I have to wonder though just how hard it would be to put a set of high-res cameras on a drone, and project the image onto a collimated dome display in a cockpit. The cockpit could have MUCH better visibility too - no need for structural strength and all that. In fact, if the pilot used alternative controls and stood up they could easily have a complete view (after enough training that they neither vomit nor fall over during maneuvers). Obviously the bandwidth requirements would be higher.
My 401k says differently. I am averaging 10-15% yoy. Only 2008 was the only neg and that rebounded very quickly.
Over what period of time? If you started in early 2009 sure you're doing great. If you started in early 2008, not so much.
You can get a huge ROI over various random period of time. If you're investing in an index you're doing it for the long-term, and the long-term results for the S&P 500 aren't really all that dazzling, unless you compare it to just about anything else. There really aren't any reliable ways to get double-digit returns long-term these days - maybe if the market goes back to how it behaved in the 40s-80s there would be.
Just because you or anyone you know don't use Yahoo doesn't mean Yahoo is doing terribly or desperate.
I never claimed they were. I just asked some questions, like who visits yahoo, and how the stats are measured. I also made a statement which is completely true - I don't know of anybody who uses them. That makes me skeptical, and the best thing you can give a skeptic who understands logic is data.
Return on the S&P 500 has been about 6% over the last 10 years, and about 7% over the last 20 years. The whole double-digit growth thing made a whole lot more sense in the prospectuses they sent out in the late 90s...
In July it overtook Google as the most visited US web property and remains #1 to date (comScore)?
Really? Who visits Yahoo? Maybe I'm just out of touch, but I don't know anybody who regularly visits Yahoo, and didn't know anybody back when I still used it for everything years ago (back when Google was the newcomer).
I'd also be interested in how things are measured. I rarely type "google.com" in my browser, but I use Google all the time.
It will cover the 48 mile engagement envelope of an S-300 (24 miles each way), in 38 seconds..,,
Think about this. If you're intercepting a Mach 6 target with a missile whose peak speed is Mach 6, the only geometry that works is effectively a head-on collision. If the target passes even a few miles to either side of the launcher, it will be safe.
Not quite. Assuming that it could climb high enough you could hit an SR-72 with a Cessna launched from 200 miles away, as long as you knew where it was going to be in 2-3 hours. You don't fire at an aircraft when it is directly overhead - you fire at it while it is still heading your way on a lead intercept trajectory.
How far off-course it can be fired depends more on the missiles range and your radar system than on the missile's speed. What the missile's speed probably does affect is the ability of the target to evade the missile. The Cessna example only works if the SR72 doesn't change course - if it even turns the slightest bit there is no way the Cessna could move to a new intercept point in time.
Missiles generally burn through their propellant fairly quickly - they're gliding towards the target for much of their trajectory. Their rockets generate far more power than an aircraft, but their fuel capacity delivers far less energy over time. Towards the edge of their engagement envelope they're much less likely to hit a maneuvering target - especially one that is fast and which undoubtedly is more optimized for operation at those crazy-high altitudes.
The best defense for the SR72 is to avoid flying too close to a launcher. The best way to counter this is to have lots of launchers, and a good integrated radar system so that the range of the launcher's radar isn't the limiting factor.
Um... no. Speeding fines are NOT there to collect some money for municipalities, otherwise they would be uniformly and much more strictly enforced.
If speed limits were uniformly enforced either the limits would be eliminated within a week, or riot police would have to shoot most of the population within that time. The only reason the current limits are tolerated is the fact that everybody can easily get away with violating them.
Wouldn't using pen and paper force you to break the all-important eye contact that you were talking about?
Couldn't agree more with what you're getting at.
That said, taking notes on a phone doesn't seem practical. Maybe handwriting on a tablet might work, but I'm not convinced.
What I've found is the best way for taking notes if I'm leading a meeting is to take them in some application which is being presented - it doubles as minutes/etc. I don't take time to make them pretty or anything. Often I'll just hit reply-all to the meeting invite and just take notes against the agenda in an email compose window. If the setting is informal enough to not need cleanup I literally hit send before ending the meeting and everybody leaves with the notes. This type of note-taking is completely non-distracting and often helps direct discussion. If I'm looking to gather specific data I'll start out with a template useful for gathering that data.
