Re:Already in Wired
on
Robot Wars
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
> Sounds cool to me, but do we really have a problem with US soldiers life loss when we go in to fight a country?
I dunno. Ask a soldier.
If, 30 seconds later, your ass hasn't been kicked, thank him for his restraint.:-)
> I guess the little suckers could go where men could not and do things that men would not...
Yes - that's precisely the idea. Robots are a force multiplier - you can send them on high-risk missions that you wouldn't want to risk a man for.
In that sense, the use of robots in war isn't much different from robots in space exploration. There are some jobs (like geology on Mars) that a man might be better at than a robot. There are many, many, many jobs (like mapping the entire Martian surface, or missions to the outer planets), where the robot is the right tool for the job.
Re:T3: Rise of the Machines
on
Robot Wars
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
> They just started playing adds in the movie theatres for T3, Rise of the Machines. > > It looks like the army is continuing their new public relationship actions of making the forces look cool.
Look cool?
Dude. This is Slashdot. Giant armies of killer robots don't look cool -- giant armies of killer robots are cool.
> Jan also rocked the news servers. I'm not sure how earthlink is handling things now post merger. I didn't hang around.:)
You didn't miss much.
When Jan left, news.mindspring.com completion went into the toilet. About 25% of articles vanished, resulting in (multipart binary) completion rates of 1-2%.
It took over a year for the fucknozzles at Earthstink to even acknowledge the problem. Earthstink's news swerver wasn't much of a prize, either.
It's not as bad now - most of the remaining vict^H^H^H^Hcustomers have either left, gone to third-party premium news service, or (in the past month or two), switched over to one of the two "test" newsswervers Earthstink's trying to set up. While slow, at least one of them's functional.
You guys rocked. So long, and thanks for all the fish. If I'd had any brains I'd have switched to a reputable ISP the day Jan left.
> What exactly don't you like about the shuttle? Why is it a piece of shit?
It's a good way to get astronauts into LEO and back.
The only reason astronauts need to get into LEO and back is to build the ISS.
It's shitty because it's an expensive way to get things into orbit. Because astronauts are fragile things, needing air, water, and life support systems, if you wanna launch something with the shuttle, you're gonna pay tens of thousands of dollars per pound to lift 1500 pounds of human meat, thousands of pounds of life support systems to keep the meat alive, and a big honkin' pair of wings to let the meat come back. Comm satellites, space telescopes, and interplanetary probes don't run on meat. They don't need wings or life support. As far as the science missions are concerned, most of the Shuttle is dead weight.
It's also a shitty way to get heavy things (Hubble, ISS components, fuel tanks for space probes) into orbit, even if cost is no object -- because of the mass penalty for life support systems, it's got a small cargo bay. That's a horrible design constraint on unmanned satellite and manned ISS module alike.
And because of both of these factors, it's an even more shitty way to get anything (light or heavy) beyond earth orbit. "Lousy cargo capacity" plus "huge mass penalty" equals "no fucking way you can launch something with enough fuel on it to get to the outer planets, or even Mars, in a reasonable timeframe"
It's a "space truck", and was designed as such -- and for that purpose, it's adequate.
Unfortunately, "doing science" typically requires lifting heavy things (like space telescopes) in orbit. Or accelerating lighter things (like space probes) to well beyond escape velocity. For these tasks, the Shuttle is the wrong tool for the job.
> More American voters voted for Al Gore than for any other candidate. That is an undisputed fact [infoplease.com]. And yet, Mr. Gore is not in office. So let's correct that sentence to read, "in a flawed, unrepresentative faux democracy, what most people want may or may not be what you get".
You're right. But if we're going to call that a "wrong" that needs to be "righted", Mr. Gore (2000) will have to get in line behind Samuel Tilden (1876) and Grover Cleveland (1888), who also lost the electoral college despite having narrow wins in the popular vote count.
Until someone passes a Constitutional Amendment that does away with the Electoral College and elects the President by popular vote, the popular vote don't mean squat. Don't like it? Call your Congresscritter and tell 'em you want the Constitution changed.
> Also, lets do something about the space shuttle for god's sake! What total piece of shit. How sad is it that we are flying something designed 25+ years ago that has the computing power of an P90 into space in the 21st Century.
No shit.
I did a double-take when I saw the title of this article -- ISS Cuts are hurting science? It's the goddamn ISS/Shuttle sinkhole that's making it impossible to do science in the first place. Perfectly good probe in orbit around Jupiter is gonna fly by Amalthea and miss out on a chance to get spectra of Ionian dust that's accumulated on it. Why? Because we can't afford $100K (or $1M to do it by "established procedures") to turn the damn camera on -- because ISS has eaten the budget again.
Science is suffering because we're spending billions on the goddamn ISS, which exists solely to provide an excuse to give the friggin shuttle fleet something to do.
<RANT>
The best thing NASA could do for science would be to launch one more shuttle, duct-tape it to the ISS, and fire the engines to deorbit it -- with the point of impact being the rest of the rest of the Shuttle fleet!
</RANT>
The resulting $30-40B in cost savings could be used to develop a heavy-lift capability (read: buy Proton and Energia from the Russkies), and start launching probes capable of doing real science. Hell, if you get the heavy-lift capability right, you could have enough cost savings to choose between building a replacement space station or saying to hell with low earth orbit for now, and doing a Mars Direct approach.
