Wether it's legal to buy and sell organs (postmortem) have no relevance to this scenario.
Just remove the part where they tried to buy it from the scmuck, and you have the present situation. (Ie, if you're willing to kill someone for their organs, what's stopping you today?)
Well said. I was going to post something in the same vein, but you beat me to it.
I actually carry a card in my wallet that has something like this on it. (Use any organs, pay half my burial costs, pretty much) I don't think it's a legal contract or anything, but I hope whomever it is that gets a piece of me will be decent enough to heed it. Burials are pretty expensive, and I'm sure my family could use some help with those bills.
Also, it's actually possible to get linux into the country without violating any EULAs. Pretty much every piece of commercial software I've seen have that little bit about how you're not allowed to export it into any of the T7 countries or afghanistan. (some of them say "taliban controlled areas", so I guess those are OK)
They should of course change now, but many of them still contain afghanistan.
I agree that Rutan's approach is more likely to lead to a safe and commercially viable suborbital tourist vehicle. But Carmack's approach still has a fair chance to win the X-Prize first. Carmack is taking a lot of shortcuts that a more advanced design like Rutan's simply can't use.
I don't agree at all.
Now, I can certainly see both sides' arguments in the SSTO vs TSTO debate, but using two stages to go suborbital is definetly not the way to this (affordable consumer spaceflight) in the long run.
OTOH, it might (probably will, too) be the best way to win the prize. But as a long term solution, no.
In order to be really cheap it must be simple, and staging is just a bunch of extra hassle you don't need.
export, mutable and template templates in STL. removing export and the creeping horror that is mutable needs no further justification. Template templates are too complex for anyone to really use.
Well it has been used that way. I'm not sure about exactly B2 (which isn't even relevant anymore), but all the "Trusted" variants that I've seen had some kind of mandatory access control.
And it's not just Solaris, look up "Trusted Irix", "Trusted Xenix", and I'm sure there were others. "Trusted operating system" is used a lot for these kinds of OS. And this predates the current MS stuff by many years.
(Oh and not all versions of Trusted Solaris were actually certified either; I have a copy of tsol 7 and it was never certified against anything. 2.6 was TCSEC B-something and 8 is CC LSPP.)
Generating the data that comes out of urandom isn't cheap for the kernel. Try running top (or similar) while doing this, I bet you have a whole lot of system time.
Try saving the data to a file first, and then gzipping that.
The hybrids use nytrous-oxide as a propelant, with a solid catalist. THe solid not actualyl being propelant. The synergy of the nitrus + catalist makes it stronger, faster, etc..
It is propellant. The solid part is the fuel, and the nitrous oxide is the oxidizer. Now, it's true that N20 is a decent monopropellant as well, and these motors have been described as "fuel-assisted monopropellant rockets". The good thing about them is that both propellants are inert, and hence fairly unregulated.
But hybrids require infrastructure, which is expensive, and solids are clearly the way to enter the hobby. We really need Enzi's exemption to pass!
The hybrids are prefered for 2nd or 3rd stage int he realyl high power areana.
I wouldn't say so, hybrids are a PITA for second stages, because they need to be filled from somewhere. The only system that's half-way usable for that is probably the little-used Aerotech hybrids with their pre-filled tanks. And maybe micro-hybrids, but they don't really count...
There's those companies who were trying to get into space, but got killed in the regulatory/legal phase, and/or were actively lobbied against by NASA, for example. NASA does to this day charge a below-cost price (ie price-dumping, and by the government, no less!) for shuttle payloads, for example. That's not exactly making things easier for the competition is it?
Now, I'm not saying that all the various space ventures would have succededed, far from it, but the fact remains that NASA has killed some initiatives, seemingly to keep their monopoly, or because of institutional NIH, or something along those lines.
That means they spent some of their money (Taxpayer money!) on trying to keep others out of space. Civilian americans. And that's just plain wrong.
(Note that I'm talking (mostly at least) about pre-Goldin NASA here.)
The more energetic the redox reaction, the more energy you get from the same amount of fuel (higher specific impulse).
Also, you ger faily small (light) combustion products, which also helps Isp.
Even better than pure fluorine is the fabled super-oxidizer ClF5. It is more reactive than pure fluorine (since it's a liquid at sea level, more or less.), and much more dense, which means you need less tankage.
It's so reactive that it pretty much can't be stored in anything for a longer period of time, and it's hypergolic with all firefighting agents commonly in use (including sand).
It is very scary stuff, google for it to find some good stories.
The Gates brothers have been doing a lot of research type stuff, simply because many of their rockets are so big. A copule of examples off the top of my head:
They did a lot of beta testing and initial flights on head end igniters (I think BSR manufactured them, but I'm not sure) for aerotech/Dr Rocket motors.
They have done good things wrt recovery of really big rockets - check out their launch reports on their site (when it comes back up).