For personal notes I use a Livescribe pen. I find that it gives me all the benefits of a tablet/etc, but it is much more practical to use. I could type, but typing is a bit more distracting to others and is limited with regard to the ability to make notes/diagrams/etc.
Phone use during meetings is pretty common, but I'd be very hesitant to do it if I were the meeting organizer, or in a situation like a sales call unless the phone use were directly relevant to the meeting at hand (let me get our experts on that for you and we'll have an answer before we leave...).
Just a personal anecdote. I was invited to present to senior leadership at my company, and everybody in the room significantly outranked me. The previous speaker had taken a while after lunch to speak, and after I finished setting up several people were still not back from taking a break. I asked the executive running the meeting if I should go ahead and start. He told me not to, and that we'd go ahead and embarrass anybody who was late, which he basically then did (he didn't say a word, but I'm sure everybody who walked in noted the dead silence in the room). I was given my full allotment of time to present despite them being a few minutes behind on the agenda.
The message I got out of this was that the executive running the meeting valued my time, and wanted those who worked for him to do the same. Everybody was well-engaged in the brief discussion following my presentation. The meeting had none of the usual distractions.
I made a point to pass along feedback afterwards that I appreciated the way the meeting was run. My manager actually told me at our next meeting that she was asked to relay an apology from the executive for the waste of my time. It really had an impact on the importance I placed on doing a good job at work - leadership by example works.
MiTM responds with his key when you request the key.
Sure, but only if they're MITM when you request the key, and they're MITM every time you communicate.
If they're not MITM when you request the key, then the attacker has missed his only opportunity to swap out the key - further communications are secure and authenticated against the original key and cannot be intercepted.
If they do swap out the key and they aren't MITM for a subsequent communication then a message will get to its destination which is encrypted/signed with the wrong keys. The destination email client will toss up a warning that somebody is messing with their mail, and give instructions for how to do a proper key exchange with out-of-band fingerprint checking.
Think about the threat profile. Somebody monitoring your email probably doesn't want you to know that they're doing it. Any attack that involves extra hops is going to be difficult to pull off if you don't want to alert somebody, even without encryption. If you are actively swapping out keys via MITM this is much more detectable than a more passive attack. You're not going to do this for every single email sent on the internet. That means that when you discover a target of interest that you do want to MITM your opportunity for doing so will have largely past, unless they start communicating with somebody new. It also means that you need to follow at least one side of every conversation around perfectly if they send data wirelessly, via mobile, whatever. If one endpoint of every conversation involves a server whose ISP you control then that isn't too hard to pull off. If your point of interception is a cell tower, then good luck!
I think that anytime we have an unencrypted communication replacing it with an unauthenticated, encrypted communication with key history tracking is a significant step up. That isn't as secure as authenticated communication using TRUSTWORTHY certificates, but it is always better than unencrypted communication.
Oh, and 99% of what passes for authenticated communications on the internet is worthless. My browser must have 50 root CAs configured, and I have zero ability to audit any of them, and zero trust in the ability of anybody who does audit them to actually detect problems before they affect me. I don't trust them to keep me secure against non-governmental attackers, let alone the NSA.
At least at my employer the entire facility is surrounded by a fence, with the only openings being turnstiles that run floor to ceiling, or a manned gatehouse where there is a more traditional turnstile. The only way through that is to either jump it, or have the guard unlock it. Vehicle passage is blocked by a gate - no obstacle if you want to just drive through it, but that would hardly be inconspicuous.
If you're in the building you have physical access to some of the company resources, unless you're very closely watched.
Sure, but first you have to get into the building. This was not demonstrated at all. Merely having the name of the trash company doesn't get you inside.
At my employer if you don't have an ID card that opens a turnstile you need to walk up to the security desk and be registered. If your photo isn't on file they require a government-issued photo ID. So, you'd need to know the name of the trash collector, and not just the name of their employer.
Granted, stealing an ID probably would be possible. Unless they're closely watching the cameras it would probably be difficult to detect in advance. Of course, when something bad happens they would be reviewing the logs. You're not going to have airtight security unless you have guards inspect every person or use a mantrap/etc.
