The system you describe is still in use for the shuttle. The problem is that the launch tower for Ares I will be at almost double the height and the crew escape level will be so high that a simliar guy-wire solution would deliver the crew outside the radius of where the bunker is. NASA will need to either move the bunker radially outward, or come up with an alternative escape system. (This is a proposal for the latter).
Its a rocket ship, and a piss-poor one.
40 years after the Saturn 5, they're looking at a projected payload capacity for the Aries 5 to LEO of only 10% more.
I am sorry but you are wrong on multiple points.
First, comparing Saturn V to Ares V is comparing apples to oranges. Saturn V was a single-launch vehicle while the Constellation architecture calls for a two-launch solution (sometimes referred to a "1.5x launch" due to the disparity in size between the vehicles). The Ares V has a payload to LEO capability of 130,000 kg and will launch the Earth Departure Stage (EDS) and LSAM. The Ares I will launch the CEV and has a payload to orbit capbility of 25,000 kg. That's 155,000 kg to LEO or more than 30% greater than the Saturn V's capability. (Digression: Many people think we should instead go with an EELV rather than developing a new vehicle. These vehicles were not built to be human rated from the start and have a payload to LEO of only 26,000 kg (Delta IV Heavy) or 20,000kg (Atlas V))
Moreover, by splitting the crew from the cargo versions you get several benefits:
You only have to human-rate the Ares I saving significant mass and development and operational recurring costs for the cargo version
You can now "fork" the development to minimize the gap in human spaceflight (also probably reducing the overall schedule and budget risk)
Improve crew safey and mission assurance by allowing each Ares V to be checked out on orbit prior to launching the crew.
Why not just upgrade the un-mothball and upgrade the Saturn series?
I don't know what you mean by un-mothball but the remaining segments of the Saturn are completely unusable, corroded and currently being used as critter habitats at JSC and Marshall. If you meant "re-engineer" how would that be any less difficult that what NASA is currently doing? Keep in mind that NASA is building Constellation on about 1/3 the budget of the Apollo program and delivering a vehicle that is vastly more capable than Apollo:
Crew of 6 to ISS
Polar lunar access
Significantly longer lunar surface stay
Anytime abort from lunar surface
Double the crew (4) to the surface
Extensible by design for Lunar outpost missions and Mars missions.
No more SRBs with joint segments to fail and engines that, once lit, can't be shut down.
Actually, the reason the Ares I has SRBs is because they are available (now) and safe. They are already human-rated and we understand them probably better than any booster ever created. Developing a new booster would be inherently riskier not to mention would further delay the US's return to human space flight after the last shuttle flight.
From the article - it is clear that the touch screen was not calibrated properly. I'd be curious to know if the Republicans and Democrats are always in the same order for each seperate vote (i.e. Dem is always listed first or vice-versa). If that is the case, and the voter intended to vote "straight democratic" it actually makes sense that if there is a touchscreen bias (due to calibration) then many of your votes would switch to the other party. In more conservative panhandle, I would expect the opposite. Keep in mind that this story originated in a county with large populations of elderly and democratic voters. Younger voters are probably much more likely to have used touch-screens routinely and have learned to almost automaticly compensate for a mis-calibration by adjusting the finger aim-point (I have to do this all the time at my ATM which never seems to calibrate theirs). I don't mean to generalize but I can see this being very confusing for older voters.
Actually - I've found it a pretty weak debunking. While it is true that he never said he "invented" the internet, he did say he "took the initiative in creating the internet". While his congressional record is noteworthy on funding the early net, he was clearly trying to imply that he "created" the internet.
I am detecting a pattern here though... Al Gore seems to find a good idea in progress, champion it, and (at least awkwardly) take some type of credit for it... in this case he is a bit behind the X-prize foundation and NASA with its COTS Program and Centennial Challenges. (I'll leave out his recent championing of Global Warming since he has a pretty well established environmental record)
But can't you also get the information "widely known" by circulating a story about how easy it is without including the specific (or at least accurate) directions to commit this felony?