The only use I can see the ISS having is as a meeting/construction/refueling point for fuel tanks and other probes. If they'd just admit it and use it for that, it could have been a lot cheaper and more functional to boot.
> And how about we actually stop building mines? Not exactly a chicken and egg problem, is it?
I tried not to turn this into a gun control thread, honest. But you've forced my hand.
Let's start with the words-on-paper about guns in Washington, DC, New York City, NY, and Los Angeles, CA. These cities had a problem with their citizens - they liked to shoot guns at one another. (Well, usually only one side was shooting, and nobody was shooting back.) So we put words on paper that say "You can't have guns, and especially not in these cities".
Words on pieces of paper about land mines will probably be every bit as effective at convincing the leaders of Angola, Eritrea, Somalia, Sudan, Mozambique, Bosnia, and Iraq to stop killing people with land mines.
Perhaps you're right - and shortly after their success in convincing great humanitarians like Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam Hussein to stop using land mines, the UN passes a resolution that says people blowing themselves up at bus stops and discotheques is Not A Nice Thing Either. Yasser Arafat and the rest of his organization will all stand around a campfire singing "Kumbayah" as doves fly out of their asses.
> This is all good and neat, but how about we look at the treaty for banning land mines?
Funny, I was just thinking that politicians' signatures on a piece of paper whose words are true for about as long as the ink dries are all good and neat, but how about we actually build something that gets rid of land mines?
> Try Lemon Diet Coke - it's fucking awful, I'm hooked. I mean the diet already tasted hollow, but now it tasted like hollow dishwash liquid. Fucking great, I tells ya.
ROFL.
I used to take Diet Coke and add vanilla/sugar syrup. Gives me the sugar rush, and tastes sweeter. I'll probably try the Vanilla Coke when it comes out.
(Hey, idea for soft drink dispenser makers - serve Coke, and an optional switch to dribble in either lemon or vanilla flavoring in the right proportions while pouring it. 3 beverages available to customer, only one big-azz syrup tank required.)
Speaking of which. How can I get my hands on soft drink syrup? I'm sick of what gets drawn out of the soda dispensers. We've got soda in cans at work, but having a dispenser at work would be fun. "You want your Coke straight-up, or double-strength?" (Double. I'm a JOLT guy anyways.)
> OTOH, no bank has a monopoly. As soon as Passport gets picked again, and credit cards numbers are out, people won't use it, and will demand a different method. (Note: viruses on desktop computers don't matter to people, because the general public doesn't store crucial data on their home computers) --
Huh? This is precisely the problem. Users do store crucial data on their home computers, they just don't know they do.
Passport stores encrypted credential data on client computers in the form of persistent cookies. Grab the cookies, 0wn the d00d's wallet. (source: Avi Rubin's paper)
All we need is a Klez variant that propagates by spreading these cookies to other users in the address books (or, more evil still, by posting them on USENET either directly or via mail-to-news gateways in after converting them to text a'la SpamMimic), and any black hat in the world can count on a continual supply of Passport cookies from a large pool of unsecured and compromised machines.
> Any bank which requires me to have a Passport account won't get my business. The one thing about capitalism is that you -can- force unwanted business to end, simply by going to their competitor
What you said. I don't trust Passport as a security mechanism. I won't do business with an organization that demands I link it with my credit card. If that means I switch banks, the branch manager and head office will get copies of a letter explaining precisely why I switched.
I prefer to bank at large national or regional banks, but even if they "all" go Passport, I'll happily switch to small regionals, of which America has hundreds, if not thousands, to choose from.
> Right now I'm loosing 1-2lbs per week on a traditional low fat moderate exersize diet. Nothing special, just eating healther and in moderation. I've been doing this for six months now without problem.
<AOL>Me too.</AOL>
To the guy talking about losing 20 pounds in a week on Atkins - dude, you went into ketosis and dehydrated yourself. Nothing to do with the diet. Good think you knew to drink plenty of water, though.
To the guy who started this thread, talking about losing a pound a week on Atkins - dude, you can do that on any calorie-restricted diet!
A pound of fat is about 3500 calories. Losing a pound a week means a calorie deficit of 500 calories a day.
Suggested reading #1: The Hacker's Diet (Former CEO of Autodesk describes an approach to dieting in language that will appeal to engineers. He starts with the "3500 calories in a pound of fat", applies the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and derives the rest from there.)
If you normally burn 2000 calories per day to keep yourself alive (i.e. to maintain a body temperature of 98.6F in ambient air of 70F, and to sit erect at a computer terminal), and you want to lose a pound a week, you need to cut 500 calories a day. A moderate-to-heavy soda drinker (say, 4 cans a day) can accomplish this simply by switching from regular (at ~130 cal per can) to diet (zero).
The exercise suggestion part of Atkins is good (but it's a good idea with or without diet), but IMNSHO, the nutritional advice is questionable at best - and dangerous quackery at worst.
Suggested Reading #2: As Quackwatch appears to be down at the moment, I recommend anyone considering a low-carb diet read Google's cached copy of Stephen Barrett's analysis of Atkins and the other low-carb approaches.