.. Is to buy my own domain to host email off of. I'm not dependent on any providers whims or fancies. I still don't understand why people don't do it. Host your email anywhere you wish but get your own domain. It means you never have to worry about changing providers since all your contacts and services can still use the same address.
I do all that. And every message I get is forwarded to a gmail account, which I basically use as my MUA.
I've yet to find an FOSS solution that matches it. I've yet to find an IMAP solution that supports tag-based email, and I've yet to find a decent web-based MUA. To be decent at least next, previous, delete, spam, and archive must have keyboard shortcuts. I can't describe how much time that saves over having to click on buttons in something like squirrelmail/roundcube.
Just give me those features and a decent Android MUA as well (those are easier to find) and I'll be more than happy to ditch gmail.
You need to remember that most of the time Debian is not about developing new stuff, it's primarily about PACKAGING and DISTRIBUTING existing stuff.
Tend to agree - Debian really isn't one of those cutting-edge distros. I can see a distro like Gentoo offering systemd as an option because it tends to offer lots of crazy options that most aren't interested in and many of which don't stick. Heck, you could run Gentoo+systemd on x32 most likely - you'd probably have the only box on the planet configured that way if you did.
I think that's fine - Debian has the "just works" niche and they'd be silly to give it up. The world doesn't need just one linux distro - I'd rather see linux have an offering for anybody.
You misunderstand yet again. I'm not talking about your beliefs in terms of what is a correct justice system, but the beliefs of what certain terms mean and your complete intolerance (to the point of insulting) for the fact that in other cultures those terms mean completely different things.
Yes, I know that "life sentence" means a 10-20 year sentence in Europe. That was evident in your first post. I think that assigning that definition to that term is unproductive because it then means that there is no way to describe a sentence that lasts until the prisoner dies (what would we call that?). Suppose we define capital punishment as the act of giving presents to kids for Christmas? Does that now mean that Europeans support capital punishment?
You're welcome to disagree. I just think that euphemisms tend to muddle debate by allowing people to sound like they're agreeing when they really disagree. I'm not a fan of capital punishment, but that statement seems odd if you use the definition above. How can you disagree with something when your first step is to redefine it into something you agree with?
There's a lot more research than that. Those are just two off the top of my head.
That is a list of all of NASA publications, not just ones that necessitated putting humans in microgravity for long durations, which is the only mission that can only be performed on something like the ISS.
And you'll never be aware of any such thing, because that's not how medical research works.
Having a degree that qualifies me to perform medical research and being employed by a company that performs medical research, I do understand the nature of basic research.
That's why I'm skeptical of such claims. Rarely are advances like this made by ad-hoc experiments on a few subjects in a space station.
I don't think this was really the reason for building the ISS. It was more about giving scientists in the former USSR something to do besides building ICBMs for countries like North Korea. The science was more of an after-the-fact whitewash.
False dichotomy. There's no reason they couldn't be building missiles now, too, and no real evidence they would be without the ISS. Nice conspiracy theory, though.
I'm not saying that it worked. I'm saying that this was the main reason for it. That and just promoting US-Russian cooperation at a time when this was politically important. The US has never launched a manned mission primarily to accomplish science. It was about international acclaim and such back in the 60s, and other political concerns more recently. That's why the manned space program is slowly falling apart today - no political will to keep it going. The science needs haven't changed a bit, but they were never the driver.
...but none of that matters once you get into hard vacuum and high radiation. Sure, your rockets and life-support might work fine here, but once you're in microgravity for, say, the several-month-long trip to Mars, you're going to have to deal with debris, dust, and all those long-term biological effects currently being studied on the ISS. Your plan still requires a $150B expense, but you just push it off a few decades, delaying our ultimate interplanetary voyage.
An expense pushed off a few decades is a MUCH LOWER expense. Put $10B in the bank today and you have $150B in a few decades. It doesn't delay the ultimate voyage unless it is on the critical path. I've yet to see any evidence that human living in microgravity is the main factor delaying an interplanetary voyage. High radiation and space debris certainly is a factor, but I don't see how we're learning anything about dealing with those by sticking people in a can in LEO which is completely unlike interplanetary space in both regards. Besides, if you want to experiment on radiation and micrometeoroids, surely there are better ways to do the initial experiments than sticking humans in those conditions.
