Despite its deep pockets I think Mircosoft's efforts will be in vain.
Computers with HD DVD or Blu-Ray will be slow in being adopted compared to stand alone players for HDTV sets.
Consumers will not compare HD-DVD and Blu-Ray on whether they are compatible with some future computer purchase,
only on stand-alone player price, availability of new release movies, and blank media price.
HD-DVD manufactures will have a tough time getting below the $400-$500 entry window that the the PS3 probably represents.
Microsoft probably would like to see DRM issues delay Blu-Ray beyond the expected release date for the PS3 to further delay the PS3 as well and entrench the X-Box 360. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander however; any DRM issues will likely further delay HD-DVD as well. The PS3 will be poised for instance release once DRM is worked out to reap the reward of pent up demand for physical HDTV distribution media.
Having been to mainland China recently I beginning to think they have things right in their economic model which is basically capitalism for things that are, well, capital. And communism for all things that are IP. With 25 years of 10% growth they are doing something right. So much so I felt compelled to write an essay on this only two days back (you can never go wrong pre writing stuff on IP or P2P for Slashdot).
Actually I'm not so sure this is true. There may be monetary or manufacture commitments we don't know about tied to these announcements.
Regardless, a promise to HD-DVD is less valuable than a promise to Blu-Ray from content providers because there will be Sony Playstation-3s in the tens of millions whose owners will not be happy if the studios renege on releasing movies. Reneging to HD-DVD isn't reneging to a built in rabid fan base, plus given the delay to 2006 for HD-DVD this camp is already seen on breaking promises to any potential customers already. At this point it would take some incredible turn of events for HD-DVD to get back in it. Everything from here on is sour grapes, maneuvering for concessions, or possibly hanging on long enough to get bought out and recoup some losses.
Capitalism is always about a balance or compromise between price and quality. Sony could probably have come out with a format that stores double what it does but at 10x times the cost, in which case HD-DVD would be the clear winner. I demand quality as a consumer, but not at any cost. This is the beauty of capitalism, we the consumers get the quality we want (demand) at the price point we are willing to pay.
HP is just trying to strong-arm some more concessions out of Sony on Blu-Ray features like managed copy. With 90% support from movie studios and HD-DVD delayed until 2006 the battle is already over. Even Microsoft has quit making noise about a possible HD-DVD X-Box 360. As far as low cost manufacture of discs, Blu-Ray can win there too with mpeg-4 on conventional DVD-9 for low bar entry into HD production -- can you aay porn? I know you could.
Maybe 4 smaller nixie tubes, but this first hours then minutes then seconds display on two digits looks more like a bad high school science project than a must have geek item.
OK I agree that a majority of people don't get how to use HDTV correctly or assume an enhanced SD experience is HDTV. It doesn't help when high end TV store suppliers do things like install a progressive scan DVD to an HDTV with the S-VHS connection instead of a true component cable, then either lie to the customer or are just too stupid to know they haven't got the job done right. I have had to correct this situation for friends more than once. There is a big improvement over the old picture and they just accept the new thing as the real thing without question. If you've never seen better, how would you know? Which also brings up all the Department stores showing upconverted SD on HD monitors and palming it off as HD, further dumbing down the masses as to what quality is. Hopefully when Blu-Ray arrives this will quickly turn around, as they will have to show off a good source on a good monitor to sell the Blu-Ray players themselves.
For bars showing SD in the wrong aspect ratio there actually is a some logic here -- most patrons will not be seeing the screen face on, so more people will actually see something closer to the intended aspect ratio. Also with more screen area used more detail will be seen from a distance even if the aspect ratio is wrong, enabling being able to read the actual scores for instance. For bars and other venues this can be a smart move so I don't get my panties in a bunch over this.
So when all the virus protection software is updated to rip out Sony's DRM software as malware will Sony sue them for removing its "legitimate" software? This thing seems to be quickly descending into comedy.
The other day I came across a post by Info2Beer that I can only interpret as advocating violence against ACLU lawyers or at least intimidating them and make them feel unsafe in their own homes. The logger was proud to post a link to a locator service that would give the street address to the nearest ACLU lawyer involved in any rape defense trials. When I replied that I thought he was over the line and was in essence advocating violence he didn't clarify that we wasn't, instead he went on to deride me as an ACLU sympathizer and a person of immoral character lending support in the attack against family values.