They were the first to fly DV cameras.
Three:
Why does that matter? It's their money, they get to do whatever they feel like with them. Again, what's your own status here? Do you have a hobby? How come you own a computer and use it to post to slashdot instead of "doing something useful"?
"*burning* money for no other reason than there own individualistic selfish satisfaction" is a pretty good definition of the word hobby. (Not that they're the only ones enjoying it, I was there at LDRS and saw their flights, and I had a really good time.)
I fly rockets too, though not at their level (I'm level 2, biggest rocket is 4" by about six feet, highest altitude about 4400 feet), and it certainly is an expensive hobby, but it's one that really drives you to do things you never thought you could. And there's a lot of undiscovered goodness in between what the HPR industry does and the "real space industry". These things actually will make a difference in making spaceflight affordable.
In a situation like that, I'm sure they would just ignore the treaty.
But anyway, it wouldn't really be a weapon if it was used in this application. google for project plowshare for a similar, but earth-based idea.
Another thing to google for is the Icarus project (at MIT, circa 1967), they made very detailed plans for how to divert an oncoming asteroid. The idea was to start up the Saturn V production again and send a series of rockets with nukes to nudge it out of the way.
I think the big thing that's missing from all the proposals is propulsion. They are all along the lines of "land on it, and then [whatever]". Well we can't even get there, anymore. Starting up the Saturn V production again would be pretty hard after all this time, and developing a new booster in that short time seems... difficult. The big deltas might work, but they can only lift so much, and anything that involves landing there is going to be pretty big.
The only problem with usenet is that the feeds are getting very large, and apparently some ISPs are talking of shutting them down.
Other than that, usenet is alive and well. It has to be, there's nothing that's even close to replacing it (except mailing lists, for some things).
Web forums? Please. I follow about 30 mailing lists and 10 news groups, if all of those would be sluggish web forums, all with different "cool" look and feel, authentication and functionality, just keeping up to date on those would take all day.
No, Band-aid engineering is to move to something else because it has less spam right now
guess what, the spammers will follow you to the new system, whatever that is.
And anyway, I don't think it's such a big deal to just delete the spam as it appears. I get maybe 30-50 spam a day across my accounts, which are well known (I post to usenet, they're on web pages etc). It takes me a minute max to delete them. It's hardly worth installing spamassassin for that, let alone switching to something else than email.
Especially when the alternative is vastly inferior, like the various IM schemes, that from what I've seen have zero advantages over email. It's a lot like usenet vs web forums. Web forums are so much worse to use than a proper usenet client that it's not even funny. I use only one (this one, and not that often), and loads of usenet group. Why? There's real clients for it! That are fast and easy to use! That let me use my editor instead of typing into a freaking text field on a web page! Killfiles! Scoring! All kinds of stuff like that.
Yet some people actually like web forums better than mailing lists and news groups. I just don't get it.
One example that immediately comes to mind is that "ps" listings can't show other users' processes. Many of the C2 requirements are kind of like that.
I can't see how that would be required for C2 (CAPP in the CC). The old B2 (Structured Protection) was the first level that required covert channel analysis. Granted, that's a pretty obvious covert channel, and you might see it as a kind of quasi-legitimate IPC. In that case the B1 (LSPP) level would require it to follow it's normal rules of compartments and levels.
C2 is about the same as CAPP/EAL4, except in the old TCSEC system instead of the new common criteria.
B1 systems have mandatory access control, and is a lot like the new LSPP profile in CC. B2 introduces covert channel control, which IMHO is overkill, mostly. (Not to mention practically unsolvable.)
Higher would be nice, of course, but I'd settle for an LSPP system with really good assurance!
If you're running local, most of that stuff doesn't happen. The protocol traffic happens thru a unix domain socket, which is a lot lighter than a TCP socket, and if you're doing things like "draw these pixels on the screen", look into using Xshm, that way you get to avoid the serialising as well. And then you're basically down to your second case there.
The original poster was right, if it seems slow, it's probably because your driver isn't as fast as it could be.
Actually, processes are alomost always more efficient than threads.
If you need threading for MP performance, multi-process are probably better for you. (unless the "thread"(s) are very short lived, so that the small startup cost actually matters.)
If you're on a small box (2-4 CPUs), processes have the advantage that since you're only sharing what you really need (since you explicitly need to share it, with shared memory or whatever) instead of everything but stack (more or less), the CPUs get stay out of each other's way a lot more. With threads they keep invalidating eachothers caches all the time, which is a kind of nonobvious and hard-to-profile performance problem.
If you're on a big box, chances are that it's actually a NUMA machine, and the problems with threading gets even worse on those (since you share much more than you need, many of the CPUs will use non-local memory a lot!)