Yeah, we did that. Turns out it's also expensive, error-prone, and doesn't yield nearly as much scientific results. Then there's still the whole gravity thing to deal with, and a self-contained habitat with our current technology is really big.
So, why not figure out how to actually make it work on the ground before trying to put it in space? If you think it is hard to do here, it is going to be REALLY hard to do up there.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't research technologies that will get us to other planets. I'm saying that we should put the money into solving the inexpensive problems before we try to put money into the expensive ones. The expensive ones will then become less expensive to study by the time we get to them. Most interplanetary travel research should be done on the ground, not in space. We don't put engineers on planes to design aircraft, and we don't need to put engineers in space to make a lot of progress on building spacecraft.
The problem with sysvinit is that 95% of daemons just need a common set of actions to start/stop them, and sysvinit tend to handle this by writing bash scripts starting from a skeleton.
So maybe for one daemon you can set a config setting to make it use ionice, and for another you can't, simply because in one script a bit of extra functionality was written.
For the most part systemd makes a config file into a config file, not an executable. Sure, you can run a script if you have to, but 99% of the time you don't need to.
In fact, there is no reason you couldn't write a sysvinit script that takes in a systemd unit as a config file and starts/stops the corresponding service. That would be a great way to transition - switch your bash scripts to unit files gradually and then swap out the init system.
The purpose of having humans in space is to be able to study humans in space. The purpose of studying humans in space is to better understand the human body and its processes, which has already led to advances in medicine, especially in the areas of degenerative conditions like osteoporosis and atrophy. The purpose of seeking better medical treatment for such conditions is to improve the longevity and comfort of all mankind.
Citations? This is a LOT of spending to justify it primarily based on its impact to some gains in osteoporosis and atrophy. That research would have to have a HUGE impact on quality of life for the elderly to support a $150B investment, plus the ongoing costs to maintain it. I'm not an expert on those conditions, but I'm not aware of any big breakthroughs that have really had an impact on the treatment of these conditions.
I don't think this was really the reason for building the ISS. It was more about giving scientists in the former USSR something to do besides building ICBMs for countries like North Korea. The science was more of an after-the-fact whitewash.
If you're going to build a $150E9 space station, I agree that you might as well get use out of it. However, longer-term I'm not sure that keeping people in space is really the right solution. At least, not in this particular way. I'm all for even more permanent settlements in space, but I think before we do that there are a lot of fundamental technologies that need to be perfected down on the ground. Everything short of microgravity can be studied more effectively on Earth. Let's get better rockets, self-contained life-support systems, terraforming, etc all worked out in lab environments. Then once we know what we're doing we can think about putting them in orbit.
If you can build self-contained settlements that require nothing but solar power to operate and maybe the very rare resupply (ie it grows its own food and creates its own O2), that would go a long way towards making life better on Earth, and it will make maintaining a space station much cheaper.
For some reason, we teach kids and adults that blackholes are "evil" and suck up everything --- but blackholes are very helpful holding galaxies together and binding our galaxies together so that they are warm and stable for extremely long periods of time.
Without blackholes, the universe may not be able to support life without the stability that blackholes give to galaxies...
I don't think this is true at all. What evidence exists that black holes have any substantial impact on the structure or stability of galaxies? In the Milky Way the central black hole contains about 0.001% as much mass as the stars do, and galaxy models that only contain the stars aren't even stable. The only way models can account for the stability of galaxies is to add a huge amount of dark matter in.
It seems more likely that black holes are the result of the forces that form galaxies, and not the cause.
Of course, you're only talking about monetary returns. In terms of scientific value, the ISS experiments and observations have been some of the most productive projects in recent years.
How many of those experiments needed to be performed on the ISS. The complaint isn't with experiments in space, it is with the ISS. There is no reason that you can't launch a satellite, have an unmanned experiment performed, and then de-orbit the satellite.
Slashdot Mirror
I have to wonder though just how hard it would be to put a set of high-res cameras on a drone, and project the image onto a collimated dome display in a cockpit. The cockpit could have MUCH better visibility too - no need for structural strength and all that. In fact, if the pilot used alternative controls and stood up they could easily have a complete view (after enough training that they neither vomit nor fall over during maneuvers). Obviously the bandwidth requirements would be higher.