Re:For Slashdotters who haven't been paying attent
on
2006 Election Maps Mashups
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Can I ask you, in all seriousness why you're still happy with the Republicans? I mean, I can understand why you would feel that an attack on this country merits a strong military response -- but that's not what we're involved in at the moment is it? We're stomping around in a quagmire for obscure reasons that have nothing to do with the 9/11 attack or Al Qaeda, correct?
It's a quagmire to be sure, but I, and many conservatives believe that it was still the right call. I believe that it was the right call, given the information that we had at the time. Of course much of what we *thought* turned out to be incorrect. Liberals somehow assume that this means we were "lied" to. I do place blame on the administration for being lazy and running with the one rationale that seemed to resonate with the press (WMDs) when we in effect already in a state of war with Iraq (at the least they were violating the terms of the truce on a daily basis). Does it have anything to do with 9/11 or Al Qaeda? Of course, not. However, before 9/11 the US used to just ignore thugs like Saddam who opently threatened and provoked the US. The amount of grief that the US would put up with changed that day. Do I think there have been mistakes our post-war Iraq policy? Absolutely. Do I think it would be worse for all involved if we simply pull out our troops on some arbitrary date or worse yet signal weakness by legislating an end date? Absolutely.
Or to take another point, I can understand why a conservative would worry about fiscal responsibility... but we don't have fiscal responsibility, do we? How about that deficit, eh?
I love this point. Liberals love to throw this one around - somehow trying to show that they are more fiscally responsible than Republicans when in fact they hemorrage federal money. Name me a social program that the Democrats would not like to spend more money on. They don't like the GOP Social Security plan because it doesn't spend enough money. They don't like the GOP prescription plan because it does spend enough money. They don't like No Child Left Behind because it isn't backed up with federal funds. They don't approve of homeland defense legislation because it doesn't spend enough federal funds on infrastructure. Am I proud that we are running a deficit right now? No - of course not... but I am pretty impressed that the deficit has been cut in half over the last 5 years. Unemployment is lower than during the Clinton presidency. Inflation is low. The economy is doing pretty damn well. The irony of course is that the left yells for the Republicans compromise with them on these spending bills. This universally means spending more (not less) than the Republicans originally propose. If the Republicans were not compromising with the Dems the deficit would be even less (of course the Democrats would be making even more noise about the lack of "bi-partisanship").
By the way, I've been meaning to ask some Repubican or other... do you think you guys could return some of the money Enron stole for you? Seriously, how do you feel about your party recieving stolen goods?
Troll.
(And what kind of "conservative" has such contempt for the Magna Carta, not to mention the Constitution? Aren't they time-tested enough? How can you just shrug off what's being done to central fabric of our country?)
Easy, I don't believe that I or anyone else has lost any constitutional rights. I don't for instance believe that I have a right to make international phone calls with international terrorists overseas without being surveilled. Now, I do think the administration has certainly been pushing the envelope of presidential powers - however the SCOTUS and Congress have pushed back - that is reassuring to me. Government is working.
I am a conservative (always vote Republican) and let me say that I hope you are right. This is going to sound like a troll but it really isn't. I'm serious because, as a conservative, I want to see the Democrats hurt themselves. I think that would be the perfect set up for the Republicans in 2008. Let the Dems have control of the House by a small margin. With a small margin, they won't be able to do any serious damage to the country (again - I am conservative and that's my bias). They will investigate every crazy accusation that has been made in the last 6 years. There will be one of two outcomes: (1) They will find real evidence that the US was complicit in 9/11 -or- that Bush lied about WMD's -or- [fill in blank] or (2) They will find nothing because it was all just conspiracy theory/political cheap-shot to begin with. Keep in mind that I am a conservative and wouldn't be one if I believed (1) was a likely outcome. So, expecting outcome (2) would be priceless.
They will investigate the Bush administration and probably destroy the political future of anyone in his admin which is somewhat moot as I don't think anyone within his admin is running in 2008 (with the possible exception of Rice). Dems being Dems will find out that the "anti-Bush" rhetoric won't get them very far when Bush isn't on the ticket in 2008
The Dems' current strategy seems to be "we aren't Republicans" but if they win the House, they will be forced to advance legislation and those votes will become part of the 2008 political debate. There will be votes on raising the minimum wage, there will be votes on health care, there will be votes on social security. They will effectively have to put their money where their mouth is. And again, as a conservative - I can't wait for them to do so because as someone else in this thread pointed out - they are their own worst enemy.
