Hmm... I just realized something... Scientology started in 1952 and copyright lasts a max of 67 years (if published originally in the period from 1923 to 1963. That means that Scientology text go public in 2019 right? (unless they pull a Disney and get the copyright law extended further).
IANAA (I am not an astrophysicist) but regarding the long range comm/nav problems, haven't we already successfully achieved that with the Voyager missions?
True - but only for very limited 2-way C&C and more modest 1-way data transmit. Doing long range comm at the tempo that manned space flight requires hasn't been done since Apollo. Of course, you can simulate the comm delays even here on Earth (which has been done).
I don't think you get it... the moon mission isn't analogous to a Mars mission due to the destination environments. A moon mission (in its entirety) is an analog to the transit portion of a Mars mission. As you point out, Mars has an atmosphere - we don't need to go anywhere else to test atmospheric vehicles, or landers, or suits... we can test those all here on Earth. Going to the moon, and living on the moon for six months forces us to deal with many of the mission challenges associated with a 6 month transit to Mars.
The principle difference is that when an emergency occurs on the lunar surface you aren't more than 4-5 days tops from a safe return to Earth. When an emergency occurs on your way to Mars - you're hosed. In which scenario would you rather develop new technology?
Now - an astute reader will ask, why don't we just learn the long duration stuff here in LEO? My response to that would be - why not kill many birds with one stone and also do some lunar science? We still do expeditions to Antarctica because there are still things to learn there. We've been to the moon what... 6 times? Why not also test out long range navigation and communication technologies that really aren't applicable at LEO?
Well, now you're moving on to talk about the substance of the allegations, since your effort to nip it in the bud by denying my toplevel point about its interest regardless of political orientation (so long as it's in the interest of America) has failed.
Try not to be a jerk for a minute... I made no such effort to "deny your toplevel point". My other post simply challenged your use of the words "the government" after which I pontificated about how "real" of a scandal this is. And don't flatter yourself - I didn't even realize that you were the author of *this* post and that by chance I had responded to two Doc Ruby posts in one night... what are the odds...
So I'm not impressed by your "smell test". Usually the line of argument you follow relies on saying "but no one leaked". In this case, someone actually did leak, Sibel Edmonds. Who's been (unconstitutionally) gagged for years. To suppress false info? That doesn't pass the smell test.
So you are indeed implying that all of the people who are involved with "gagging" her are in on the conspiracy? By no means am I implying that government doesn't deserve scrutiny... but I do believe that when scrutiny become skepticism it is not productive (or is rather adverse). At what point to do you invoke Occam's razor and start considering an alternative hypothesis as more likely - that she got wind of something that is classified and misinterpreted it or worse, that she is simply lying. I find it easier to believe that one person is intentionally or unintentionally making false statements than to believe that there are dozens with hundreds if not thousands complicitly doing nothing.
This whole story fails my conspiracy theory feasibility stink check. Look, I'll freely admit that I am to the right of your average slashdot reader and will demonstrate that by stating that I don't believe the vast majority of the accusations against this administration. But this story - like most other government conspiracy theory stories require a ridiculous amount of suspension of disbelief to be complete. I'll give you a free-be and let's assume that the administration really is evil. So now we are forced to believe that they have used their evil influence to turn members of the state department, pentagon and current and former congressmen. Throw in the CIA and FBI who looked the other way or actively hid the evidence. Amongst this *huge* network of people who must have had access to relevant facts - no one,... save one FBI translator did anything to stop this.
A couple things jump to mind... first, the CIA or FBI simply do not suppress investigations into other agencies due to intimidation or malice. Agencies do not "cover" for one another - in fact they probably relish this type of cross-agency investigation. Believe it or not, "the government" is not some giant monolithic entity - it is a patchwork of different organizations with different goals, motives and personalities. Second, the sheer magnitude of how many people would have to be "in on this" and complicit makes it (in my mind) just as ludicrous as Area 58 or 9-11 conspiracies.
