Excellent points, I completely agree with you. But nothing you mention changes this to a freedom of speech issue. You just point out that this is poorly written legislation, larely due to the immature technology and I fully agree.
My point is merely that this is too easily cast into a freedom of speech debate when that in itself is a matter of debate. As far as I am concerned, freedom to access porn is not freedom of speech or expression. It is purely passive. How is freedom of speech related to access to information?
Now for the sake of arguement, let's assume that web-surfing porn is indeed an expression of free speech. How is this "right" being violated if you can not perform it in a public library? You are still allowed to access your porn,... just not in a library. How is this different from say, banning smoking or shouting "fire" in a movie theater? You still have the "right" to do those things, there are however specific places that you may not.
Bottom line - I don't think this is an end-around of the Constitution. Just a means to limit the government's direct involvement in an act that many consider lewd without restricting access at large.
This debate is very misunderstood. This is not a federal law forcing libraries to restrict porn web content. It simply denies federal funding to libraries who are content with letting children browse porn using monies given to libraries for computer upgrades from federal tax dollars. This just requires that if these libraries want the computer money, they have to place safeguards.
I can stil understand peoples' arguements against such legislation, but in this context do not see it as a free-speach issue, just a funding issue. The libraries do not have the right to demand new computers at any cost.
Geez, this was discussed only a few days ago.
No, Hubble doesn't have adequate resolution. At the moon's distance, Hubble's resolution is on the order of 100s of meters. However, if you follow the above link I posted a link to some Clementine images of the landing sites... of course, Clementine was a Navy probe, so now you have to include the Navy in the conspiracy...
What tpye of proof do you need? If NASA put you in a capsule and shot your ass there, you'd still probably insist it was some sort of virual reality scam.
Moron. (damn, I couldn't keep it civil)
It is correct that Hubbles resolution on the moon is on the order of 100's of meters. Obviously it can not resolve an American flag. However, the Clementine probe captured some imagesof what appear to be a the launch crater from a lunar module. Of course, this brings the United States Navy into the conspiracy if you choose not to believe it...
I don't know where you get your definition of weight... but here are some:
Definition
Definition
Weight is the measure of gravitational attraction between two bodies... nothing more.
A scale is just one limitedmethod for measuring weight. I say limited because it functions by measuring the normal force (due to Newton's third law) caused by the ground holding the scale at rest, thus giving an inertailly fixed reference frame (or close to it... earth is spinning,...blah blah.)
But very nearly... what people tend to forget that low-earth orbit (LEO)... in this case about 400 km is very very small compared to the radius of the Earth (6378km). Add the two then square the sum... the force of gravity at LEO is very nearly the same as it is on earth... in this case 89% of the surface value. (177,000lb)
So assuming the author was using one significant digit... 200,000lb is exactly right.
Absolutely! There may not be much "hard science" going on... certainly no as much as I personally would like. However something invaluable is being learned through this experience... how to construct large objects in space. The ISS is the ultimate lego/tinker-toy kit. Never before has a spacecraft been assembled in orbit.
If we hope to ever estabilish a permanent moon base or go to Mars (or beyond) we will certainly be building upon the lessons learned in constructing the ISS (pun inteneded).
As a taxpayer in something like the 30% bracket, I would much rather have my money going into the space program than into social security or welfare (including so-called corporate welfare).
You are all wrong! Objects in orbit have both mass and weight. The term "weightless" is often misused as it only applies to the reference frame to another object in the same orbit.
Weight (force due to gravity) = -G*M*m/(r^2)
show me what part of that equation is zero...
For instance, an astronaut is weightless relative to the shuttle or ISS, but still weighs 200lb or so relative to the Earth. The apparent weightless is simply due to the fact that the vehicle and the astronaut are both being accelerated toward the Earth with exactly the same magnitude, thus no RELATIVE acceleration and no perceivable weight.
Another misconception is that object are easy to move around in "zero-g". Not so,... a large object still has the same mass as on Earth which corresponds to a lot of inertia so it is very difficult to get moving and stop again. The big difference is that there is no surface friction so once the object is moving, you don't have to apply a non-conservative force to keep it moving.