Good point. I was looking at the value of the index and not counting dividends. That would be a decent chunk of missed earnings.
My 401k says differently. I am averaging 10-15% yoy. Only 2008 was the only neg and that rebounded very quickly.
Over what period of time? If you started in early 2009 sure you're doing great. If you started in early 2008, not so much.
You can get a huge ROI over various random period of time. If you're investing in an index you're doing it for the long-term, and the long-term results for the S&P 500 aren't really all that dazzling, unless you compare it to just about anything else. There really aren't any reliable ways to get double-digit returns long-term these days - maybe if the market goes back to how it behaved in the 40s-80s there would be.
Interesting - your use of it is very similar to how I was using it, once upon a time.
Just because you or anyone you know don't use Yahoo doesn't mean Yahoo is doing terribly or desperate.
I never claimed they were. I just asked some questions, like who visits yahoo, and how the stats are measured. I also made a statement which is completely true - I don't know of anybody who uses them. That makes me skeptical, and the best thing you can give a skeptic who understands logic is data.
Return on the S&P 500 has been about 6% over the last 10 years, and about 7% over the last 20 years. The whole double-digit growth thing made a whole lot more sense in the prospectuses they sent out in the late 90s...
In July it overtook Google as the most visited US web property and remains #1 to date (comScore)?
Really? Who visits Yahoo? Maybe I'm just out of touch, but I don't know anybody who regularly visits Yahoo, and didn't know anybody back when I still used it for everything years ago (back when Google was the newcomer).
I'd also be interested in how things are measured. I rarely type "google.com" in my browser, but I use Google all the time.
It will cover the 48 mile engagement envelope of an S-300 (24 miles each way), in 38 seconds..,,
Think about this. If you're intercepting a Mach 6 target with a missile whose peak speed is Mach 6, the only geometry that works is effectively a head-on collision. If the target passes even a few miles to either side of the launcher, it will be safe.
Not quite. Assuming that it could climb high enough you could hit an SR-72 with a Cessna launched from 200 miles away, as long as you knew where it was going to be in 2-3 hours. You don't fire at an aircraft when it is directly overhead - you fire at it while it is still heading your way on a lead intercept trajectory.
How far off-course it can be fired depends more on the missiles range and your radar system than on the missile's speed. What the missile's speed probably does affect is the ability of the target to evade the missile. The Cessna example only works if the SR72 doesn't change course - if it even turns the slightest bit there is no way the Cessna could move to a new intercept point in time.
Missiles generally burn through their propellant fairly quickly - they're gliding towards the target for much of their trajectory. Their rockets generate far more power than an aircraft, but their fuel capacity delivers far less energy over time. Towards the edge of their engagement envelope they're much less likely to hit a maneuvering target - especially one that is fast and which undoubtedly is more optimized for operation at those crazy-high altitudes.
The best defense for the SR72 is to avoid flying too close to a launcher. The best way to counter this is to have lots of launchers, and a good integrated radar system so that the range of the launcher's radar isn't the limiting factor.
You only have to hit a few of them before the debris takes out everything in orbit, so which ones you shoot at doesn't really matter all that much...
Um... no. Speeding fines are NOT there to collect some money for municipalities, otherwise they would be uniformly and much more strictly enforced.
If speed limits were uniformly enforced either the limits would be eliminated within a week, or riot police would have to shoot most of the population within that time. The only reason the current limits are tolerated is the fact that everybody can easily get away with violating them.
Wouldn't using pen and paper force you to break the all-important eye contact that you were talking about?
Couldn't agree more with what you're getting at.
That said, taking notes on a phone doesn't seem practical. Maybe handwriting on a tablet might work, but I'm not convinced.
What I've found is the best way for taking notes if I'm leading a meeting is to take them in some application which is being presented - it doubles as minutes/etc. I don't take time to make them pretty or anything. Often I'll just hit reply-all to the meeting invite and just take notes against the agenda in an email compose window. If the setting is informal enough to not need cleanup I literally hit send before ending the meeting and everybody leaves with the notes. This type of note-taking is completely non-distracting and often helps direct discussion. If I'm looking to gather specific data I'll start out with a template useful for gathering that data.