I agree with Barrett's conclusion - that most of the "success stories" of Atkins dieters are merely the logical end result result of caloric restriction, and not anything "magical" about the approach -- other than that it's a lot easier and more pleasant to eat 1500 calories of "what you want" (guzzle coffee, water, and diet sodas all day long at the office and finish off - at 400 calories per 4-oz serving - with a juicy well-marbled 16-oz New York Strip for dinner! Every night!) than to live on 1500 calories a day of tofu.
> As an aside, I was reading recently that gamers who specialize in first person shooters (Doom, Quake) can develop roughly double the reaction time of non-gamers.
URL/source, please?
I'm skeptical, but interested. Several of my cow orkers have commented that I have the reflexes/ability to do that "movie trick" where someone accidentally knocks an object off a desk, and the 7337 d00d manages to catch the object before it falls/spills. Just did it again this afternoon.
I'm still skeptical, because I know that "data" is not the plural of "anecdote", but your posting and this afternoon's "catch" made me realize that I didn't do this in high school. I've since been gaming for 15+ years, mostly RTS and turn-based strategy, but I've put many hours into FPSes and classic '80s "zone-out"/"get into the zone, man" games (Tempest, Robotron) too.
> > "[the researcher's study claims that too much gaming results in brainwave patterns that manifest themselves in] lack of concentration, difficulty with social association, and short temper?"
Humph! If I had friends, we'd get together and go to Japan and tell this guy to manifest his brain function with my shiny metal ass, by biting it!!
Shiny? Metal? Oooh, shiny thing! What was the plan again? Right, another round case modding for the LAN party, then s'more Counterstrike. Cool.
If a turn lasts an hour, you'll spend 40-50 minutes talking strategy with your enemies and/or allies. (i.e. doing "diplomacy" in the real-world sense of the word). This is the meaty (and the fun) part of the game.
Then you write down your orders for your troops, and everyone reveals their orders at once (usually to cries of "you bastards!", "oops!", or both) When the orders are unsealed, it's deterministic - no random elements; things "work" or "don't work" based on whether you've been able to persuade your allies to go along with your plan, or misled your adversaries into traps.
Real-world example - History of WW2/Europe written as though it were a game of "Diplomacy":
Game begins in '39. Germany/Italy tells Russia they want Poland, but not to worry, that's as far as they'll go if Russia stays out of it. (Stalin to Hitler: "OK, we'll sign your non-aggression pact. You stay out of Russia, we let you take Poland.")
Germamy is then able to concentrate on wiping out France in '40, and do serious hurt to Britain without worrying about an attack from the East. (DeGaulle to Hitler: "Oops.")
Confident that Western Europe is now safely held, Germany goes for global domination (vs. splitting Europe between Germany and Russia) and backstabs Russia in '41. (Stalin to Hitler: "You bastard!")
As a result, Russia/US/UK form an alliance which wipes out Germany/Italy in '44-45. (Russians take out Germans from Moscow to Germany, US/UK takes out Germans from France to Germany. UK takes over North Africa, and jumps from there to wipe out Italy. Mussolini to Italy: "Oops. *chokeswingswingswing*")
Germany's toast. With only three players left on the board, US/UK briefly consider backstabbing Russia in '46, but choose stalemate instead of going for global conquest. (Players to each other: "Fuggit. We've had enough. Let's go for beers.")
Game ends in '45. Europe remains split between NATO and the Warsaw Pact for 50 years.
Thankfully, all three leaders in '45 were smart enough to realize the difference between bits of wood on a cardboard map and 50 million dead (on all sides) plus another 20-30 million to "finish the game".
(And also thankfully, when you're playing Diplomacy, it is just bits of wood on a cardboard map, so you can just "go for world domination" with a clean conscience:-)
> This reminds me of an econ assignment in high school that I "failed". We were given a set number of resource units, and told to distribute them throughout the town. Most people gave food to everyone, TVs to most everyone, and luxury cars to a few. I gave two or three luxury cars and TVs to a few people, and let something like a third of the town starve to death.
*evil grin* - well-done! (I'd have tried to set up an auction system within the confines of the game. Them that has, buys. Them that can't buy, starves, leaving more for the rest of us!;-)
In History class in high school, we had a teacher who broke us up into groups to play "Diplomacy", two moves a day, for a week. I started out as Britain - good mobility, but horrible logistical problems.
First move: Tell the French I won't take the English Channel if they don't, because Germany's the real enemy.
Actual move: Take the Channel, of course.
France to teacher: "That wasn't fair!" Me to teacher: "Hey, Fog of War, these things happen, right?" Teacher to class: (Brief explanation of the object lesson - things like this might be accidents, but might not be, and it's up to the players to judge their risks accordingly when they decide whom to trust.)
Second move: Apologize profusely to France in private and to players I see France hanging around. Blame the Germans for tricking me into thinking he was going to go after the Channel despite our agreement not to. Suggest he take North Africa while I withdraw from the Channel and head towards Denmark.
Actual move: Figure he's fallen for it again, and invade France. Yup, he fell for it again. Oldest trick in the "Diplomacy" playbook.
France to teacher: "That's not fair!" Me to teacher: "Napoleon said God was on the side with the greatest battalions. Voltaire disagreed and said that God wasn't on the side with the largest battalions, but with the best shots. Thanks to my opponent not listening to his generals or his philosophers, now I have both." Teacher to class: "Some of you weren't paying attention last turn. 'Fair' is determined by who can do what, to whom, when, and with how much materiel. [...and with that, he had an easy segue into WW2 history and Barbarossa...]"