Actually they do attact objects, just very weakly in our case. However, the Sun-Jupiter L4/L5 points are much deeper "gravitational wells" and have collected the so-called "Trojan Asteroids." In fact, the discovery of those asteroids was one of the rare cases in science where a purely theoretical prediction (the existance of Lagrange points) is proved via experiment. Most theories are born to explain observed phenomena, not the case with this one.
Not exactly, yes, L1 is an "unstable" Lagrange (or libration) point, however if you put an object in ORBIT around the L1 point it is extremely easy to keep it there. It is analagous to the motion of a top, yes, the top is unstable and will fall, but if you spin it it will remain upright. The difference is that very little fuel is required to maintain the orbit about the libration point.
There are plans for a probe at the Earth-Sun L1 point (about 4 times farther than the moon)that will similiarly orbit that L1 point but for different reasons. If it were precisely at the L1 point, then we would have point our antenae directly at the sun to communicate with it. The noise from the sun would make it essentially impossible to communicate with, hence the offset.
What prevents this guy from suing the major television networks because he can not see his television? This is ridiculous. If he has a phone, then he has a means of getting flight information and booking a ticket. He already has access! People with disabilities are not entitled under ADA to having exactly the same means of access, just that they indeed have access! For example, a ramp to a side entrance suffices for wheelchair access. The ramp is there to get you into the building, you can't complain that you aren't still going in the front door.
Sure, for your little microcosm which I am assuming is computer related (like many of the people here) a degree may indeed be irrelevant. This is because those who currently work in the IT/CS world have demonstrated that being self-taught is oftentimes adequate to maintain a good, high-paying job.
For pretty much every other subject, higher-learning is and will remain necessary. How many self-taught mathematicians and chemists do you know? How many astronautical engineers or geneticists just read a few "Teach yourself xxxx in 24 hours?" and began doing important research?
I submit to you a different vision of the future... eventually people who really know what they are doing with computers will no longer be a novelty. There is a generation of people behind us who were raised on computers. For them, the skills needed to become a programmer or network adminstrator may be as common as those needed to work retail today. With such a wide base of computer literacy,... perhaps those sys admin and programming jobs will not have the status (or salaries) that they do today. Regardless, despite what it takes to land a job in the field, the science of computing will continue to progress through the efforts of those in the research labs... the people doing the hard-core CS research at universities and industry.
As for your personal experience, I don't doubt your account at all... but what did you choose to study in college and do you practice in that field today?
Slashdot Mirror
Excellent points, I completely agree with you. But nothing you mention changes this to a freedom of speech issue. You just point out that this is poorly written legislation, larely due to the immature technology and I fully agree.
Now for the sake of arguement, let's assume that web-surfing porn is indeed an expression of free speech. How is this "right" being violated if you can not perform it in a public library? You are still allowed to access your porn,... just not in a library. How is this different from say, banning smoking or shouting "fire" in a movie theater? You still have the "right" to do those things, there are however specific places that you may not.
Bottom line - I don't think this is an end-around of the Constitution. Just a means to limit the government's direct involvement in an act that many consider lewd without restricting access at large.
I can stil understand peoples' arguements against such legislation, but in this context do not see it as a free-speach issue, just a funding issue. The libraries do not have the right to demand new computers at any cost.
Here is the cached article
Geez, this was discussed only a few days ago. No, Hubble doesn't have adequate resolution. At the moon's distance, Hubble's resolution is on the order of 100s of meters. However, if you follow the above link I posted a link to some Clementine images of the landing sites... of course, Clementine was a Navy probe, so now you have to include the Navy in the conspiracy...
What tpye of proof do you need? If NASA put you in a capsule and shot your ass there, you'd still probably insist it was some sort of virual reality scam. Moron. (damn, I couldn't keep it civil)
um...aren't the lyrics already "embedded" on the cd? Isn't that the point of actually listening to someone sing?
It is correct that Hubbles resolution on the moon is on the order of 100's of meters. Obviously it can not resolve an American flag. However, the Clementine probe captured some imagesof what appear to be a the launch crater from a lunar module. Of course, this brings the United States Navy into the conspiracy if you choose not to believe it...
My calculation makes sense to anyone who has had high school physics... nevermind my degrees in astronautical engineering. Flush yourself.
