They may very well be true. They are also completely besides the point.
Weapons of Mass destruction was the original justification for going to war. And it's well documented how the administration was involved in forming the intelligence to support that opinion. It's also well documented just how *wrong* that 'intelligence' was. Hell our closest allies even flat out admit Bush was bent on military action before anything else. (Downing Street Memos...heard of them perhaps?)
Do you seriously think there are fewer terrorists in Iraq now than there were before we invaded?
If you issued a statement that "Susie went to McD's" after showing up in the investigation, saying, "Find me evidence that says Susie went to McD's" and then ignored any evidence that she went to TacoHell, and then started coming up with new reasons when all of your fabricated ones came up short...
Yes you lied.
Now imagine that good american soldierd DIED because of that lie...
I have no doubt that they are a fine upstanding group with honorable intentions.
Legally speaking though, if there isn't a designation the money can be used for just about anything. I used to work for a company that did non-profit fundraising software development. It's a pretty basic requirement to allow fund designation, that's all.
One thing that *most* charitable donations allow is designating which fund your money should go towards.
Looking at the donation page, there's no reference as to what your donation goes toward. That means The Planetary Society is completely free to collect your money and use it for anything, not you intended purpose.
Don't want to put a downer on a really great project but it would be nice if they let is specify *this* particular project, and not whatever they end up choosing later down the line...
Which method gets more copies of a movie into more hands....the physical distribution and selling on the street? or the transferring over the internet to 100s 1000s of people in a matter of hours?
I'd probably go with the latter...
On the other hand, there's nothing to pirate if the studios simply plug their own leaks...but then what incentive do they have to for that?;-)
The sensor is doing its job, it is letting the engineers know something is not working.
No it's not working. The tank is full and it's reading empty...hence the problem. So the sensor IS the problem, the situation it's reporting doesn't exist.
If you can't rely on your instruments, you're gambling with disaster
What you are saying is, if I have a door and the lock breaks, it is my fault if I get robbed because I did not change the lock?
Nice way to twist the arguement.
Except that if it was widely publicized that ABC, Inc locks had a fatal flaw in them, but there was a modification to make it secure. But you didn't and somebody exploited that flaw to steal stuff.
Yes you'd bear some responsibility since you're housing OTHER peoples data and not doing everything reasonable to protect that data...and applying patches is plenty reasonable.
Almost makes wonder if some sort of "drogue chute/atmosphere anchor" wouldn't be a decent idea. Let the drogue take the massive heat hit while the shuttle rides it out higher up then enters at a slower speed.
Of course the material strength needed in that probably rivals our wonderous space elevator fantasy..even without the heat issues;-)
Thanks for the info....definitely much appreciated
so I wrote Why SpaceShipOne Never Did, Never Will, And None Of Its Direct Descendants Ever Will, Orbit The Earth..
Great stuff, enjoyed reading it. I was watching Rutan on 60 Minutes this past week and his take on the dissapation of reentry heat seemed more plausible to me. (However this might also not *scale* well).
He slowed down more in the 'upper' portions of the atmosphere (that SS1 reached) rather than trying to slam back into it as the Shuttle has been described as doing - or as a purely ballistic Apollo capsule decsent.
Given the large speed differences you mentioned, any idea if Rutan's 'feathering' technique would be plausible?
(in his description the pilot really doesn't even need to do much onthe way down, SS1 was generally self correcting without human or computer help)
With this Administration you're damned likely to never get a second chance. They aren't exactly good at changing their minds even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
So pleasing Congress and Dubya is probably a decent idea at least to keep your options open.
Given the lack of scrutiny that seems to be applied to *any* patent submission...
reinstatement seems gauranteed to have more scrutiny...no?
Re:Then how is the production funded?
on
P2P and TV
·
· Score: 1
Exactly...my first thought was 'gee wonder how he'll feel when 1 person *buys* his boxed set, and the other 10,000 download it for free?'"
With all the lawsuits and shouting on both sides of the copyright issue, it's hard to see how things will shake out. But something's gotta give, that much is clear.
If 'free' OTA TV goes away, is the HBO/Showtime model the right one? pay for everything? or do we come up with a free, 'trailers' channel that people can watch when they want or not, that shows the 'hip new' shows that will be coming out?