For personal notes I use a Livescribe pen. I find that it gives me all the benefits of a tablet/etc, but it is much more practical to use. I could type, but typing is a bit more distracting to others and is limited with regard to the ability to make notes/diagrams/etc.
Phone use during meetings is pretty common, but I'd be very hesitant to do it if I were the meeting organizer, or in a situation like a sales call unless the phone use were directly relevant to the meeting at hand (let me get our experts on that for you and we'll have an answer before we leave...).
Just a personal anecdote. I was invited to present to senior leadership at my company, and everybody in the room significantly outranked me. The previous speaker had taken a while after lunch to speak, and after I finished setting up several people were still not back from taking a break. I asked the executive running the meeting if I should go ahead and start. He told me not to, and that we'd go ahead and embarrass anybody who was late, which he basically then did (he didn't say a word, but I'm sure everybody who walked in noted the dead silence in the room). I was given my full allotment of time to present despite them being a few minutes behind on the agenda.
The message I got out of this was that the executive running the meeting valued my time, and wanted those who worked for him to do the same. Everybody was well-engaged in the brief discussion following my presentation. The meeting had none of the usual distractions.
I made a point to pass along feedback afterwards that I appreciated the way the meeting was run. My manager actually told me at our next meeting that she was asked to relay an apology from the executive for the waste of my time. It really had an impact on the importance I placed on doing a good job at work - leadership by example works.
MiTM responds with his key when you request the key.
Sure, but only if they're MITM when you request the key, and they're MITM every time you communicate.
If they're not MITM when you request the key, then the attacker has missed his only opportunity to swap out the key - further communications are secure and authenticated against the original key and cannot be intercepted.
If they do swap out the key and they aren't MITM for a subsequent communication then a message will get to its destination which is encrypted/signed with the wrong keys. The destination email client will toss up a warning that somebody is messing with their mail, and give instructions for how to do a proper key exchange with out-of-band fingerprint checking.
Think about the threat profile. Somebody monitoring your email probably doesn't want you to know that they're doing it. Any attack that involves extra hops is going to be difficult to pull off if you don't want to alert somebody, even without encryption. If you are actively swapping out keys via MITM this is much more detectable than a more passive attack. You're not going to do this for every single email sent on the internet. That means that when you discover a target of interest that you do want to MITM your opportunity for doing so will have largely past, unless they start communicating with somebody new. It also means that you need to follow at least one side of every conversation around perfectly if they send data wirelessly, via mobile, whatever. If one endpoint of every conversation involves a server whose ISP you control then that isn't too hard to pull off. If your point of interception is a cell tower, then good luck!
I think that anytime we have an unencrypted communication replacing it with an unauthenticated, encrypted communication with key history tracking is a significant step up. That isn't as secure as authenticated communication using TRUSTWORTHY certificates, but it is always better than unencrypted communication.
Oh, and 99% of what passes for authenticated communications on the internet is worthless. My browser must have 50 root CAs configured, and I have zero ability to audit any of them, and zero trust in the ability of anybody who does audit them to actually detect problems before they affect me. I don't trust them to keep me secure against non-governmental attackers, let alone the NSA.
At least at my employer the entire facility is surrounded by a fence, with the only openings being turnstiles that run floor to ceiling, or a manned gatehouse where there is a more traditional turnstile. The only way through that is to either jump it, or have the guard unlock it. Vehicle passage is blocked by a gate - no obstacle if you want to just drive through it, but that would hardly be inconspicuous.
If you're in the building you have physical access to some of the company resources, unless you're very closely watched.
Sure, but first you have to get into the building. This was not demonstrated at all. Merely having the name of the trash company doesn't get you inside.
At my employer if you don't have an ID card that opens a turnstile you need to walk up to the security desk and be registered. If your photo isn't on file they require a government-issued photo ID. So, you'd need to know the name of the trash collector, and not just the name of their employer.
Granted, stealing an ID probably would be possible. Unless they're closely watching the cameras it would probably be difficult to detect in advance. Of course, when something bad happens they would be reviewing the logs. You're not going to have airtight security unless you have guards inspect every person or use a mantrap/etc.