Doc,
The accusation isn't that "the government" is stealing our own nuke secrets and selling them... it is that traitors within the government are doing so (and that "the government" is covering up the dirt). This of course is still completely unacceptable but different that what you appear to be asserting.
So there are several possibilities:
This story is fabricated and completely untrue.
Someone did indeed sell US secrets (who may or may not have been an official) but that the cover-up part of the story is fiction.
That someone did indeed sell US secrets and that this fact was withheld from the people (for some lawful purpose, e.g. ongoing investigation)
That someone did indeed sell US secrets and that there was an illegal cover-up.
At this point, I haven't read enough facts to place it in any of these bins.
You're right - this is much less a structural issue and has more to do with the complex aerothermodynamics going on inside the combustion chamber. What I am surprised no one has mentioned is how much this risk is mitigated by the fact that the first stage of the Ares I is simply a 5-segment version of the space shuttle's solid rocket boosters. This is exactly why you re-use technology when appropriate. In this case, we have a very good understanding of the performance and characteristics of this solid rocket motor (with over 200 launches of the 4-segment SRB).
Right... because who better to comment on the benefits of space exploration than people who actually know something about space. In your world I suppose we'd have botanists color commenting football games and musicians critiquing bridge and highway safety.
Uh...I don't think you understand how these systems work. The missile *does* lock onto the laser source - by design. The sensor package then drives the seeker guidance unit to a different trajectory until the aircraft is no longer in the field of view of the seeker (in the process bleeding most of its energy as well). It is kind of like dragging a bull around by the ring through its nose.
You're right...and since there has never been a full-fledged nuclear plant melt-down in this country, we really don't need any type of nuclear safety regulations either...
You're absolutley right! Let's wait for the day that a coordinated attack brings down 10 aircraft simultaneously in major cities all over the world. Then we can start funding efforts like this (which is only a demonstration by the waay).
And while you are right that not a single passenger jet has been downed, sholder fired IR missiles have been used to attack cargo planes in Iraq and on at least one occasion an Israeli passenger aircraft in Africa.
Who said anything about DRM? I have hundreds if not thousands of songs from my personal collection ripped to wma. I'd consider buying a iPod if it could play them. I have no desire to play DRMed music on any music device, let alone an iPod. I would however enjoy having more format compatibility in the digital music world.... or am I mistaken and we are only to advocate format compatibility when MS is the bad guy?
First, I hate to break it to you, but "actively fighting American forces" isn't a war crime. Whether you're wearing a uniform or not. Imprisoning prisoners of war outside the theater is a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions. So is interrogating them. So even assuming you're correct, Guantanamo Bay is illegal.
Which version of the Geneva Convention have you read? I'm going to assume that you didn't really mean "war crime" but meant "crime at time of war" because clearly a "war crime" is a well-defined term that doesn't really fit the context of your argument.
Whether you're wearing a uniform or not.
Now, the GC never really define who are lawful combatants and who are unlawful combatants; they do however define who deserves treatment as a POW and who do not (in the 3rd Convention). The leap from protection classes to classes of combatant, while not explicit is pretty broadly accepted as detailed in the wikipedia entry for Unlawful Combatant:
"Every person in enemy hands must be either a prisoner of war and, as such, be covered by the Third Convention; or a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention. Furthermore, "There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law," because in the opinion of the ICRC "If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered 'unlawful' or 'unprivileged' combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action".
Article 4.1.2 of GCIII clearly states that the following is required to get POW status:
4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Moreover, it explicitly excludes POW status from people who resist once the territory is occupied.
Article 4.1.6 extends POW status to:
Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
Oh, and if the GC doesn't satisfy you - how about the Laws of War according to which "It is a violation of the laws of war to engage in combat without meeting certain requirements, among them the wearing of a distinctive uniform or other distinctive signs visible at a distance, and the carrying of weapons openly."
You go on to claim: "Imprisoning prisoners of war outside the theater is a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions."
Please cite your source on this. I have never heard anyone make this claim. By the way, the US held German prisoners during WW2 at POW camps in CONUS - was this a "war crime?"