Obviously the locator service is even more to blame in endangering ACLU lawyers. Its purpose is not to find an ACLU representative (which is better done through the ACLU directly) but to make them feel unsafe in their homes.
My criticism of Info4Beer was disagreed with 2 to 1 by people of like mind to his.
Here is a link to a copy of our flame war (scroll down to the redneck picture)
My point is it isn't only overt calls to violence that must be dealt with, but oblique ones as well.
I'm all for free speech, but posting people's addresses and labeling them as targets also steps way over the line in my opinion.
I'm am not well qualified to make a judgment on what is going on in France, but we have sites in America also calling for violence in various ways and they too should be
shut down. The last time I looked the definition of Assault (which many confuse with Battery) is a threat to do violence. Assault is most definitely against the law. Shutting down blogs advocating violence is not censorship, it is persecution of assault.
The other day I came across a post by Info2Beer that I can only interpret as advocating violence against ACLU lawyers or at least intimidating them and make them feel unsafe in their own homes. The logger was proud to post a link to a locator service that would give the street address to the nearest ACLU lawyer involved in any rape defense trials. When I replied that I thought he was over the line and was in essence advocating violence he didn't clarify that we wasn't, instead he went on to deride me as an ACLU sympathizer and a person of immoral character lending support in the attack against family values.
Obviously the locator service is even more to blame in endangering ACLU lawyers. Its purpose is not to find an ACLU representative (which is better done through the ACLU directly) but to make them feel unsafe in their homes.
My criticism of Info4Beer was disagreed with 2 to 1 by people of like mind to his.
Here is a link to a copy of our flame war (scroll down to the redneck picture)
My point is it isn't only overt calls to violence that must be dealt with, but oblique ones as well.
I'm all for free speech, but posting people's address and labeling them as targets also steps way over the line in my opinion.
I'm am not well qualified to make a judgment on what is going on in France, but we have sites in America also calling for violence in various ways and they too should be
shut down. The last time I looked the definition of Assault (which many confuse with Battery) is a threat to do violence. Assault is most definitely against the law. Shutting down blogs advocating violence is not censorship, it is persecution of assault.
Smokers have an 8 times greater chance of developing Lung Cancer than non-smokers. I am a non-smoker and may have lung cancer. I will find out for sure December 5th when they stick a camera inside me. If they don't find cancer they sow me back up, if they do they take two thirds of my right lung.
Anyway my point is, if smoking these cigarettes decreases your odds of getting cancer over a regular smoker by 9 to 10 times wouldn't that make their smoker's risk of cancer less than a non-smoker? A little hard to believe. I don't expect to take up smoking for the health benefits anytime soon.
I will keep udating "Bare Naked Larry" with news about my evolving health condition. At least it hasn't derailed my upcoming marriage to Nian as it had threatened to.
I submitted to AskSlashdot a piece on what I saw as the future ability of police to use this type of extrapolation to DNA finger people who aren't actually in a DNA database directly and the privacy rights implications. . The rejected submission is in my February journal entry: "DNA Incrimination by Extrapolation"
This reminds me of an article I read in a newspaper called "The Worker" which I picked up on campus to read about 15 years ago. Only a few sentences in I realized it was a pro-communist publication, still I read on with amused curiosity.In the main article they commented on how Columbian drug lords with little schooling had adopted a sophisticated capitalist system for the exchange of goods and services. Conclusion: since Columbian drug lords use capitalism and since drug lords are evil then capitalism is evil.
My conclusion at the time: people with little schooling, when faced with how to allocate resources in a trade system with others, reinvent capitalism, thus capitalism is a natural form of economic exchange. It may not be the fairest, but it is a tool that can be rediscovered like the wheel or fire. Whether it is evil is a completely separate issue as to whether someone evil uses it or whether other systems are better or fair.
We assume shoplifting is evil (and even this could be argued is only a societal convention that makes economic exchange easier for fair players) so anything a shoplifter does outside of shoplifting in disproportionate amount to the rest of society is evil. Granted it makes the same like-like mistake that many appeals to emotion do when trying to win an argument. Trouble is this kind of argument tends to be very effective with the general public.
