a good idea.
You see I hope that you've never argued that Microsoft has to be restrained in any way (because capitalism says that Linux is a much better system right? It should be on 98% of systems!)
umm, I never said that "capitalism says that Linux is much better". It's obvious that the mainstream desktop market has up to now rejected Linux. Hence, it is NOT on 98% of systems. Don't put words in my mouth and then try to use them to defeat my argument.
Ebay is a monopoly in the auction world simply because of the network effect, and here you are stating that it's good enough.
If that is how my statement was interpreted, then that was not my intent. I just chose Ebay as an example. Any site could add such a feature. And while I agree that Ebay is a defacto monopoly, as far as I know they have engaged in minimal anit-competitive practices. But whatever, Ebay could explode tomorrow and I wouldn't care. Ebay's virtues are not the topic here.
In any case geolocation tags and the dearth of local content are two totally separate topics, and my comments on the lack of local information is largely a social observation rather than a "we must fix this!" tirade.
Your original post, partnered with your sig, seemed to imply that you see geolocation tags as a solution to the problem being discussed. I mean, you do, right? You are right, the social causes are a separate topic, but your solution raises more frightful social issues than the problem does. I do see all the benefits that you list (to a point, actually I really could give a flying fsck whether I buy my car stereo from Joe's Electronics or buy.com), but I still contend that I could open up www.localshopsinatlanta.com, spend a little capital on local advertising and accomplish the same thing. My locale has a similiar type of site, and it's actually very popular with the locals.
I suppose I could live with geolocation tags, provide 2 things: 1)That is disabled by default. and 2)that I was absolutely certain that no malicious 3rd party (insert personal phobia here, the Feds, script kiddies, Walmart, whatever) could use one of the numerous MS (or any software vendor. I'm not MS bashing here, so don't even start) security holes to enable it without my knowledge.
Unfortunately, I don't see the latter happening any time soon. By adding geolocation to HTTP, you expose all users to significant threats that are beyond their control. I don't mind a browser identifying itself, or even identifying my OS. But that's it.
indeed. too much, imho. Watch your step on the slippery-slope. Just because my browser software is acting against my interests, doesn't mean that I should be OK with augmenting those capabilities.
I don't expect it to fly among the paranoid, anti-commercial, anti-capitalism Slashdot crowd
Do you work for the FBI or something? All of the sudden, being privacy concious makes me a facist, or anit-social? Just because I've done nothing wrong, I should have nothing to fear?
Imagine if every tiny little retailer could target only people within 3 KM of their location...of course advertising is evil so let's pretend I didn't say that
I'd rather not imagine that. Think the RIAA would ignore this (just to solidy my position as /. facist)? Imagine if every lonely, love sick guy could target only single women under 30. Why not send a/s/l info as well? Wouldn't that be great? (of course, adultery is evil so lets pretend I didn't say that).
yet the few who tried found that the classic inertia/network effect came into play: No one is selling because there are no buyers, and no one is buying because there's no sellers.
Ok, mr super-capitalist. If there is a demand, then the supply will come. With or without amending HTTP. It sounds like a "Search by Location" feature on Ebay would solve your problem just fine. For all I know, it already exists (or is in the works). And don't forget local news sites. I can go to my newspaper's website, and find their complete classified listings.
I suppose that we will never come to an aggreement on this. You are obviously very committed to it (that is, if your sig on an anit-capitalist "news" site like slashdot can be considered committment). I can only take solice in the fact that there hundreds of pre-existing ways to violate my privacy, so hopefully this particular abomination will never come to fruitation.
Just my opinions. Flame away
uhh, because it has been stated several times already? just guessing tho.