The game got easier from there. By the end of the week, over half of Europe was mine. 2/3 of the class was at war with me and losing badly due to infighting amongst themselves, and the other 1/3 had been eliminated.
> I defended my homework as a more realistic portrait of the world than any of my neo-socialist classmates, but I still failed since my solution wasn't "nice". So sad...
Bummer about your econ teacher. I was lucky enough to have a cool enough History teacher that I got an "A" for my treachery:-)
> I have worked for DialAmerica Marketing in the recent past. The call center that I worked at was based almost entirely on inbound calls, and the outbound programs were mostly calling people who had called in and signed up for some offer. We handled everything from credit card applications, to catalogue sales and cable TV service.
Actually, I have nothing against that form of telemarketing, nor do most people. Inbound call centers are, by definition, opt-in.
But it's a longstanding DMA tactic to lump both the inbound and outbound arms of the business together and call both of them "telemarketing", because it enables them to make these outrageous claims of how customers "love" telemarketers.
It's a nice bit of FUD, and it's worked for a long time, but people need to be aware of it, especially now.
"Killing telemarketing" means "killing the phonespammers", not killing the inbound call centers.
Yet every time there's a proposal to limit the phonespammers, the DMA lies to Congress, claiming that "telemarketing brings in billions of dollars and gives customers what they want!". If telemarketing is the scummy bathwater, better toss in a nice cute baby to make sure the FTC can't throw the bathwater out!
I'd bet that 90% of the "billions" in revenue and legions of happy customers are the ones calling in to sales lines. But that 90% isn't threatened by a national do-not-call list, nor is it a public nuisance. So why's the DMA so intent on trying to make us think that it's the phonespammers that are doing all this wonderful economic work, huh? (Answer: Because the DMA doesn't give a fuck about the economy, only the ability to spam your ass off:)
And while you may have worked in the legitimate part of his business, the DialAmerica exec's fearmongering FUD -- in trying to mislead the FTC and the public that killing the harassment (what everyone other than the DMA calls "telemarketing") side of his business is somehow going to kill the legitimate (inbound call center) part of his business -- is precisely the kind of lie I'm talking about.
Art's business may have a legitimate half, but he still spoke the truth -- America's consumers don't want to be harassed by the other half of his business -- and until that half of his business is shut down, he can stay fucked off.
(Fuck off, Art! Don't wait 'till later to fuck off. Fuck off now:-)
> In the U.S., ask what company is calling. Then say "Put me on your do not call list." Say nothing more. That is very effective, since they can be sued in small claims court if they call back. Use exactly that language and nothing else, the sentence has legal meaning. This works perfectly for me.
Although this has cut down on some of my phone spam volume, folks should be aware that:
1) It only has meaning for the telemarketing company that called you. When XYZ Phonespammers of Texas puts you on their DNC list, they can rename themselves to ABC Phonespammers of Texas.
2) It only has meaning for a year, then they can call you again.
Those of you lucky enough to have statewide do-not-call lists are in a somewhat better position, because all your state's telespammers are required to use it. Problem is...
3)...your entry on the Colorado no-call list doesn't protect you from XYZ Telemarketing of Colorado opening up a call center and operating as XYZ Telemarketing of Nevada.
The only solution is a nationwide do-not-call list.
You don't have a lot of credibility, to be perfectly honest," Harrington, the FTC's director marketing practices, told the audience of approximately 50 telemarketers.
If telemarketers had adhered to the present rules, which give each company one shot at each consumer and require them to honor all DNC requests, a national DNC list would not be under discussion, Harrington said.
Am I just being paranoid? No - my experiences with telemarketers evading the current TCPA regs mirror those of Eileen Harrington - FTC's point-person on the do-not-call issue.
In her own personal experience, Harrington said, she was aware that telemarketers often try to circumvent the rules by hanging up when consumers ask to be placed on their DNC lists, or by denying that their calls are for sales purposes, then trying to make a sale. Technology, such as predictive dialers, is being abused, Harrington said.
Finally, in what were probably the first honest words to come out of a telemarketer's mouth in all of recorded history, we have this gem:
<WHINE>
Eventually, everybody is going on the list," said Art Conway, president of DialAmerica Marketing. "If you create this national do-not-call list, the way you have it proposed, we're going out of business." </WHINE>
As another poster has hinted, that pun's probably between Ms. McCaffrey and me. I'm an invertebrate punster, spinelessly unable to resist a pun. Don't slug me for it!:)
Seriously - because I used two words encased in quotes. I think a "pure" Googlewhack has to be two words and only two words, no quotes. I'm allowing it as a Googlewhack only because I can argue that "Cindy McCaffrey" is a single proper noun composed of two strings, whereas, say, "squeamish ossifrage" isn't. For instance:
"Pure" googlewhack: One result for foo bar (the original definition - two strings, no quotes.)
"Impure" googlewhack: One result for "Cindy McCaffrey" sweater (one string being the proper name of an individual, "sweater")
Non-googlewhack: One result for "squeamish ossifrage" sweater (one string merely consisting of two unrelated words attached into a longer string by means of quotes, "sweater")
...but it doesn't answer the real question, which is going to images.google.com and entering ""Cindy McCaffrey"+tight+sweater". No results. Bummer. (Doesn't even matter if the sweater in the search query is tight or not. Double bummer.)