And then again: "So is interrogating them."
Interrogating them (prisoners lawful or not) is not a crime. Police "interrogate" suspects every day in the country and it is perfectly legal. The military interrogates suspected militants overseas every day - again, perfectly legal. Unless by "interrogate" you meant "torture" and by "torture" you meant something harsher than the hazing I suff
Interesting... I had a near-identical experience with iTunes (on XP). It took me *three* installs to get it working. Install #1 resulted in a message telling me that the version was out of date and forced me to dl a new version. Install #2 finished but crashed my computer. Install #3 seemed to work fine, except the user interface looked nothing like what I was used to (Media Player) and took some getting used to (I imagine newcomers to Media Player feel the same way). My music selection was considerably larger than the 2GB Nano that I had bought so iTunes decided to randomly choose music from my collection to fill the device. I ended up taking the unit back and exchanged it for iriver - mostly because it seemed more durable and easier to use while running but somewhat because of the experience with iTunes.
Because not only are they old... but they are expensive to maintain. Reducing Operations and Maintenance (O&M) costs were generally not a design driver in aviation in the 70's and 80's. As the cost of aircraft have increased, the military (and the people) expect these vehicles to have significant lifetimes. Over long vehicle service lifes, high O&M costs can crush your future budgets. Modern aircraft, while much more expensive to develop and procure, can actually *save* money in the long run by having a smaller maintenance and operations footprint. For example, the 787 and F-35 were designed to maintainable from the outset. The maintenance procedures were developed while the vehicles were still in the CAD phases with the simplicity of these procedures driving key elements of the design. This wasn't possible when the F-14/15/16/18 were developed.
Clear enough? No warrant, no searches or seizures of my stuff. They are particularly prohibited from searching through all of my correspondence without a warrant.
Who says they are? They could be simply monitoring traffic patterns - which is perfectly legal.
Now that would be interesting... how exactly do you dole out the votes... who gets to cast the vote for the corporation and how many votes does a corporation get? Talk amongst yourselves...
Secondly let me say... your notion that corporations pay taxes, and therefore should have constitutional rights is false.
I never suggested that they should have constitutional rights - just that they are affected by the political process as an entity (as opposed to indirectly through its employees) and therefore it makes sense that they should be allowed to participate in politics as an entity.
why shouldn't they? They are taxed separately than the individuals they embody so shouldn't they be represented as well? Or do you believe in taxation without representation? They are part of the economy, they are taxed, they are regulated, they are subject to laws. How exactly are they different?
You (and everyone I have ever heard deny that the sun has anything to do with global warming) seem to assume that the only mechanism by which the sun can affect our climate is through its solar energy output. You (and everyone...) ignore the affects on our atmosphere due to solar weather. We know that our magnetosphere is shaped by the solar wind... solar wind is related to sunspot activity... how do you know that these effects on our magnetosphere (which have nothing to do with solar energy output) don't affect the Earth's albedo?
Slashdot Mirror
This is just dumb... everyone knows kids learn to speak from the tv.
Hmm... I just realized something... Scientology started in 1952 and copyright lasts a max of 67 years (if published originally in the period from 1923 to 1963. That means that Scientology text go public in 2019 right? (unless they pull a Disney and get the copyright law extended further).
True - but only for very limited 2-way C&C and more modest 1-way data transmit. Doing long range comm at the tempo that manned space flight requires hasn't been done since Apollo. Of course, you can simulate the comm delays even here on Earth (which has been done).
The principle difference is that when an emergency occurs on the lunar surface you aren't more than 4-5 days tops from a safe return to Earth. When an emergency occurs on your way to Mars - you're hosed. In which scenario would you rather develop new technology?
Now - an astute reader will ask, why don't we just learn the long duration stuff here in LEO? My response to that would be - why not kill many birds with one stone and also do some lunar science? We still do expeditions to Antarctica because there are still things to learn there. We've been to the moon what... 6 times? Why not also test out long range navigation and communication technologies that really aren't applicable at LEO?