If you're on a single CPU box, threading is almost guaranteed to be a loss versus just running single threaded. The one thing you can gain from it is not having to sleep on IO. Then again, multi-process will do this for you too.)
multi-process code is a lot more debuggable. You can run the separate processes by themselves, and verify their behavior, they will actually behave in mostly the same way in and out of the debugger, etc.
You can use non-threadsafe libraries, or different threading systems within the processes (which is a major PITA otherwise.).
It's harder to move a threaded program to a cluster than a multi-process one. (Since a cluster is mostly a NUMA box with really long access time to nonlocal memory.)
I just said I don't see why people need sniper rifles,
You said earlier that you had no problem with hunting rifles. Where do you draw the line between those and sniper rifles?
[...] and anti-tank-grade weapons.
I'm no expert, but I thought those were illegal for private use already in the USA?
And last time I checked, 100% of sniper victims are shot by snipers with sniper rifles.
Really? So either the people who got shot in DC lately were not shot by a sniper, or you consider that gun to be a sniper rifle? Again, what exactly do you consider to be a sniper weapon?
I'm sure they did build it for palladium. So?
That dosesn't mean others can't use it.
Think intel put memory protection into the 386 so that linux could use it?
Intel of course knows that there are other things than windows that runs on their hardware. If only MS can write (OS-level) code for this new hardware (if we assume it's even possible to prevent others, which it of course isnt.), Intel would lose a lot of customers, not to mention all the anti-trust and contractual trouble they'd be in.
Of course the rest of us will also be able to use this hardware! And we'll be able to do cool things with it.
Slashdot Mirror
Just remove the part where they tried to buy it from the scmuck, and you have the present situation. (Ie, if you're willing to kill someone for their organs, what's stopping you today?)
I actually carry a card in my wallet that has something like this on it. (Use any organs, pay half my burial costs, pretty much) I don't think it's a legal contract or anything, but I hope whomever it is that gets a piece of me will be decent enough to heed it. Burials are pretty expensive, and I'm sure my family could use some help with those bills.
They should of course change now, but many of them still contain afghanistan.
I don't agree at all.
Now, I can certainly see both sides' arguments in the SSTO vs TSTO debate, but using two stages to go suborbital is definetly not the way to this (affordable consumer spaceflight) in the long run.
OTOH, it might (probably will, too) be the best way to win the prize. But as a long term solution, no.
In order to be really cheap it must be simple, and staging is just a bunch of extra hassle you don't need.
Oh yeah, and kill const_cast too.
And it's not just Solaris, look up "Trusted Irix", "Trusted Xenix", and I'm sure there were others. "Trusted operating system" is used a lot for these kinds of OS. And this predates the current MS stuff by many years.
(Oh and not all versions of Trusted Solaris were actually certified either; I have a copy of tsol 7 and it was never certified against anything. 2.6 was TCSEC B-something and 8 is CC LSPP.)
/August, better get some coffe...
Try saving the data to a file first, and then gzipping that.
/August
It is propellant. The solid part is the fuel, and the nitrous oxide is the oxidizer. Now, it's true that N20 is a decent monopropellant as well, and these motors have been described as "fuel-assisted monopropellant rockets". The good thing about them is that both propellants are inert, and hence fairly unregulated.
But hybrids require infrastructure, which is expensive, and solids are clearly the way to enter the hobby. We really need Enzi's exemption to pass!
If you're in the US, call or fax your senator!
The hybrids are prefered for 2nd or 3rd stage int he realyl high power areana.
I wouldn't say so, hybrids are a PITA for second stages, because they need to be filled from somewhere. The only system that's half-way usable for that is probably the little-used Aerotech hybrids with their pre-filled tanks. And maybe micro-hybrids, but they don't really count...
There's more groups than that.
There's those companies who were trying to get into space, but got killed in the regulatory/legal phase, and/or were actively lobbied against by NASA, for example. NASA does to this day charge a below-cost price (ie price-dumping, and by the government, no less!) for shuttle payloads, for example. That's not exactly making things easier for the competition is it?
Now, I'm not saying that all the various space ventures would have succededed, far from it, but the fact remains that NASA has killed some initiatives, seemingly to keep their monopoly, or because of institutional NIH, or something along those lines.
That means they spent some of their money (Taxpayer money!) on trying to keep others out of space. Civilian americans. And that's just plain wrong.
(Note that I'm talking (mostly at least) about pre-Goldin NASA here.)
That's not ARSA, that's Tripoli (aka TRA) that co-suing the ATF with the NAR.
The aluminum normally gives you white smoke.
Also, you ger faily small (light) combustion products, which also helps Isp.
Even better than pure fluorine is the fabled super-oxidizer ClF5. It is more reactive than pure fluorine (since it's a liquid at sea level, more or less.), and much more dense, which means you need less tankage.