To Craig: when will someone in your office leak us a copy of the.GIFs showing Cindy's meteoric rise in Google's images zeitgeist this week? Can we see it in the next Slashback, please?
Also to Craig: in how many hours, and how hard, do you think Cindy's gonna kick your ass for handing her over to the raving/. hordes as the older, classier, and way more-reasonably-hairstyled, replacement for our mad collective crush on Natalie Portman?
Finally, to Cindy if she's crazy enough to admit it: Do you like grits?;-)
> Hah, just wait until they get the "audit or else" order from M$. Man, talk about organized crime warfare. This could make the St. Valentine's Day Massacre look like a water-pistol fight.
Lessee here...
Step 1) Columbian drug lords vs. BSA lawyers.
Step 2) Make the St. Valentine's Day Massacre look like water pistol fight.
Step 3) ???^H^H^HPay-per-view live video on Slashdot!
> But seeing your method, I believe I'll undertake the same in order to confirm over some period. If the New York Times did in fact share your email address, TRUSTe and BBBonline would probably like to know about it. Thanks for the decent methodology.
> 'cyberbuffs are afflicted with "insufficient perspective, disdain for history, unnecessary futurology and technophilia."'
As a "cyberbuff", I happen to think lawyers are afflicted with insufficient perspective, disdain for the possibilities of the future, unnecessary clinging to outmoded business models, and technophobia.
(Of course, the reason they're right, and the cyberbuffs are wrong, is because lawyers make the laws, and the laws direct those who have the guns. But what a wonderful world it could have been without them.)
Slashdot Mirror
I dunno. Ask a soldier.
If, 30 seconds later, your ass hasn't been kicked, thank him for his restraint. :-)
> I guess the little suckers could go where men could not and do things that men would not...
Yes - that's precisely the idea. Robots are a force multiplier - you can send them on high-risk missions that you wouldn't want to risk a man for.
In that sense, the use of robots in war isn't much different from robots in space exploration. There are some jobs (like geology on Mars) that a man might be better at than a robot. There are many, many, many jobs (like mapping the entire Martian surface, or missions to the outer planets), where the robot is the right tool for the job.
>
> It looks like the army is continuing their new public relationship actions of making the forces look cool.
Look cool?
Dude. This is Slashdot. Giant armies of killer robots don't look cool -- giant armies of killer robots are cool.
(OK, I admit it, it's time to get a grip on my total fixation with robots)
You didn't miss much.
When Jan left, news.mindspring.com completion went into the toilet. About 25% of articles vanished, resulting in (multipart binary) completion rates of 1-2%.
It took over a year for the fucknozzles at Earthstink to even acknowledge the problem. Earthstink's news swerver wasn't much of a prize, either.
It's not as bad now - most of the remaining vict^H^H^H^Hcustomers have either left, gone to third-party premium news service, or (in the past month or two), switched over to one of the two "test" newsswervers Earthstink's trying to set up. While slow, at least one of them's functional.
You guys rocked. So long, and thanks for all the fish. If I'd had any brains I'd have switched to a reputable ISP the day Jan left.
>
>I'd like us to do even more, but I'd hardly characterize the above as "crap".
Magellan - shuttle - 1994
Galileo - shuttle - 1989
HST - shuttle - 1990
Ulysses - shuttle - 1990
Everyting from 1992 through 2002 inclusive:
NEAR - Delta 7925
Mars Observer - Titan 34D
Mars Pathfinder - three Delta 7925 launches
Clementine - Titan 2
SOHO - Atlas IIAS
Cassini/Huygens - Titan 4B
DS1 - Delta 7925
Mars Climate Orbiter - Delta 7925
Mars Polar Lander - Delta 7925
Stardust - Delta 7925
IMAGE - Delta 7925
2001 Mars Odyssey - Delta 7925
Genesis - Another Delta
CONTOUR - Another Delta
OK, so we've done some cool shit since the '80s. But I think I'm noticing a trend here in terms of whether we need the Shuttle to do it.
(Source for all launch vehicle data: Astronautix.com index of spacecraft.)
It's a good way to get astronauts into LEO and back.
The only reason astronauts need to get into LEO and back is to build the ISS.
It's shitty because it's an expensive way to get things into orbit. Because astronauts are fragile things, needing air, water, and life support systems, if you wanna launch something with the shuttle, you're gonna pay tens of thousands of dollars per pound to lift 1500 pounds of human meat, thousands of pounds of life support systems to keep the meat alive, and a big honkin' pair of wings to let the meat come back. Comm satellites, space telescopes, and interplanetary probes don't run on meat. They don't need wings or life support. As far as the science missions are concerned, most of the Shuttle is dead weight.
It's also a shitty way to get heavy things (Hubble, ISS components, fuel tanks for space probes) into orbit, even if cost is no object -- because of the mass penalty for life support systems, it's got a small cargo bay. That's a horrible design constraint on unmanned satellite and manned ISS module alike.
And because of both of these factors, it's an even more shitty way to get anything (light or heavy) beyond earth orbit. "Lousy cargo capacity" plus "huge mass penalty" equals "no fucking way you can launch something with enough fuel on it to get to the outer planets, or even Mars, in a reasonable timeframe"
It's a "space truck", and was designed as such -- and for that purpose, it's adequate.