Try not to be a jerk for a minute... I made no such effort to "deny your toplevel point". My other post simply challenged your use of the words "the government" after which I pontificated about how "real" of a scandal this is. And don't flatter yourself - I didn't even realize that you were the author of *this* post and that by chance I had responded to two Doc Ruby posts in one night... what are the odds...
So I'm not impressed by your "smell test". Usually the line of argument you follow relies on saying "but no one leaked". In this case, someone actually did leak, Sibel Edmonds. Who's been (unconstitutionally) gagged for years. To suppress false info? That doesn't pass the smell test.
So you are indeed implying that all of the people who are involved with "gagging" her are in on the conspiracy? By no means am I implying that government doesn't deserve scrutiny... but I do believe that when scrutiny become skepticism it is not productive (or is rather adverse). At what point to do you invoke Occam's razor and start considering an alternative hypothesis as more likely - that she got wind of something that is classified and misinterpreted it or worse, that she is simply lying. I find it easier to believe that one person is intentionally or unintentionally making false statements than to believe that there are dozens with hundreds if not thousands complicitly doing nothing.
conceded.
A couple things jump to mind... first, the CIA or FBI simply do not suppress investigations into other agencies due to intimidation or malice. Agencies do not "cover" for one another - in fact they probably relish this type of cross-agency investigation. Believe it or not, "the government" is not some giant monolithic entity - it is a patchwork of different organizations with different goals, motives and personalities. Second, the sheer magnitude of how many people would have to be "in on this" and complicit makes it (in my mind) just as ludicrous as Area 58 or 9-11 conspiracies.
So there are several possibilities:
- This story is fabricated and completely untrue.
- Someone did indeed sell US secrets (who may or may not have been an official) but that the cover-up part of the story is fiction.
- That someone did indeed sell US secrets and that this fact was withheld from the people (for some lawful purpose, e.g. ongoing investigation)
- That someone did indeed sell US secrets and that there was an illegal cover-up.
At this point, I haven't read enough facts to place it in any of these bins.You're right - this is much less a structural issue and has more to do with the complex aerothermodynamics going on inside the combustion chamber. What I am surprised no one has mentioned is how much this risk is mitigated by the fact that the first stage of the Ares I is simply a 5-segment version of the space shuttle's solid rocket boosters. This is exactly why you re-use technology when appropriate. In this case, we have a very good understanding of the performance and characteristics of this solid rocket motor (with over 200 launches of the 4-segment SRB).
Right... because who better to comment on the benefits of space exploration than people who actually know something about space. In your world I suppose we'd have botanists color commenting football games and musicians critiquing bridge and highway safety.
Uh...I don't think you understand how these systems work. The missile *does* lock onto the laser source - by design. The sensor package then drives the seeker guidance unit to a different trajectory until the aircraft is no longer in the field of view of the seeker (in the process bleeding most of its energy as well). It is kind of like dragging a bull around by the ring through its nose.
You're right...and since there has never been a full-fledged nuclear plant melt-down in this country, we really don't need any type of nuclear safety regulations either...
And while you are right that not a single passenger jet has been downed, sholder fired IR missiles have been used to attack cargo planes in Iraq and on at least one occasion an Israeli passenger aircraft in Africa.
Who said anything about DRM? I have hundreds if not thousands of songs from my personal collection ripped to wma. I'd consider buying a iPod if it could play them. I have no desire to play DRMed music on any music device, let alone an iPod. I would however enjoy having more format compatibility in the digital music world.... or am I mistaken and we are only to advocate format compatibility when MS is the bad guy?
That would be Aliso Viejo, CA.
Which version of the Geneva Convention have you read? I'm going to assume that you didn't really mean "war crime" but meant "crime at time of war" because clearly a "war crime" is a well-defined term that doesn't really fit the context of your argument.
Whether you're wearing a uniform or not.