Bottom line, I would rather have the GOP lose now in 2006 where it will only affect the House of Reps, than for the GOP to maintain control all the way through the next election, when the Executive, House and even more Senate seats are up for grabs. I don't want the Dems to be able to continue to make political leverage without having to make hard legistlative decisions and continue to make accusations without having to back them up. I think this country needs a good dose of memory of what Democrats do when in power.
Interesting. So IE7 renders using ClearType regardless of the Control Panel's display settings (display:appearance:effects ). For those who are interested - changing that setting in the OS obviously works for FF too. Thanks!
I installed IE7 out of curiousity the other day. I use firefox but my wife uses IE. One thing that was immediately clear to me was that IE had substantially improved their text renderer. Text rendered in IE is substantially more readable and easy on the eyes than either IE6 or FF. If you don't believe me, try it within FF using IE tabs. Any idea on what they did to make the text so readable and how we get FF to render like this?
That is a superficial solution but somewhat effective. How many of them use an admin account as their main account? If you want to solve all of their computer issues with one action - create for them a limited user account, spend 5 minutes showing them how to "right-click: run-as" to install new software (if necessary, more and more installers detect when run from within a limited account and prompt for an admin password). Copy their my documents folder from the old location to the new location and copy their bookmarks. If they have been using an admin account for a while, you may have to set up the desktop a bit as there are probably some start menu items and desktop icons that are only in the admin group (copy them to "all users"). Obviously, I have found that it is much easier to make this transition for someone else when done in conjunction with a reinstall - but that is more for the peace of mind that OS hasn't already been completely compromised.
Not long ago I was wondering, "whatever happened to the ozone hole?" It seemed that Global Warming had taken over as the looming apocalypse. So the obsoleting of Freon hasn't helped?
Remember how this was supposed to be a global-warming induced horrible hurricane season?
Of course you are right - however I seem to recall hearing, at least on one occassion the phrase "Bush tax cuts", "Bush No Child Left Behind" "Bush prescription drug plan" etc... The fact of the matter is that Presidents submit and champion budgets and can veto budgets they don't like. But if that's the way you want to play - fine... Clinton and the Democratic-controlled House of Reps cut NASA's budget the first two years of his presidency (in both then-year and of course constant dollars). Once the Republicans took the House, NASA's budget increased or stayed the same for all but one year (while constant dollar budget decreased). Starting with 2000, Bush and the Republican congress consistently have raised NASA's budget in both actual and then year dollars. A these are facts. BTW, if you want to thank someone for relatively recent massive increases - thank Bush Sr. Check the chart...
Surely I'll get modded as troll for pointing out this fact about NASA's budget. Bush has raised NASA's budget (although not as much as I would prefer). Clinton is the only recent president who CUT NASA's budget both in real dollars but in constant 1996 dollars as well.
(Of course, this sidesteps discussion of whether IQ tests measure anything significant at all.)
Concur but I have a different take on this wording. Of course IQ tests measure something significant. The question may be whether or not "IQ tests are a signigicant measure of anything at all". My wife is an elementry teacher and we recently discussed how children are placed into gifted classes. She said that they used to do IQ testing but that has fallen out of vogue due to their being a rather politically incorrect measure (not to mention all the other types of "intelligence" (emotional, creative, et crappra)). This is sad. IQ tests are a near-perfect indicator of intelligence. That is they have a very low incidence of Type I (false positive) error. The cultural biases come into play and lead to false negatives (Type II errors). It seems the logical approach would be to use a combination of tests or qualitative assessments rather than ditching a good but non-perfect test.
Agreed and one of my biggest annoyances with Firefox. While I prefer firefox for casual browsing, it takes all tabs and instances of itself down when it crashes. IE doesn't so I do the same thing as you - if I need to application to be up and stable, I open it in IE. That just sounds wrong though, doesn't it?