Unfortunately, "doing science" typically requires lifting heavy things (like space telescopes) in orbit. Or accelerating lighter things (like space probes) to well beyond escape velocity. For these tasks, the Shuttle is the wrong tool for the job.
You're right. But if we're going to call that a "wrong" that needs to be "righted", Mr. Gore (2000) will have to get in line behind Samuel Tilden (1876) and Grover Cleveland (1888), who also lost the electoral college despite having narrow wins in the popular vote count.
Until someone passes a Constitutional Amendment that does away with the Electoral College and elects the President by popular vote, the popular vote don't mean squat. Don't like it? Call your Congresscritter and tell 'em you want the Constitution changed.
No shit.
I did a double-take when I saw the title of this article -- ISS Cuts are hurting science? It's the goddamn ISS/Shuttle sinkhole that's making it impossible to do science in the first place. Perfectly good probe in orbit around Jupiter is gonna fly by Amalthea and miss out on a chance to get spectra of Ionian dust that's accumulated on it. Why? Because we can't afford $100K (or $1M to do it by "established procedures") to turn the damn camera on -- because ISS has eaten the budget again.
Science is suffering because we're spending billions on the goddamn ISS, which exists solely to provide an excuse to give the friggin shuttle fleet something to do.
<RANT>
The best thing NASA could do for science would be to launch one more shuttle, duct-tape it to the ISS, and fire the engines to deorbit it -- with the point of impact being the rest of the rest of the Shuttle fleet!
</RANT>
The resulting $30-40B in cost savings could be used to develop a heavy-lift capability (read: buy Proton and Energia from the Russkies), and start launching probes capable of doing real science. Hell, if you get the heavy-lift capability right, you could have enough cost savings to choose between building a replacement space station or saying to hell with low earth orbit for now, and doing a Mars Direct approach.
The only use I can see the ISS having is as a meeting/construction/refueling point for fuel tanks and other probes. If they'd just admit it and use it for that, it could have been a lot cheaper and more functional to boot.
I tried not to turn this into a gun control thread, honest. But you've forced my hand.
Let's start with the words-on-paper about guns in Washington, DC, New York City, NY, and Los Angeles, CA. These cities had a problem with their citizens - they liked to shoot guns at one another. (Well, usually only one side was shooting, and nobody was shooting back.) So we put words on paper that say "You can't have guns, and especially not in these cities".
Words on pieces of paper about land mines will probably be every bit as effective at convincing the leaders of Angola, Eritrea, Somalia, Sudan, Mozambique, Bosnia, and Iraq to stop killing people with land mines.
Perhaps you're right - and shortly after their success in convincing great humanitarians like Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam Hussein to stop using land mines, the UN passes a resolution that says people blowing themselves up at bus stops and discotheques is Not A Nice Thing Either. Yasser Arafat and the rest of his organization will all stand around a campfire singing "Kumbayah" as doves fly out of their asses.
But I'm not gonna hold my breath.
Funny, I was just thinking that politicians' signatures on a piece of paper whose words are true for about as long as the ink dries are all good and neat, but how about we actually build something that gets rid of land mines?
ROFL.
I used to take Diet Coke and add vanilla/sugar syrup. Gives me the sugar rush, and tastes sweeter. I'll probably try the Vanilla Coke when it comes out.
(Hey, idea for soft drink dispenser makers - serve Coke, and an optional switch to dribble in either lemon or vanilla flavoring in the right proportions while pouring it. 3 beverages available to customer, only one big-azz syrup tank required.)
Speaking of which. How can I get my hands on soft drink syrup? I'm sick of what gets drawn out of the soda dispensers. We've got soda in cans at work, but having a dispenser at work would be fun. "You want your Coke straight-up, or double-strength?" (Double. I'm a JOLT guy anyways.)
Huh? This is precisely the problem. Users do store crucial data on their home computers, they just don't know they do.
Passport stores encrypted credential data on client computers in the form of persistent cookies. Grab the cookies, 0wn the d00d's wallet. (source: Avi Rubin's paper)
All we need is a Klez variant that propagates by spreading these cookies to other users in the address books (or, more evil still, by posting them on USENET either directly or via mail-to-news gateways in after converting them to text a'la SpamMimic), and any black hat in the world can count on a continual supply of Passport cookies from a large pool of unsecured and compromised machines.
> Any bank which requires me to have a Passport account won't get my business. The one thing about capitalism is that you -can- force unwanted business to end, simply by going to their competitor
What you said. I don't trust Passport as a security mechanism. I won't do business with an organization that demands I link it with my credit card. If that means I switch banks, the branch manager and head office will get copies of a letter explaining precisely why I switched.
I prefer to bank at large national or regional banks, but even if they "all" go Passport, I'll happily switch to small regionals, of which America has hundreds, if not thousands, to choose from.
<AOL>Me too.</AOL>
To the guy talking about losing 20 pounds in a week on Atkins - dude, you went into ketosis and dehydrated yourself. Nothing to do with the diet. Good think you knew to drink plenty of water, though.
To the guy who started this thread, talking about losing a pound a week on Atkins - dude, you can do that on any calorie-restricted diet!
A pound of fat is about 3500 calories. Losing a pound a week means a calorie deficit of 500 calories a day.