It's so reactive that it pretty much can't be stored in anything for a longer period of time, and it's hypergolic with all firefighting agents commonly in use (including sand).
It is very scary stuff, google for it to find some good stories.
Paratroopers can be shot at, but you can't shoot at someone in distress. (Like a pilot bailing out.)
(Same way with the sea; no shooting at folks who jumped into the water from their sinking ship, but you can shoot an attack diver.)
As a matter of fact, the EU puts a lot of effort into making sure that "illegal immigrants" don't make it in.
The US is plenty better than the EU in this respect, they have a real immigration policy, and accept way more people than we do.
One:
What are your qualifications in saying that?
Two:
The Gates brothers have been doing a lot of research type stuff, simply because many of their rockets are so big. A copule of examples off the top of my head:
Three:
Why does that matter? It's their money, they get to do whatever they feel like with them. Again, what's your own status here? Do you have a hobby? How come you own a computer and use it to post to slashdot instead of "doing something useful"?
"*burning* money for no other reason than there own individualistic selfish satisfaction" is a pretty good definition of the word hobby. (Not that they're the only ones enjoying it, I was there at LDRS and saw their flights, and I had a really good time.)
I fly rockets too, though not at their level (I'm level 2, biggest rocket is 4" by about six feet, highest altitude about 4400 feet), and it certainly is an expensive hobby, but it's one that really drives you to do things you never thought you could. And there's a lot of undiscovered goodness in between what the HPR industry does and the "real space industry". These things actually will make a difference in making spaceflight affordable.
But anyway, it wouldn't really be a weapon if it was used in this application. google for project plowshare for a similar, but earth-based idea.
Another thing to google for is the Icarus project (at MIT, circa 1967), they made very detailed plans for how to divert an oncoming asteroid. The idea was to start up the Saturn V production again and send a series of rockets with nukes to nudge it out of the way.
I think the big thing that's missing from all the proposals is propulsion. They are all along the lines of "land on it, and then [whatever]". Well we can't even get there, anymore. Starting up the Saturn V production again would be pretty hard after all this time, and developing a new booster in that short time seems... difficult. The big deltas might work, but they can only lift so much, and anything that involves landing there is going to be pretty big.
Other than that, usenet is alive and well. It has to be, there's nothing that's even close to replacing it (except mailing lists, for some things).
Web forums? Please. I follow about 30 mailing lists and 10 news groups, if all of those would be sluggish web forums, all with different "cool" look and feel, authentication and functionality, just keeping up to date on those would take all day.
guess what, the spammers will follow you to the new system, whatever that is.
And anyway, I don't think it's such a big deal to just delete the spam as it appears. I get maybe 30-50 spam a day across my accounts, which are well known (I post to usenet, they're on web pages etc). It takes me a minute max to delete them. It's hardly worth installing spamassassin for that, let alone switching to something else than email.
Especially when the alternative is vastly inferior, like the various IM schemes, that from what I've seen have zero advantages over email. It's a lot like usenet vs web forums. Web forums are so much worse to use than a proper usenet client that it's not even funny. I use only one (this one, and not that often), and loads of usenet group. Why? There's real clients for it! That are fast and easy to use! That let me use my editor instead of typing into a freaking text field on a web page! Killfiles! Scoring! All kinds of stuff like that.
Yet some people actually like web forums better than mailing lists and news groups. I just don't get it.
I can't see how that would be required for C2 (CAPP in the CC). The old B2 (Structured Protection) was the first level that required covert channel analysis. Granted, that's a pretty obvious covert channel, and you might see it as a kind of quasi-legitimate IPC. In that case the B1 (LSPP) level would require it to follow it's normal rules of compartments and levels.
B1 systems have mandatory access control, and is a lot like the new LSPP profile in CC. B2 introduces covert channel control, which IMHO is overkill, mostly. (Not to mention practically unsolvable.)
Higher would be nice, of course, but I'd settle for an LSPP system with really good assurance!
The original poster was right, if it seems slow, it's probably because your driver isn't as fast as it could be.
You said earlier that you had no problem with hunting rifles. Where do you draw the line between those and sniper rifles?
[...] and anti-tank-grade weapons.
I'm no expert, but I thought those were illegal for private use already in the USA?
And last time I checked, 100% of sniper victims are shot by snipers with sniper rifles.
Really? So either the people who got shot in DC lately were not shot by a sniper, or you consider that gun to be a sniper rifle? Again, what exactly do you consider to be a sniper weapon?
Think intel put memory protection into the 386 so that linux could use it?
Intel of course knows that there are other things than windows that runs on their hardware. If only MS can write (OS-level) code for this new hardware (if we assume it's even possible to prevent others, which it of course isnt.), Intel would lose a lot of customers, not to mention all the anti-trust and contractual trouble they'd be in.
Of course the rest of us will also be able to use this hardware! And we'll be able to do cool things with it.