The increase in prices from $20/bbl to $60/bbl only produced a modest increment in supply, and very little of that increase is from new sources.
True, but that only proves that recovery technolodies aren't profitable at $60 (based on the economy's limited exposure at this price point). What if it stays at $60 for 10 years? What if it goes to $150 for one year? Greed (profit) is an excellent motivator...
The problem with these types of analyses is that they usually only conisder capacity and reserves using today's methods. Today's recovery methods are driven by current economics. There are X gallons of oil that is exploitable using current technologies. There exist many other technologies for recovering far (literally nearly infinitely) greater quantities of oil; however these technologies do not produce oil at profitable costs. However, what is not profitable at $50/barrel might be profitable at $100/barrel (e.g. deeper wells, oil shale, open-water drilling, etc...) I have yet to see a study that takes these economic and technology factors into account when calculating the future capacities and reserves.
As Sowell would say, there is not a shortage of oil - there is only a shortage of oil at today's prices.
As far as strategic goals go, I can assure you that they are important as all NASA programs and projects must have objectives that are traceable to the top-level NASA Strategic Plan. I have heard multiple times that there is to be no research work by NASA unless it is directly related to the current Exploration architecture. Of course, everyone would agree that it would be nice if we could research other areas - but this is the reality of NASA's current limited budget and ambitious goals. (which leads me to your second point)
I won't disagree that NASA is underfunded - and I don't blame academic researchers for "going where the money is." (I woould argue that this isn't entirely bad as NASA can cherry pick technologies developed at much greater cost by DoD and insert them into their program at a higher technical readiness level). So yes, I wish that Bush/Congress would further raise NASA's budget. However at the same time I realize that Bush (like it or not) has significantly raised NASA spending during his presidency. The numbers don't lie. I know Clinton is very popular here - but facts are facts. He froze NASA's budget at "current year" levels (effectively a cut when adjusted for the economy's growth during his presidency). If you want to blame someone for NASA's current budget woes, blame Clinton (who committed us to ISS and killed every shuttle replacement brought forth in the 90s). Looking at the data, if you really want to give kudos to someone, it looks like Bush Sr. and Kennedy deserve quite the pat on the back.
I am curious,... what is the basis for you assumption that "the rest is just talk?" Does Carnegie-Mellon have some special insight that NASA does not about what its real strategic goals are? Do you have a different version of NASA's budget than the one Congress has? There seem to be a lot of "Space Enthusiasts" on slashdot that have strong opinions about the US Space Program who oddly don't know the current state of said program. If you have any serious questions about CEV or the rest of the Cx architecture... why not post them here and have them answered by someone who may actually be working on the program... if you'd rather just blather on about the admistration, why don't you save it for a more appropriate forum like DU or DailyKos?
You must have some super-insight super-power or something because I work on CEV every day. I must have missed the memo that said this was all a distraction and that we were really working on a military project. You are so blinded by your hatred of this adminstration that you simply can't accept facts, can you? We are building this... it isn't just smoke and mirrors.
If Bush had anything good to replace the Shuttle, then killing it would have been good. This is the guy who tried to kill Hubble, too, without anything to replace it.
The Clinton Administration tried to reduce tension by getting some reactors sent to North Korea, and Rumsfeld was on the board of the company that sold reactors to North Korea (ABB). Not too long after, North Korea was part of the axis of evil. This is equivilent to shop-owner selling a gun to someone, joining the police, and then complaining about the criminal they sold the gun to. I guess when you lack any sort of moral integrity, the only important fact is whose signature is on your paycheck.
So which is worse? Clinton giving them the reactors (because they promised not to use the technology for a weapons program). or being a member of a company that produced the rectors that Clinton gave N. Korea. I know what you are trying to imply... I don't think it will come out like you planned...
Slashdot Mirror
The system you describe is still in use for the shuttle. The problem is that the launch tower for Ares I will be at almost double the height and the crew escape level will be so high that a simliar guy-wire solution would deliver the crew outside the radius of where the bunker is. NASA will need to either move the bunker radially outward, or come up with an alternative escape system. (This is a proposal for the latter).