.. Is to buy my own domain to host email off of. I'm not dependent on any providers whims or fancies. I still don't understand why people don't do it. Host your email anywhere you wish but get your own domain. It means you never have to worry about changing providers since all your contacts and services can still use the same address.
I do all that. And every message I get is forwarded to a gmail account, which I basically use as my MUA.
I've yet to find an FOSS solution that matches it. I've yet to find an IMAP solution that supports tag-based email, and I've yet to find a decent web-based MUA. To be decent at least next, previous, delete, spam, and archive must have keyboard shortcuts. I can't describe how much time that saves over having to click on buttons in something like squirrelmail/roundcube.
Just give me those features and a decent Android MUA as well (those are easier to find) and I'll be more than happy to ditch gmail.
Certainly agree on all points, though you'll find plenty of systemd controversy over at Gentoo all the same...
You need to remember that most of the time Debian is not about developing new stuff, it's primarily about PACKAGING and DISTRIBUTING existing stuff.
Tend to agree - Debian really isn't one of those cutting-edge distros. I can see a distro like Gentoo offering systemd as an option because it tends to offer lots of crazy options that most aren't interested in and many of which don't stick. Heck, you could run Gentoo+systemd on x32 most likely - you'd probably have the only box on the planet configured that way if you did.
I think that's fine - Debian has the "just works" niche and they'd be silly to give it up. The world doesn't need just one linux distro - I'd rather see linux have an offering for anybody.
You misunderstand yet again. I'm not talking about your beliefs in terms of what is a correct justice system, but the beliefs of what certain terms mean and your complete intolerance (to the point of insulting) for the fact that in other cultures those terms mean completely different things.
Yes, I know that "life sentence" means a 10-20 year sentence in Europe. That was evident in your first post. I think that assigning that definition to that term is unproductive because it then means that there is no way to describe a sentence that lasts until the prisoner dies (what would we call that?). Suppose we define capital punishment as the act of giving presents to kids for Christmas? Does that now mean that Europeans support capital punishment?
You're welcome to disagree. I just think that euphemisms tend to muddle debate by allowing people to sound like they're agreeing when they really disagree. I'm not a fan of capital punishment, but that statement seems odd if you use the definition above. How can you disagree with something when your first step is to redefine it into something you agree with?
There's a lot more research than that. Those are just two off the top of my head.
That is a list of all of NASA publications, not just ones that necessitated putting humans in microgravity for long durations, which is the only mission that can only be performed on something like the ISS.
And you'll never be aware of any such thing, because that's not how medical research works.
Having a degree that qualifies me to perform medical research and being employed by a company that performs medical research, I do understand the nature of basic research.
That's why I'm skeptical of such claims. Rarely are advances like this made by ad-hoc experiments on a few subjects in a space station.
I don't think this was really the reason for building the ISS. It was more about giving scientists in the former USSR something to do besides building ICBMs for countries like North Korea. The science was more of an after-the-fact whitewash.
False dichotomy. There's no reason they couldn't be building missiles now, too, and no real evidence they would be without the ISS. Nice conspiracy theory, though.
I'm not saying that it worked. I'm saying that this was the main reason for it. That and just promoting US-Russian cooperation at a time when this was politically important. The US has never launched a manned mission primarily to accomplish science. It was about international acclaim and such back in the 60s, and other political concerns more recently. That's why the manned space program is slowly falling apart today - no political will to keep it going. The science needs haven't changed a bit, but they were never the driver.
...but none of that matters once you get into hard vacuum and high radiation. Sure, your rockets and life-support might work fine here, but once you're in microgravity for, say, the several-month-long trip to Mars, you're going to have to deal with debris, dust, and all those long-term biological effects currently being studied on the ISS. Your plan still requires a $150B expense, but you just push it off a few decades, delaying our ultimate interplanetary voyage.