Suggested reading #1: The Hacker's Diet (Former CEO of Autodesk describes an approach to dieting in language that will appeal to engineers. He starts with the "3500 calories in a pound of fat", applies the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and derives the rest from there.)
If you normally burn 2000 calories per day to keep yourself alive (i.e. to maintain a body temperature of 98.6F in ambient air of 70F, and to sit erect at a computer terminal), and you want to lose a pound a week, you need to cut 500 calories a day. A moderate-to-heavy soda drinker (say, 4 cans a day) can accomplish this simply by switching from regular (at ~130 cal per can) to diet (zero).
The exercise suggestion part of Atkins is good (but it's a good idea with or without diet), but IMNSHO, the nutritional advice is questionable at best - and dangerous quackery at worst.
Suggested Reading #2: As Quackwatch appears to be down at the moment, I recommend anyone considering a low-carb diet read Google's cached copy of Stephen Barrett's analysis of Atkins and the other low-carb approaches.
I agree with Barrett's conclusion - that most of the "success stories" of Atkins dieters are merely the logical end result result of caloric restriction, and not anything "magical" about the approach -- other than that it's a lot easier and more pleasant to eat 1500 calories of "what you want" (guzzle coffee, water, and diet sodas all day long at the office and finish off - at 400 calories per 4-oz serving - with a juicy well-marbled 16-oz New York Strip for dinner! Every night!) than to live on 1500 calories a day of tofu.
URL/source, please?
I'm skeptical, but interested. Several of my cow orkers have commented that I have the reflexes/ability to do that "movie trick" where someone accidentally knocks an object off a desk, and the 7337 d00d manages to catch the object before it falls/spills. Just did it again this afternoon.
I'm still skeptical, because I know that "data" is not the plural of "anecdote", but your posting and this afternoon's "catch" made me realize that I didn't do this in high school. I've since been gaming for 15+ years, mostly RTS and turn-based strategy, but I've put many hours into FPSes and classic '80s "zone-out"/"get into the zone, man" games (Tempest, Robotron) too.
> > "[the researcher's study claims that too much gaming results in brainwave patterns that manifest themselves in] lack of concentration, difficulty with social association, and short temper?"
Humph! If I had friends, we'd get together and go to Japan and tell this guy to manifest his brain function with my shiny metal ass, by biting it!!
Shiny? Metal? Oooh, shiny thing! What was the plan again? Right, another round case modding for the LAN party, then s'more Counterstrike. Cool.
If a turn lasts an hour, you'll spend 40-50 minutes talking strategy with your enemies and/or allies. (i.e. doing "diplomacy" in the real-world sense of the word). This is the meaty (and the fun) part of the game.
Then you write down your orders for your troops, and everyone reveals their orders at once (usually to cries of "you bastards!", "oops!", or both) When the orders are unsealed, it's deterministic - no random elements; things "work" or "don't work" based on whether you've been able to persuade your allies to go along with your plan, or misled your adversaries into traps.
Real-world example - History of WW2/Europe written as though it were a game of "Diplomacy":
Thankfully, all three leaders in '45 were smart enough to realize the difference between bits of wood on a cardboard map and 50 million dead (on all sides) plus another 20-30 million to "finish the game".
(And also thankfully, when you're playing Diplomacy, it is just bits of wood on a cardboard map, so you can just "go for world domination" with a clean conscience :-)
*evil grin* - well-done! (I'd have tried to set up an auction system within the confines of the game. Them that has, buys. Them that can't buy, starves, leaving more for the rest of us! ;-)
In History class in high school, we had a teacher who broke us up into groups to play "Diplomacy", two moves a day, for a week. I started out as Britain - good mobility, but horrible logistical problems.
First move: Tell the French I won't take the English Channel if they don't, because Germany's the real enemy.
Actual move: Take the Channel, of course.
France to teacher: "That wasn't fair!"
Me to teacher: "Hey, Fog of War, these things happen, right?"
Teacher to class: (Brief explanation of the object lesson - things like this might be accidents, but might not be, and it's up to the players to judge their risks accordingly when they decide whom to trust.)
Second move: Apologize profusely to France in private and to players I see France hanging around. Blame the Germans for tricking me into thinking he was going to go after the Channel despite our agreement not to. Suggest he take North Africa while I withdraw from the Channel and head towards Denmark.
Actual move: Figure he's fallen for it again, and invade France. Yup, he fell for it again. Oldest trick in the "Diplomacy" playbook.
France to teacher: "That's not fair!"
Me to teacher: "Napoleon said God was on the side with the greatest battalions. Voltaire disagreed and said that God wasn't on the side with the largest battalions, but with the best shots. Thanks to my opponent not listening to his generals or his philosophers, now I have both."
Teacher to class: "Some of you weren't paying attention last turn. 'Fair' is determined by who can do what, to whom, when, and with how much materiel. [...and with that, he had an easy segue into WW2 history and Barbarossa...]"
The game got easier from there. By the end of the week, over half of Europe was mine. 2/3 of the class was at war with me and losing badly due to infighting amongst themselves, and the other 1/3 had been eliminated.
> I defended my homework as a more realistic portrait of the world than any of my neo-socialist classmates, but I still failed since my solution wasn't "nice". So sad...
Bummer about your econ teacher. I was lucky enough to have a cool enough History teacher that I got an "A" for my treachery :-)
Actually, I have nothing against that form of telemarketing, nor do most people. Inbound call centers are, by definition, opt-in.