Society has gotten used to receiving information/entertainment for free for years. In the past storage and exchange were hard and the business model of advertising fit well. Even the content we paid for could be freely exchanged/traded/given away with no problems. Your local library likely carries hundreds of DVD movies as well as the normal repository of books.
Electronic exchange merely makes easier that which in the past was essentially legal. The trouble is when I trade a DVD there is only copy of course. When I rip the DVD and put it on the internet then I am violating copyright. Now if everyone agreed not do that, the RIAA would have no problem, but it is just too tempting a case of having your cake and eating it too. It can be rationalize to some extent that an electronic copying isn't stealing because it cost the manufacturer and distributor no money to replace the media that was pilfered -- the only thing lost is potential sales. Of course if everyone copied, it would be silly to say that there is no cost to the content provider. Of course it is equally ridiculous to count every copy as an actual theft since not every copy would have a one to one effect on sales.
The solution being avoided by all content providers is the migration to a new business model. While I would like to see this migration occur I can understand why the industry is reluctant, that is the "industry" as a marketing and distribution engine would largely disappear and their jobs and profits with it. Online content could be sponsored by paying individuals or supported by ads. By trying to charge everyone for online content you will only keep the same motivations for copying. Now it may be true that free content won't have the revenue stream to support the production of $100+ million dollar movies. So what? Suddenly there is impetus is to make content the public will watch but on much smaller budgets - fewer car crashes, fewer explosions, smaller top star salaries, but there will still be movies. I doubt that quality overall would go down, but if it did, so what? Watch the classics. The money people spend on entertainment could be spent vastly better in other areas. It has never been the entertainment industry's credo to bring us a better product at a lower price. This rapacious appetite for continually expanding profits in the entertainment industry is a driving force behind the explosion of online sharing.
You might argue the Bittorent copy of your Must-See-TV has no commercials in it, so how could an advertising model work? It has no ads because there is no direct high quality original f
At what point does the RIAA become so seemingly repugnant by trying to sue 13 year old girls, that the very piracy they were trying to discourage becomes a common form of political dissent and protest?
McCoy: Dear Lord. You think we're intelligent enough to... suppose... what if this thing were used where legal files already exists?
Spock: It would destroy such files in favor of its new matrix.
McCoy: "Its new matrix"? Do you have any idea what you're saying?
Spock: I was not attempting to evaluate its moral implications, Doctor. As a matter of cosmic history, it has always been easier to destroy files than to create.
McCoy: Not anymore; now we can do both at the same time.
Spock: Really, Dr. McCoy. You must learn to govern your passions; they will be your undoing. Logic suggests...
McCoy: Logic? My God, the man's talking about logic; we're talking about universal armageddon.
I see lots of film flops coming our way in the next seven years. These are not the A-list characters from Marvel's holdings -- the more interesting characters have been licensed by Hollywood already. I've noticed a huge void on TV however, there are no ongoing Super-Hero shows I'm aware of. Marvel should start small and syndicate two or three shows that feature lots of the B-list heroes. Then take the characters that capture public imagination to the big screen or give them their own ongoing show.
My prediction: Marvel to go back into bankruptcy ago soon when they find out how hard it really is to make a hit movie with any kind of consistency.
You appear to be the only person in this universe to hvae read it that way, but several thousand people in a parallel universe where the only difference from this one is that the universe is known as the "interverse" made this mistake.
...If we are not prepared to take bold, calculated risks, this brings hazards of its own. For example, the detachment of a lump of insulation foam that imperilled Discovery's latest mission has been connected to the fact that NASA has changed its foam formula, in order to comply with environmental guidelines. Under pressure from the Environmental Protection Agency, NASA reduced the use of the refrigerant freon because of its role in ozone depletion - even though the replacement foam formula is known to be less effective at adhering to fuel tanks. Of the four large pieces of foam shed by Discovery, at least two were applied using the new formula (5).
If I'm misinformed, I'm not alone. Regardless of which exactly which formulas were used on which flights, we know that there are better formulas and we choose not to use them despite knowing how critical this is to a safe mission. Your facts have the stench of butt-covering and obviscation trying to deflect from the core fact that freon based foams should have been used when it was known they had suppior characteristics.