The ride will certainly be intersting for the next few years;-)
The problem is that you can't look at Iraq in a nutshell, it affects just about every other issue we face.
As you said we have other problems to deal with and didn't need this one right now. But because of this overextension of ourselves, we aren't able to contain North Korea, we aren't able to contain Iran, we aren't able to do much of what we'd like globally because now everybody is against us.
Long term this is a bad thing, not removing Saddam, but doing it WITHOUT the world's support, WITHOUT provocation, and WITHOUT thinking enough about the consequences/aftermath, and will only hurt us more.
Can you really justify to the purple-fingered Iraqis that we never should have removed Saddam?
Can you justify to me why we're *not* currently enmasse in Sudan stopping what is clearly a genocide in progress?
Afghanistan had at least legitmate reasons for being attacked, but Iraq? no there are no legitmate reasons for the war we are currently in there. Are those purple fingered Iraqi's better off? time will tell but most likely yes. That does not JUSTIFY the invasion of a sovereign(sp?) nation that wasn't attacking anyone else at the time.
Well except if organized crime started first, you might have known about being hacked until well after serious damage had been done/info stolen and used.
So in the end yes the tools are developed, but the initial learning curve isn't as ridiculously steep as in your example.
Slashdot Mirror
um...'hundreds of times'?
We've barely eaked out ~110-115 with FIVE of the damn things. Hundreds implies at *least* 200, doesn't it?
and in British Parlance what does this actually mean?
"But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy"
seems to me that the facts were being 'determined/ascertained' around the policy of military action. Which is exactly the point and is relevant.
you don't determine facts and intelligence around a goal, you gather the facts and intelligence and then decide on policy.
At least you don't if you want people to believe you're telling them the truth.
They may very well be true. They are also completely besides the point.
Weapons of Mass destruction was the original justification for going to war. And it's well documented how the administration was involved in forming the intelligence to support that opinion. It's also well documented just how *wrong* that 'intelligence' was. Hell our closest allies even flat out admit Bush was bent on military action before anything else. (Downing Street Memos...heard of them perhaps?)
Do you seriously think there are fewer terrorists in Iraq now than there were before we invaded?
Iran supports terrorists...we aren't invading them...how come?
North Korea is arguably as much as or more of a threat than Saddam was under sanctions. But we don't invade them...how come?
Honor and Integrity is what Bush championed coming into office...I'm still waiting for any from him or his cronies...
Thank you...I think? lol
;-)
reminds me of that age old quote:
"Those who would seek office, are wholy unqualified to hold it"
Fortunately it's decidedly not something I seek
If you issued a statement that "Susie went to McD's" after showing up in the investigation, saying, "Find me evidence that says Susie went to McD's" and then ignored any evidence that she went to TacoHell, and then started coming up with new reasons when all of your fabricated ones came up short...
Yes you lied.
Now imagine that good american soldierd DIED because of that lie...
I have no doubt that they are a fine upstanding group with honorable intentions.
Legally speaking though, if there isn't a designation the money can be used for just about anything. I used to work for a company that did non-profit fundraising software development. It's a pretty basic requirement to allow fund designation, that's all.
speaking of 'profit'...
One thing that *most* charitable donations allow is designating which fund your money should go towards.
Looking at the donation page, there's no reference as to what your donation goes toward. That means The Planetary Society is completely free to collect your money and use it for anything, not you intended purpose.
Don't want to put a downer on a really great project but it would be nice if they let is specify *this* particular project, and not whatever they end up choosing later down the line...
to play devil's advocate...
;-)
Which method gets more copies of a movie into more hands....the physical distribution and selling on the street? or the transferring over the internet to 100s 1000s of people in a matter of hours?
I'd probably go with the latter...
On the other hand, there's nothing to pirate if the studios simply plug their own leaks...but then what incentive do they have to for that?
The sensor is doing its job, it is letting the engineers know something is not working.
No it's not working. The tank is full and it's reading empty...hence the problem. So the sensor IS the problem, the situation it's reporting doesn't exist.
If you can't rely on your instruments, you're gambling with disaster
Generally I don't agree with the users being liable arguement...given privacy policies dictate that there is a plan in place.
But looking at the SpreadFirefox site, it's not readily apparent they have even have one posted. Which given last weeks hullabaloo seems incredulous.