I am sorry but you are wrong on multiple points.
First, comparing Saturn V to Ares V is comparing apples to oranges. Saturn V was a single-launch vehicle while the Constellation architecture calls for a two-launch solution (sometimes referred to a "1.5x launch" due to the disparity in size between the vehicles). The Ares V has a payload to LEO capability of 130,000 kg and will launch the Earth Departure Stage (EDS) and LSAM. The Ares I will launch the CEV and has a payload to orbit capbility of 25,000 kg. That's 155,000 kg to LEO or more than 30% greater than the Saturn V's capability. (Digression: Many people think we should instead go with an EELV rather than developing a new vehicle. These vehicles were not built to be human rated from the start and have a payload to LEO of only 26,000 kg (Delta IV Heavy) or 20,000kg (Atlas V))
Moreover, by splitting the crew from the cargo versions you get several benefits:
Why not just upgrade the un-mothball and upgrade the Saturn series?
I don't know what you mean by un-mothball but the remaining segments of the Saturn are completely unusable, corroded and currently being used as critter habitats at JSC and Marshall. If you meant "re-engineer" how would that be any less difficult that what NASA is currently doing? Keep in mind that NASA is building Constellation on about 1/3 the budget of the Apollo program and delivering a vehicle that is vastly more capable than Apollo:
No more SRBs with joint segments to fail and engines that, once lit, can't be shut down.
Actually, the reason the Ares I has SRBs is because they are available (now) and safe. They are already human-rated and we understand them probably better than any booster ever created. Developing a new booster would be inherently riskier not to mention would further delay the US's return to human space flight after the last shuttle flight.
West of House
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
There is a small mailbox here.
From the article - it is clear that the touch screen was not calibrated properly. I'd be curious to know if the Republicans and Democrats are always in the same order for each seperate vote (i.e. Dem is always listed first or vice-versa). If that is the case, and the voter intended to vote "straight democratic" it actually makes sense that if there is a touchscreen bias (due to calibration) then many of your votes would switch to the other party. In more conservative panhandle, I would expect the opposite. Keep in mind that this story originated in a county with large populations of elderly and democratic voters. Younger voters are probably much more likely to have used touch-screens routinely and have learned to almost automaticly compensate for a mis-calibration by adjusting the finger aim-point (I have to do this all the time at my ATM which never seems to calibrate theirs). I don't mean to generalize but I can see this being very confusing for older voters.
I am detecting a pattern here though... Al Gore seems to find a good idea in progress, champion it, and (at least awkwardly) take some type of credit for it... in this case he is a bit behind the X-prize foundation and NASA with its COTS Program and Centennial Challenges. (I'll leave out his recent championing of Global Warming since he has a pretty well established environmental record)
I wonder if posting a pro-Republican viewpoint on slashdot will get you modded down... oh wait... (welcome to the club).
But can't you also get the information "widely known" by circulating a story about how easy it is without including the specific (or at least accurate) directions to commit this felony?
It's a quagmire to be sure, but I, and many conservatives believe that it was still the right call. I believe that it was the right call, given the information that we had at the time. Of course much of what we *thought* turned out to be incorrect. Liberals somehow assume that this means we were "lied" to. I do place blame on the administration for being lazy and running with the one rationale that seemed to resonate with the press (WMDs) when we in effect already in a state of war with Iraq (at the least they were violating the terms of the truce on a daily basis). Does it have anything to do with 9/11 or Al Qaeda? Of course, not. However, before 9/11 the US used to just ignore thugs like Saddam who opently threatened and provoked the US. The amount of grief that the US would put up with changed that day. Do I think there have been mistakes our post-war Iraq policy? Absolutely. Do I think it would be worse for all involved if we simply pull out our troops on some arbitrary date or worse yet signal weakness by legislating an end date? Absolutely.
Or to take another point, I can understand why a conservative would worry about fiscal responsibility... but we don't have fiscal responsibility, do we? How about that deficit, eh?