But it's a longstanding DMA tactic to lump both the inbound and outbound arms of the business together and call both of them "telemarketing", because it enables them to make these outrageous claims of how customers "love" telemarketers.
It's a nice bit of FUD, and it's worked for a long time, but people need to be aware of it, especially now.
"Killing telemarketing" means "killing the phonespammers", not killing the inbound call centers.
Yet every time there's a proposal to limit the phonespammers, the DMA lies to Congress, claiming that "telemarketing brings in billions of dollars and gives customers what they want!". If telemarketing is the scummy bathwater, better toss in a nice cute baby to make sure the FTC can't throw the bathwater out!
I'd bet that 90% of the "billions" in revenue and legions of happy customers are the ones calling in to sales lines. But that 90% isn't threatened by a national do-not-call list, nor is it a public nuisance. So why's the DMA so intent on trying to make us think that it's the phonespammers that are doing all this wonderful economic work, huh? (Answer: Because the DMA doesn't give a fuck about the economy, only the ability to spam your ass off :)
And while you may have worked in the legitimate part of his business, the DialAmerica exec's fearmongering FUD -- in trying to mislead the FTC and the public that killing the harassment (what everyone other than the DMA calls "telemarketing") side of his business is somehow going to kill the legitimate (inbound call center) part of his business -- is precisely the kind of lie I'm talking about.
Art's business may have a legitimate half, but he still spoke the truth -- America's consumers don't want to be harassed by the other half of his business -- and until that half of his business is shut down, he can stay fucked off.
(Fuck off, Art! Don't wait 'till later to fuck off. Fuck off now :-)
Although this has cut down on some of my phone spam volume, folks should be aware that:
1) It only has meaning for the telemarketing company that called you. When XYZ Phonespammers of Texas puts you on their DNC list, they can rename themselves to ABC Phonespammers of Texas.
2) It only has meaning for a year, then they can call you again.
Those of you lucky enough to have statewide do-not-call lists are in a somewhat better position, because all your state's telespammers are required to use it. Problem is...
3) ...your entry on the Colorado no-call list doesn't protect you from XYZ Telemarketing of Colorado opening up a call center and operating as XYZ Telemarketing of Nevada.
The only solution is a nationwide do-not-call list.
I know this solution will work because...
the DMA is scared shitless of it.
Am I just being paranoid? No - my experiences with telemarketers evading the current TCPA regs mirror those of Eileen Harrington - FTC's point-person on the do-not-call issue.
Finally, in what were probably the first honest words to come out of a telemarketer's mouth in all of recorded history, we have this gem:
As another poster has hinted, that pun's probably between Ms. McCaffrey and me. I'm an invertebrate punster, spinelessly unable to resist a pun. Don't slug me for it! :)
Seriously - because I used two words encased in quotes. I think a "pure" Googlewhack has to be two words and only two words, no quotes. I'm allowing it as a Googlewhack only because I can argue that "Cindy McCaffrey" is a single proper noun composed of two strings, whereas, say, "squeamish ossifrage" isn't. For instance:
"Pure" googlewhack: One result for foo bar (the original definition - two strings, no quotes.)
"Impure" googlewhack: One result for "Cindy McCaffrey" sweater (one string being the proper name of an individual, "sweater")
Non-googlewhack: One result for "squeamish ossifrage" sweater (one string merely consisting of two unrelated words attached into a longer string by means of quotes, "sweater")
Y'know, Bill's salesdroids always did remind me of the guy who ran the circus with the nice sign saying "THIS WAY TO THE EGRESS!"
>
> http://images.google.com/images?q=%22Cindy+McCaff
Sure, that's a good start...
On the bright side, "Cindy McCaffrey" sweater" is a Googlewhack, albeit not a pure one.
This brings two obvious followup questions:
To Craig: when will someone in your office leak us a copy of the .GIFs showing Cindy's meteoric rise in Google's images zeitgeist this week? Can we see it in the next Slashback, please?
Also to Craig: in how many hours, and how hard, do you think Cindy's gonna kick your ass for handing her over to the raving /. hordes as the older, classier, and way more-reasonably-hairstyled, replacement for our mad collective crush on Natalie Portman?
Finally, to Cindy if she's crazy enough to admit it: Do you like grits? ;-)
Lessee here...
Step 1) Columbian drug lords vs. BSA lawyers.
Step 2) Make the St. Valentine's Day Massacre look like water pistol fight.
Step 3) ???^H^H^HPay-per-view live video on Slashdot!
Step 4) PROFIT!
2) If you don't have grey hairs, you can probably pass for a student with a little creative wardrobe work.
Given premises 1) and 2) above... well, do the math.
(The best part? You don't even have to show up for the exams!)
TRUSTe doing something about a privacy violation?
Score that (+1, Funny)
> 'cyberbuffs are afflicted with "insufficient perspective, disdain for history, unnecessary futurology and technophilia."'
As a "cyberbuff", I happen to think lawyers are afflicted with insufficient perspective, disdain for the possibilities of the future, unnecessary clinging to outmoded business models, and technophobia.
(Of course, the reason they're right, and the cyberbuffs are wrong, is because lawyers make the laws, and the laws direct those who have the guns. But what a wonderful world it could have been without them.)