An expense pushed off a few decades is a MUCH LOWER expense. Put $10B in the bank today and you have $150B in a few decades. It doesn't delay the ultimate voyage unless it is on the critical path. I've yet to see any evidence that human living in microgravity is the main factor delaying an interplanetary voyage. High radiation and space debris certainly is a factor, but I don't see how we're learning anything about dealing with those by sticking people in a can in LEO which is completely unlike interplanetary space in both regards. Besides, if you want to experiment on radiation and micrometeoroids, surely there are better ways to do the initial experiments than sticking humans in those conditions.
Yeah, we did that. Turns out it's also expensive, error-prone, and doesn't yield nearly as much scientific results. Then there's still the whole gravity thing to deal with, and a self-contained habitat with our current technology is really big.
So, why not figure out how to actually make it work on the ground before trying to put it in space? If you think it is hard to do here, it is going to be REALLY hard to do up there.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't research technologies that will get us to other planets. I'm saying that we should put the money into solving the inexpensive problems before we try to put money into the expensive ones. The expensive ones will then become less expensive to study by the time we get to them. Most interplanetary travel research should be done on the ground, not in space. We don't put engineers on planes to design aircraft, and we don't need to put engineers in space to make a lot of progress on building spacecraft.
The problem with sysvinit is that 95% of daemons just need a common set of actions to start/stop them, and sysvinit tend to handle this by writing bash scripts starting from a skeleton.
So maybe for one daemon you can set a config setting to make it use ionice, and for another you can't, simply because in one script a bit of extra functionality was written.
For the most part systemd makes a config file into a config file, not an executable. Sure, you can run a script if you have to, but 99% of the time you don't need to.
In fact, there is no reason you couldn't write a sysvinit script that takes in a systemd unit as a config file and starts/stops the corresponding service. That would be a great way to transition - switch your bash scripts to unit files gradually and then swap out the init system.
The purpose of having humans in space is to be able to study humans in space. The purpose of studying humans in space is to better understand the human body and its processes, which has already led to advances in medicine, especially in the areas of degenerative conditions like osteoporosis and atrophy. The purpose of seeking better medical treatment for such conditions is to improve the longevity and comfort of all mankind.
Citations? This is a LOT of spending to justify it primarily based on its impact to some gains in osteoporosis and atrophy. That research would have to have a HUGE impact on quality of life for the elderly to support a $150B investment, plus the ongoing costs to maintain it. I'm not an expert on those conditions, but I'm not aware of any big breakthroughs that have really had an impact on the treatment of these conditions.
I don't think this was really the reason for building the ISS. It was more about giving scientists in the former USSR something to do besides building ICBMs for countries like North Korea. The science was more of an after-the-fact whitewash.
If you're going to build a $150E9 space station, I agree that you might as well get use out of it. However, longer-term I'm not sure that keeping people in space is really the right solution. At least, not in this particular way. I'm all for even more permanent settlements in space, but I think before we do that there are a lot of fundamental technologies that need to be perfected down on the ground. Everything short of microgravity can be studied more effectively on Earth. Let's get better rockets, self-contained life-support systems, terraforming, etc all worked out in lab environments. Then once we know what we're doing we can think about putting them in orbit.
If you can build self-contained settlements that require nothing but solar power to operate and maybe the very rare resupply (ie it grows its own food and creates its own O2), that would go a long way towards making life better on Earth, and it will make maintaining a space station much cheaper.
Uh, you do realize you can send that string to /dev/random, right?
For some reason, we teach kids and adults that blackholes are "evil" and suck up everything --- but blackholes are very helpful holding galaxies together and binding our galaxies together so that they are warm and stable for extremely long periods of time.
Without blackholes, the universe may not be able to support life without the stability that blackholes give to galaxies...
I don't think this is true at all. What evidence exists that black holes have any substantial impact on the structure or stability of galaxies? In the Milky Way the central black hole contains about 0.001% as much mass as the stars do, and galaxy models that only contain the stars aren't even stable. The only way models can account for the stability of galaxies is to add a huge amount of dark matter in.
It seems more likely that black holes are the result of the forces that form galaxies, and not the cause.
Of course, you're only talking about monetary returns. In terms of scientific value, the ISS experiments and observations have been some of the most productive projects in recent years.
How many of those experiments needed to be performed on the ISS. The complaint isn't with experiments in space, it is with the ISS. There is no reason that you can't launch a satellite, have an unmanned experiment performed, and then de-orbit the satellite.