I love this point. Liberals love to throw this one around - somehow trying to show that they are more fiscally responsible than Republicans when in fact they hemorrage federal money. Name me a social program that the Democrats would not like to spend more money on. They don't like the GOP Social Security plan because it doesn't spend enough money. They don't like the GOP prescription plan because it does spend enough money. They don't like No Child Left Behind because it isn't backed up with federal funds. They don't approve of homeland defense legislation because it doesn't spend enough federal funds on infrastructure. Am I proud that we are running a deficit right now? No - of course not... but I am pretty impressed that the deficit has been cut in half over the last 5 years. Unemployment is lower than during the Clinton presidency. Inflation is low. The economy is doing pretty damn well. The irony of course is that the left yells for the Republicans compromise with them on these spending bills. This universally means spending more (not less) than the Republicans originally propose. If the Republicans were not compromising with the Dems the deficit would be even less (of course the Democrats would be making even more noise about the lack of "bi-partisanship").
By the way, I've been meaning to ask some Repubican or other... do you think you guys could return some of the money Enron stole for you? Seriously, how do you feel about your party recieving stolen goods?
Troll.
(And what kind of "conservative" has such contempt for the Magna Carta, not to mention the Constitution? Aren't they time-tested enough? How can you just shrug off what's being done to central fabric of our country?)
Easy, I don't believe that I or anyone else has lost any constitutional rights. I don't for instance believe that I have a right to make international phone calls with international terrorists overseas without being surveilled. Now, I do think the administration has certainly been pushing the envelope of presidential powers - however the SCOTUS and Congress have pushed back - that is reassuring to me. Government is working.
They will investigate the Bush administration and probably destroy the political future of anyone in his admin which is somewhat moot as I don't think anyone within his admin is running in 2008 (with the possible exception of Rice). Dems being Dems will find out that the "anti-Bush" rhetoric won't get them very far when Bush isn't on the ticket in 2008
The Dems' current strategy seems to be "we aren't Republicans" but if they win the House, they will be forced to advance legislation and those votes will become part of the 2008 political debate. There will be votes on raising the minimum wage, there will be votes on health care, there will be votes on social security. They will effectively have to put their money where their mouth is. And again, as a conservative - I can't wait for them to do so because as someone else in this thread pointed out - they are their own worst enemy.
Bottom line, I would rather have the GOP lose now in 2006 where it will only affect the House of Reps, than for the GOP to maintain control all the way through the next election, when the Executive, House and even more Senate seats are up for grabs. I don't want the Dems to be able to continue to make political leverage without having to make hard legistlative decisions and continue to make accusations without having to back them up. I think this country needs a good dose of memory of what Democrats do when in power.
Interesting. So IE7 renders using ClearType regardless of the Control Panel's display settings (display:appearance:effects ). For those who are interested - changing that setting in the OS obviously works for FF too. Thanks!
I installed IE7 out of curiousity the other day. I use firefox but my wife uses IE. One thing that was immediately clear to me was that IE had substantially improved their text renderer. Text rendered in IE is substantially more readable and easy on the eyes than either IE6 or FF. If you don't believe me, try it within FF using IE tabs. Any idea on what they did to make the text so readable and how we get FF to render like this?
That is a superficial solution but somewhat effective. How many of them use an admin account as their main account? If you want to solve all of their computer issues with one action - create for them a limited user account, spend 5 minutes showing them how to "right-click: run-as" to install new software (if necessary, more and more installers detect when run from within a limited account and prompt for an admin password). Copy their my documents folder from the old location to the new location and copy their bookmarks. If they have been using an admin account for a while, you may have to set up the desktop a bit as there are probably some start menu items and desktop icons that are only in the admin group (copy them to "all users"). Obviously, I have found that it is much easier to make this transition for someone else when done in conjunction with a reinstall - but that is more for the peace of mind that OS hasn't already been completely compromised.
Remember how this was supposed to be a global-warming induced horrible hurricane season?