It was the switch to foam that isn't manufactured with freon in 1999 that led to the Columbia tragedy.
NASA knew that the new foam shed more than the old foam but ignored the problem.
So what the hell have they been doing for the last 2 1/2 years?
They're still using the non-freon based foam for environmental reasons even though they have an EPA exclusion to use freon. They should have just gone back to the old foam formula and been back up to flight status in 6 to 12 months. As it is they essentially did nothing to improve the problem in 2 1/2 years because for some reason I can't fathom they won't go back the formula they know works, but instead slap on a bunch of other remediation fixes that didn't work.
Seriously someone should loose their job over this, someone high up that should have known to go back to the old formula which they've know since 1999 worked better.
Am I missing something? It would seem like a no brainer to go back to the freon formula. Especially since they fleet is on the fast track to be retired anyway -- then no more freon anyway.
"...the fact that meat-heavy diets are held up as unhealthy overall"
And conversely meat-moderate or meat-light diets can be extremely healthy, healthier in fact than an all vegetarian diet which can be extremely dangerous from the stand point of getting enough essential B vitamins and other essential nutrients that are in higher abundance in meat. If you have to KNOW a great deal about how to avoid getting sick on an all vegetarian diet (and you do) then your body was probably not optimized from a evolutionary standpoint for a completely vegetarian diet.
Why do people jump from too-much-meat-is-bad to so-no-meat-must-be-better? You can consume too much fluid or water and possibly die (messes up your electrolyte balance). Applying this logic, consuming no-fluids or water should be healthier.
As for the yuck factor of vat grown food, it's just that your not use to it. Visiting a slaughterhouse would have a higher yuck factor to most in my opinion. There is probably also some quasi-religious reasoning going on in your head about the food lacking a soul, or being grown against the wishes of God or some other such superstitious nonsense. Other posters are assuming the artificial meat will have to taste bad - and that's all it is - an assumption. If it tastes like meat, even if slightly different than natural meat, it will be adopted quickly. Initially some will stay off the bandwagon, but eventually the majority of meat will be grown this way if it makes sense economically.
My prediction: people 100 years from now will only eat vat-grown meat. They will assume they have greater moral character than the barbarians that use to kill for their meat. They would never dream of eating something not grown in a vat, not just because you had to kill it, but because they would assume vat grown meat is cleaner, healthier and disease free. They would also assume non vat grown would taste awful, and the only reason people ate it was lack of choice. Vat grown meat will come in hundreds of varieties constantly being modified to create new tastes the public will enjoy. The traditional Beef, Pork, Chicken flavors will be tinkered with too, the various corporations always trying to have the best Beef, Pork, or Chicken flavor. 4 out of 5 people agree New Coke Vat Beef tastes better than Pepsi Vat Beef.
If people had a natural aversion to artificiality then most products would disappear from the store shelves. They only have a temporary aversion when these kinds of things are first introduced, and then at some tipping point they are accepted without a second thought.
BTW can I be the first to trademark Veef, Vork, and Vicken?
I have seen a couple of posts recommending souvenir sale or recycling in orbit of the trash. I would propose bagging it up and storing it against some side of the ISS as added shielding during solar flair events. There is also some hope of some means of recycling some of it in the future, and there it will be for the picking -- sort of an extreme form of Dumpster diving.
There are plans to recycle urine, but we haven't been doing this up to date. Solid human waste matter is definitely not recycled, and while a few people might bid for this on Ebay.com I would think it more valuable for future agricultural use in space if we ever get that far with the ISS. No doubt some medical researchers will pore over the fecal matter, but I still think it would be better used as potential fertilizer. Granted there is a fuel cost to keeping the extra weight in space, but if the weight is negligible compared to the ISS why bother returning it? If the weight is not negligible then it would probably make and excellent adjunct to shielding the solar storm shelter portion of the ISS.
Slashdot Mirror
Computers with HD DVD or Blu-Ray will be slow in being adopted compared to stand alone players for HDTV sets.
Consumers will not compare HD-DVD and Blu-Ray on whether they are compatible with some future computer purchase, only on stand-alone player price, availability of new release movies, and blank media price.