A fair arguement, but personally I'd rather have a site crash, than offer up my personal information...how about you?
It does make a grand catch-22 situation though.
What you are saying is, if I have a door and the lock breaks, it is my fault if I get robbed because I did not change the lock?
Nice way to twist the arguement.
Except that if it was widely publicized that ABC, Inc locks had a fatal flaw in them, but there was a modification to make it secure. But you didn't and somebody exploited that flaw to steal stuff.
Yes you'd bear some responsibility since you're housing OTHER peoples data and not doing everything reasonable to protect that data...and applying patches is plenty reasonable.
There is no plus side. there is only a down side
;-)
But is there a spoon?
Yeah, that sounds about right.
;-)
Almost makes wonder if some sort of "drogue chute/atmosphere anchor" wouldn't be a decent idea. Let the drogue take the massive heat hit while the shuttle rides it out higher up then enters at a slower speed.
Of course the material strength needed in that probably rivals our wonderous space elevator fantasy..even without the heat issues
Thanks for the info....definitely much appreciated
so I wrote Why SpaceShipOne Never Did, Never Will, And None Of Its Direct Descendants Ever Will, Orbit The Earth..
Great stuff, enjoyed reading it. I was watching Rutan on 60 Minutes this past week and his take on the dissapation of reentry heat seemed more plausible to me. (However this might also not *scale* well).
He slowed down more in the 'upper' portions of the atmosphere (that SS1 reached) rather than trying to slam back into it as the Shuttle has been described as doing - or as a purely ballistic Apollo capsule decsent.
Given the large speed differences you mentioned, any idea if Rutan's 'feathering' technique would be plausible?
(in his description the pilot really doesn't even need to do much onthe way down, SS1 was generally self correcting without human or computer help)
Point well taken, with one exception...
With this Administration you're damned likely to never get a second chance. They aren't exactly good at changing their minds even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
So pleasing Congress and Dubya is probably a decent idea at least to keep your options open.
Also up for sale...
...George Lucas's integrity
so they're accepting MicroPayments then?
Lessee....what will likely be a *more* conservative court will be the final say on these 'elections' you speak of.
It sounds nice and all, but since precedent has been set,
the one UNELECTED LIFETIME servering branch of the gov't now can decide the results of the 'free' elections.
Still feel nice n comfy there? I sure as hell don't...
Given the lack of scrutiny that seems to be applied to *any* patent submission...
reinstatement seems gauranteed to have more scrutiny...no?
Exactly...my first thought was 'gee wonder how he'll feel when 1 person *buys* his boxed set, and the other 10,000 download it for free?'"
;-)
With all the lawsuits and shouting on both sides of the copyright issue, it's hard to see how things will shake out. But something's gotta give, that much is clear.
If 'free' OTA TV goes away, is the HBO/Showtime model the right one? pay for everything? or do we come up with a free, 'trailers' channel that people can watch when they want or not, that shows the 'hip new' shows that will be coming out?
The ride will certainly be intersting for the next few years
very Machiavellian of you...
The problem is that you can't look at Iraq in a nutshell, it affects just about every other issue we face.
As you said we have other problems to deal with and didn't need this one right now. But because of this overextension of ourselves, we aren't able to contain North Korea, we aren't able to contain Iran, we aren't able to do much of what we'd like globally because now everybody is against us.
Long term this is a bad thing, not removing Saddam, but doing it WITHOUT the world's support, WITHOUT provocation, and WITHOUT thinking enough about the consequences/aftermath, and will only hurt us more.
Can you really justify to the purple-fingered Iraqis that we never should have removed Saddam?
Can you justify to me why we're *not* currently enmasse in Sudan stopping what is clearly a genocide in progress?
Afghanistan had at least legitmate reasons for being attacked, but Iraq? no there are no legitmate reasons for the war we are currently in there. Are those purple fingered Iraqi's better off? time will tell but most likely yes. That does not JUSTIFY the invasion of a sovereign(sp?) nation that wasn't attacking anyone else at the time.
in Soviet Russian...polar bears kill you!
err wait...
"Nothing to see here move along" who'd pay for nothing? oh wait....
Well except if organized crime started first, you might have known about being hacked until well after serious damage had been done/info stolen and used.
So in the end yes the tools are developed, but the initial learning curve isn't as ridiculously steep as in your example.