Weight is the measure of gravitational attraction between two bodies... nothing more.
A scale is just one limited method for measuring weight. I say limited because it functions by measuring the normal force (due to Newton's third law) caused by the ground holding the scale at rest, thus giving an inertailly fixed reference frame (or close to it... earth is spinning,...blah blah.)
So assuming the author was using one significant digit... 200,000lb is exactly right.
If we hope to ever estabilish a permanent moon base or go to Mars (or beyond) we will certainly be building upon the lessons learned in constructing the ISS (pun inteneded).
As a taxpayer in something like the 30% bracket, I would much rather have my money going into the space program than into social security or welfare (including so-called corporate welfare).
Weight (force due to gravity) = -G*M*m/(r^2)
show me what part of that equation is zero...
For instance, an astronaut is weightless relative to the shuttle or ISS, but still weighs 200lb or so relative to the Earth. The apparent weightless is simply due to the fact that the vehicle and the astronaut are both being accelerated toward the Earth with exactly the same magnitude, thus no RELATIVE acceleration and no perceivable weight.
Another misconception is that object are easy to move around in "zero-g". Not so,... a large object still has the same mass as on Earth which corresponds to a lot of inertia so it is very difficult to get moving and stop again. The big difference is that there is no surface friction so once the object is moving, you don't have to apply a non-conservative force to keep it moving.
Actually they do attact objects, just very weakly in our case. However, the Sun-Jupiter L4/L5 points are much deeper "gravitational wells" and have collected the so-called "Trojan Asteroids." In fact, the discovery of those asteroids was one of the rare cases in science where a purely theoretical prediction (the existance of Lagrange points) is proved via experiment. Most theories are born to explain observed phenomena, not the case with this one.
Not exactly, yes, L1 is an "unstable" Lagrange (or libration) point, however if you put an object in ORBIT around the L1 point it is extremely easy to keep it there. It is analagous to the motion of a top, yes, the top is unstable and will fall, but if you spin it it will remain upright. The difference is that very little fuel is required to maintain the orbit about the libration point. There are plans for a probe at the Earth-Sun L1 point (about 4 times farther than the moon)that will similiarly orbit that L1 point but for different reasons. If it were precisely at the L1 point, then we would have point our antenae directly at the sun to communicate with it. The noise from the sun would make it essentially impossible to communicate with, hence the offset.
That's ripe, ... a Canadian referring making a socialist joke about the US.
Are NY Times articles sensitive but unclassified? Is that why they require a logon?
Who cares about the ice melting when there may be dangerous levels of DHMO on the top of that mountain! Maybe we would be safer if it did melt.
Bush was pres during the Panama invasion, not Reagan.
What prevents this guy from suing the major television networks because he can not see his television? This is ridiculous. If he has a phone, then he has a means of getting flight information and booking a ticket. He already has access! People with disabilities are not entitled under ADA to having exactly the same means of access, just that they indeed have access! For example, a ramp to a side entrance suffices for wheelchair access. The ramp is there to get you into the building, you can't complain that you aren't still going in the front door.
For pretty much every other subject, higher-learning is and will remain necessary. How many self-taught mathematicians and chemists do you know? How many astronautical engineers or geneticists just read a few "Teach yourself xxxx in 24 hours?" and began doing important research?
I submit to you a different vision of the future... eventually people who really know what they are doing with computers will no longer be a novelty. There is a generation of people behind us who were raised on computers. For them, the skills needed to become a programmer or network adminstrator may be as common as those needed to work retail today. With such a wide base of computer literacy,... perhaps those sys admin and programming jobs will not have the status (or salaries) that they do today. Regardless, despite what it takes to land a job in the field, the science of computing will continue to progress through the efforts of those in the research labs... the people doing the hard-core CS research at universities and industry.
As for your personal experience, I don't doubt your account at all... but what did you choose to study in college and do you practice in that field today?
Here is my baby cam. I'll bet it was a lot cheaper than yours!
In other news, Linus Torvals remarks that Linux is just not engineered to be easy to use by the average home user.
How long before the Australian Senate declares war and hires bounty hunters to hunt down and destroy the Jedi?