HD-DVD manufactures will have a tough time getting below the $400-$500 entry window that the the PS3 probably represents.
Microsoft probably would like to see DRM issues delay Blu-Ray beyond the expected release date for the PS3 to further delay the PS3 as well and entrench the X-Box 360. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander however; any DRM issues will likely further delay HD-DVD as well. The PS3 will be poised for instance release once DRM is worked out to reap the reward of pent up demand for physical HDTV distribution media.
Follow
Overhauling Intellectual Property Laws --or-- Balancing Capitalism and Communism
for my economic opus and ode to media bashing.
Regardless, a promise to HD-DVD is less valuable than a promise to Blu-Ray from content providers because there will be Sony Playstation-3s in the tens of millions whose owners will not be happy if the studios renege on releasing movies. Reneging to HD-DVD isn't reneging to a built in rabid fan base, plus given the delay to 2006 for HD-DVD this camp is already seen on breaking promises to any potential customers already. At this point it would take some incredible turn of events for HD-DVD to get back in it. Everything from here on is sour grapes, maneuvering for concessions, or possibly hanging on long enough to get bought out and recoup some losses.
Capitalism is always about a balance or compromise between price and quality. Sony could probably have come out with a format that stores double what it does but at 10x times the cost, in which case HD-DVD would be the clear winner. I demand quality as a consumer, but not at any cost. This is the beauty of capitalism, we the consumers get the quality we want (demand) at the price point we are willing to pay.
HP is just trying to strong-arm some more concessions out of Sony on Blu-Ray features like managed copy. With 90% support from movie studios and HD-DVD delayed until 2006 the battle is already over. Even Microsoft has quit making noise about a possible HD-DVD X-Box 360. As far as low cost manufacture of discs, Blu-Ray can win there too with mpeg-4 on conventional DVD-9 for low bar entry into HD production -- can you aay porn? I know you could.
Maybe 4 smaller nixie tubes, but this first hours then minutes then seconds display on two digits looks more like a bad high school science project than a must have geek item.
When I see "Cell Phone Tracking" I can't help but think of Elmer Fud saying, "Be wery wery quite. I'm tracking cell phones. He, he, he"
For bars showing SD in the wrong aspect ratio there actually is a some logic here -- most patrons will not be seeing the screen face on, so more people will actually see something closer to the intended aspect ratio. Also with more screen area used more detail will be seen from a distance even if the aspect ratio is wrong, enabling being able to read the actual scores for instance. For bars and other venues this can be a smart move so I don't get my panties in a bunch over this.
So when all the virus protection software is updated to rip out Sony's DRM software as malware will Sony sue them for removing its "legitimate" software? This thing seems to be quickly descending into comedy.
Obviously the locator service is even more to blame in endangering ACLU lawyers. Its purpose is not to find an ACLU representative (which is better done through the ACLU directly) but to make them feel unsafe in their homes.
My criticism of Info4Beer was disagreed with 2 to 1 by people of like mind to his.
Here is a link to a copy of our flame war (scroll down to the redneck picture)
My point is it isn't only overt calls to violence that must be dealt with, but oblique ones as well. I'm all for free speech, but posting people's addresses and labeling them as targets also steps way over the line in my opinion. I'm am not well qualified to make a judgment on what is going on in France, but we have sites in America also calling for violence in various ways and they too should be shut down. The last time I looked the definition of Assault (which many confuse with Battery) is a threat to do violence. Assault is most definitely against the law. Shutting down blogs advocating violence is not censorship, it is persecution of assault.
Obviously the locator service is even more to blame in endangering ACLU lawyers. Its purpose is not to find an ACLU representative (which is better done through the ACLU directly) but to make them feel unsafe in their homes.
My criticism of Info4Beer was disagreed with 2 to 1 by people of like mind to his.
Here is a link to a copy of our flame war (scroll down to the redneck picture)
My point is it isn't only overt calls to violence that must be dealt with, but oblique ones as well. I'm all for free speech, but posting people's address and labeling them as targets also steps way over the line in my opinion. I'm am not well qualified to make a judgment on what is going on in France, but we have sites in America also calling for violence in various ways and they too should be shut down. The last time I looked the definition of Assault (which many confuse with Battery) is a threat to do violence. Assault is most definitely against the law. Shutting down blogs advocating violence is not censorship, it is persecution of assault.