Now, the GC never really define who are lawful combatants and who are unlawful combatants; they do however define who deserves treatment as a POW and who do not (in the 3rd Convention). The leap from protection classes to classes of combatant, while not explicit is pretty broadly accepted as detailed in the wikipedia entry for Unlawful Combatant:
Article 4.1.2 of GCIII clearly states that the following is required to get POW status:
Moreover, it explicitly excludes POW status from people who resist once the territory is occupied.
Article 4.1.6 extends POW status to:
Oh, and if the GC doesn't satisfy you - how about the Laws of War according to which "It is a violation of the laws of war to engage in combat without meeting certain requirements, among them the wearing of a distinctive uniform or other distinctive signs visible at a distance, and the carrying of weapons openly."
You go on to claim: "Imprisoning prisoners of war outside the theater is a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions."
Please cite your source on this. I have never heard anyone make this claim. By the way, the US held German prisoners during WW2 at POW camps in CONUS - was this a "war crime?"
And then again: "So is interrogating them."
Interrogating them (prisoners lawful or not) is not a crime. Police "interrogate" suspects every day in the country and it is perfectly legal. The military interrogates suspected militants overseas every day - again, perfectly legal. Unless by "interrogate" you meant "torture" and by "torture" you meant something harsher than the hazing I suff
Interesting... I had a near-identical experience with iTunes (on XP). It took me *three* installs to get it working. Install #1 resulted in a message telling me that the version was out of date and forced me to dl a new version. Install #2 finished but crashed my computer. Install #3 seemed to work fine, except the user interface looked nothing like what I was used to (Media Player) and took some getting used to (I imagine newcomers to Media Player feel the same way). My music selection was considerably larger than the 2GB Nano that I had bought so iTunes decided to randomly choose music from my collection to fill the device. I ended up taking the unit back and exchanged it for iriver - mostly because it seemed more durable and easier to use while running but somewhat because of the experience with iTunes.
Question: How many people didn't die because police had a "non-lethal" alternative when they otherwise would have had to use deadly force?
Because not only are they old... but they are expensive to maintain. Reducing Operations and Maintenance (O&M) costs were generally not a design driver in aviation in the 70's and 80's. As the cost of aircraft have increased, the military (and the people) expect these vehicles to have significant lifetimes. Over long vehicle service lifes, high O&M costs can crush your future budgets. Modern aircraft, while much more expensive to develop and procure, can actually *save* money in the long run by having a smaller maintenance and operations footprint. For example, the 787 and F-35 were designed to maintainable from the outset. The maintenance procedures were developed while the vehicles were still in the CAD phases with the simplicity of these procedures driving key elements of the design. This wasn't possible when the F-14/15/16/18 were developed.
Who says they are? They could be simply monitoring traffic patterns - which is perfectly legal.
Now that would be interesting... how exactly do you dole out the votes... who gets to cast the vote for the corporation and how many votes does a corporation get? Talk amongst yourselves...
I never suggested that they should have constitutional rights - just that they are affected by the political process as an entity (as opposed to indirectly through its employees) and therefore it makes sense that they should be allowed to participate in politics as an entity.
And their employees and shareholders already pay taxes so following your logic corporations shouldn't be taxed.
They are taxed 'separately' because otherwise, the people that made them up would use that as a loophole to pay no tax at all.
Please elaborate. How are the people who "make up" a corporation "not paying tax at all" if the corporation isn't paying tax?
why shouldn't they? They are taxed separately than the individuals they embody so shouldn't they be represented as well? Or do you believe in taxation without representation? They are part of the economy, they are taxed, they are regulated, they are subject to laws. How exactly are they different?
You (and everyone I have ever heard deny that the sun has anything to do with global warming) seem to assume that the only mechanism by which the sun can affect our climate is through its solar energy output. You (and everyone...) ignore the affects on our atmosphere due to solar weather. We know that our magnetosphere is shaped by the solar wind... solar wind is related to sunspot activity... how do you know that these effects on our magnetosphere (which have nothing to do with solar energy output) don't affect the Earth's albedo?