Of course you are right - however I seem to recall hearing, at least on one occassion the phrase "Bush tax cuts", "Bush No Child Left Behind" "Bush prescription drug plan" etc... The fact of the matter is that Presidents submit and champion budgets and can veto budgets they don't like. But if that's the way you want to play - fine... Clinton and the Democratic-controlled House of Reps cut NASA's budget the first two years of his presidency (in both then-year and of course constant dollars). Once the Republicans took the House, NASA's budget increased or stayed the same for all but one year (while constant dollar budget decreased). Starting with 2000, Bush and the Republican congress consistently have raised NASA's budget in both actual and then year dollars. A these are facts. BTW, if you want to thank someone for relatively recent massive increases - thank Bush Sr. Check the chart...
Surely I'll get modded as troll for pointing out this fact about NASA's budget. Bush has raised NASA's budget (although not as much as I would prefer). Clinton is the only recent president who CUT NASA's budget both in real dollars but in constant 1996 dollars as well.
Concur but I have a different take on this wording. Of course IQ tests measure something significant. The question may be whether or not "IQ tests are a signigicant measure of anything at all". My wife is an elementry teacher and we recently discussed how children are placed into gifted classes. She said that they used to do IQ testing but that has fallen out of vogue due to their being a rather politically incorrect measure (not to mention all the other types of "intelligence" (emotional, creative, et crappra)). This is sad. IQ tests are a near-perfect indicator of intelligence. That is they have a very low incidence of Type I (false positive) error. The cultural biases come into play and lead to false negatives (Type II errors). It seems the logical approach would be to use a combination of tests or qualitative assessments rather than ditching a good but non-perfect test.
Agreed and one of my biggest annoyances with Firefox. While I prefer firefox for casual browsing, it takes all tabs and instances of itself down when it crashes. IE doesn't so I do the same thing as you - if I need to application to be up and stable, I open it in IE. That just sounds wrong though, doesn't it?
True, but that only proves that recovery technolodies aren't profitable at $60 (based on the economy's limited exposure at this price point). What if it stays at $60 for 10 years? What if it goes to $150 for one year? Greed (profit) is an excellent motivator...
As Sowell would say, there is not a shortage of oil - there is only a shortage of oil at today's prices.
I won't disagree that NASA is underfunded - and I don't blame academic researchers for "going where the money is." (I woould argue that this isn't entirely bad as NASA can cherry pick technologies developed at much greater cost by DoD and insert them into their program at a higher technical readiness level). So yes, I wish that Bush/Congress would further raise NASA's budget. However at the same time I realize that Bush (like it or not) has significantly raised NASA spending during his presidency. The numbers don't lie. I know Clinton is very popular here - but facts are facts. He froze NASA's budget at "current year" levels (effectively a cut when adjusted for the economy's growth during his presidency). If you want to blame someone for NASA's current budget woes, blame Clinton (who committed us to ISS and killed every shuttle replacement brought forth in the 90s). Looking at the data, if you really want to give kudos to someone, it looks like Bush Sr. and Kennedy deserve quite the pat on the back.
I am curious,... what is the basis for you assumption that "the rest is just talk?" Does Carnegie-Mellon have some special insight that NASA does not about what its real strategic goals are? Do you have a different version of NASA's budget than the one Congress has? There seem to be a lot of "Space Enthusiasts" on slashdot that have strong opinions about the US Space Program who oddly don't know the current state of said program. If you have any serious questions about CEV or the rest of the Cx architecture... why not post them here and have them answered by someone who may actually be working on the program... if you'd rather just blather on about the admistration, why don't you save it for a more appropriate forum like DU or DailyKos?
You must have some super-insight super-power or something because I work on CEV every day. I must have missed the memo that said this was all a distraction and that we were really working on a military project. You are so blinded by your hatred of this adminstration that you simply can't accept facts, can you? We are building this... it isn't just smoke and mirrors.
Interesting..you seem to have read the President's Vision for Space Exploration but somehow only grabbed onto the "kill shuttle" part and missed the whole "build vehicles to explore the solar system part"... or was that inconvenient to your anti-Bush rant?
Why does this story have the battery "power" icon? I sincerely hope that no one thinks this is about N. Korea's right to nuclear power...
So which is worse? Clinton giving them the reactors (because they promised not to use the technology for a weapons program). or being a member of a company that produced the rectors that Clinton gave N. Korea. I know what you are trying to imply... I don't think it will come out like you planned...