Anyway my point is, if smoking these cigarettes decreases your odds of getting cancer over a regular smoker by 9 to 10 times wouldn't that make their smoker's risk of cancer less than a non-smoker? A little hard to believe. I don't expect to take up smoking for the health benefits anytime soon.
I will keep udating "Bare Naked Larry" with news about my evolving health condition. At least it hasn't derailed my upcoming marriage to Nian as it had threatened to.
Yeah, gotta agree. Seems more like the Medal of People's Choice.
Maybe there should be a whole awards show for something like this.
I submitted to AskSlashdot a piece on what I saw as the future ability of police to use this type of extrapolation to DNA finger people who aren't actually in a DNA database directly and the privacy rights implications. . The rejected submission is in my February journal entry: "DNA Incrimination by Extrapolation"
My conclusion at the time: people with little schooling, when faced with how to allocate resources in a trade system with others, reinvent capitalism, thus capitalism is a natural form of economic exchange. It may not be the fairest, but it is a tool that can be rediscovered like the wheel or fire. Whether it is evil is a completely separate issue as to whether someone evil uses it or whether other systems are better or fair.
We assume shoplifting is evil (and even this could be argued is only a societal convention that makes economic exchange easier for fair players) so anything a shoplifter does outside of shoplifting in disproportionate amount to the rest of society is evil. Granted it makes the same like-like mistake that many appeals to emotion do when trying to win an argument. Trouble is this kind of argument tends to be very effective with the general public.
Society has gotten used to receiving information/entertainment for free for years. In the past storage and exchange were hard and the business model of advertising fit well. Even the content we paid for could be freely exchanged/traded/given away with no problems. Your local library likely carries hundreds of DVD movies as well as the normal repository of books.
Electronic exchange merely makes easier that which in the past was essentially legal. The trouble is when I trade a DVD there is only copy of course. When I rip the DVD and put it on the internet then I am violating copyright. Now if everyone agreed not do that, the RIAA would have no problem, but it is just too tempting a case of having your cake and eating it too. It can be rationalize to some extent that an electronic copying isn't stealing because it cost the manufacturer and distributor no money to replace the media that was pilfered -- the only thing lost is potential sales. Of course if everyone copied, it would be silly to say that there is no cost to the content provider. Of course it is equally ridiculous to count every copy as an actual theft since not every copy would have a one to one effect on sales.
The solution being avoided by all content providers is the migration to a new business model. While I would like to see this migration occur I can understand why the industry is reluctant, that is the "industry" as a marketing and distribution engine would largely disappear and their jobs and profits with it. Online content could be sponsored by paying individuals or supported by ads. By trying to charge everyone for online content you will only keep the same motivations for copying. Now it may be true that free content won't have the revenue stream to support the production of $100+ million dollar movies. So what? Suddenly there is impetus is to make content the public will watch but on much smaller budgets - fewer car crashes, fewer explosions, smaller top star salaries, but there will still be movies. I doubt that quality overall would go down, but if it did, so what? Watch the classics. The money people spend on entertainment could be spent vastly better in other areas. It has never been the entertainment industry's credo to bring us a better product at a lower price. This rapacious appetite for continually expanding profits in the entertainment industry is a driving force behind the explosion of online sharing.
You might argue the Bittorent copy of your Must-See-TV has no commercials in it, so how could an advertising model work? It has no ads because there is no direct high quality original f
I read it as: A Fanless Graphic Card for the Anus Yes, you don't want a lot of spinning when it's in there.
At what point does the RIAA become so seemingly repugnant by trying to sue 13 year old girls, that the very piracy they were trying to discourage becomes a common form of political dissent and protest?
Spock: It would destroy such files in favor of its new matrix.
McCoy: "Its new matrix"? Do you have any idea what you're saying?
Spock: I was not attempting to evaluate its moral implications, Doctor. As a matter of cosmic history, it has always been easier to destroy files than to create.
McCoy: Not anymore; now we can do both at the same time.
Spock: Really, Dr. McCoy. You must learn to govern your passions; they will be your undoing. Logic suggests...
McCoy: Logic? My God, the man's talking about logic; we're talking about universal armageddon.
My prediction: Marvel to go back into bankruptcy ago soon when they find out how hard it really is to make a hit movie with any kind of consistency.
You appear to be the only person in this universe to hvae read it that way, but several thousand people in a parallel universe where the only difference from this one is that the universe is known as the "interverse" made this mistake.
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=freon+s huttle+foam+nasa&btnG=Search+News
From the first site returned (and similar to several others)9 .htm
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CAD0
If I'm misinformed, I'm not alone. Regardless of which exactly which formulas were used on which flights, we know that there are better formulas and we choose not to use them despite knowing how critical this is to a safe mission. Your facts have the stench of butt-covering and obviscation trying to deflect from the core fact that freon based foams should have been used when it was known they had suppior characteristics.
So what the hell have they been doing for the last 2 1/2 years? They're still using the non-freon based foam for environmental reasons even though they have an EPA exclusion to use freon. They should have just gone back to the old foam formula and been back up to flight status in 6 to 12 months. As it is they essentially did nothing to improve the problem in 2 1/2 years because for some reason I can't fathom they won't go back the formula they know works, but instead slap on a bunch of other remediation fixes that didn't work.
Seriously someone should loose their job over this, someone high up that should have known to go back to the old formula which they've know since 1999 worked better.
Am I missing something? It would seem like a no brainer to go back to the freon formula. Especially since they fleet is on the fast track to be retired anyway -- then no more freon anyway.
And conversely meat-moderate or meat-light diets can be extremely healthy, healthier in fact than an all vegetarian diet which can be extremely dangerous from the stand point of getting enough essential B vitamins and other essential nutrients that are in higher abundance in meat. If you have to KNOW a great deal about how to avoid getting sick on an all vegetarian diet (and you do) then your body was probably not optimized from a evolutionary standpoint for a completely vegetarian diet.
Why do people jump from too-much-meat-is-bad to so-no-meat-must-be-better? You can consume too much fluid or water and possibly die (messes up your electrolyte balance). Applying this logic, consuming no-fluids or water should be healthier.
As for the yuck factor of vat grown food, it's just that your not use to it. Visiting a slaughterhouse would have a higher yuck factor to most in my opinion. There is probably also some quasi-religious reasoning going on in your head about the food lacking a soul, or being grown against the wishes of God or some other such superstitious nonsense. Other posters are assuming the artificial meat will have to taste bad - and that's all it is - an assumption. If it tastes like meat, even if slightly different than natural meat, it will be adopted quickly. Initially some will stay off the bandwagon, but eventually the majority of meat will be grown this way if it makes sense economically.
My prediction: people 100 years from now will only eat vat-grown meat. They will assume they have greater moral character than the barbarians that use to kill for their meat. They would never dream of eating something not grown in a vat, not just because you had to kill it, but because they would assume vat grown meat is cleaner, healthier and disease free. They would also assume non vat grown would taste awful, and the only reason people ate it was lack of choice. Vat grown meat will come in hundreds of varieties constantly being modified to create new tastes the public will enjoy. The traditional Beef, Pork, Chicken flavors will be tinkered with too, the various corporations always trying to have the best Beef, Pork, or Chicken flavor. 4 out of 5 people agree New Coke Vat Beef tastes better than Pepsi Vat Beef.
If people had a natural aversion to artificiality then most products would disappear from the store shelves. They only have a temporary aversion when these kinds of things are first introduced, and then at some tipping point they are accepted without a second thought.
BTW can I be the first to trademark Veef, Vork, and Vicken?
No I'm not new here, sigh....
P.S. wickedly Funny though.
There are plans to recycle urine, but we haven't been doing this up to date. Solid human waste matter is definitely not recycled, and while a few people might bid for this on Ebay.com I would think it more valuable for future agricultural use in space if we ever get that far with the ISS. No doubt some medical researchers will pore over the fecal matter, but I still think it would be better used as potential fertilizer. Granted there is a fuel cost to keeping the extra weight in space, but if the weight is negligible compared to the ISS why bother returning it? If the weight is not negligible then it would probably make and excellent adjunct to shielding the solar storm shelter portion of the ISS.