First of all, I wasn't trying to show that America was *first* - I was responding to the parent poster claiming that the Soviets were *first*. The fact is that both nations claimed a lot of firsts in that ten years, and we surpassed the Russians fairly quickly, in addition to building our ability quicker - powered rendezvous in orbit was EXTREMELY important, the lunar missions could have been done without it, but only at a very increased cost.
Rendezvous: What the Russians did was not "slightly easier" it was *enormously* easier! There is a vast gulf between two spacecraft passing each other at four thousand miles per hour and two spacecraft deliberately rendezvousing under power from a starting distance of 1200 km. A VAST difference!
First unthethered, powered space walk not particularly important? Tell that to the astronauts who repaired Hubble (and other sats) using the MMU to maneuver them into the shuttle bay. Where do you think that technology started? (BTW, I was wrong about White, he was tethered, although he did have his own propulsion. But we still did the first untethered flights when the MMU was deployed. I should have previewed:)
I'm not sure whether the Sovs attempted geosynch sats before we did, hence the qualification. However, we were certainly the first to exploit their benefits.
I dealt with the Salyut vs. Skylab question in another reply in this thread tonite; but you are right, I should have explained why I felt that way. I was trying not to let the post run on and on, however. But you might want to read up on Salyut 1 and see just how useful it was, which was not much.
Of course in your efforts to big-up the US space program you also fail to mention that Russia visited a whole load of planets (both orbital and surface), which is a pretty significant achievement.
I believe we were talking about manned flight here, not unmanned. But we also visited quite a few planets in the 60s; not as many as we could have, given what we were pouring into Apollo. While it's true the Soviets were the first with a functioning Venus lander, Venera, we were the first with functioning Mars landers, and they did a lot more science. So there, nyah nyah nyah;)
Actually, from what I've read since the early 90s, the Soviets pretty much abandoned their serious attempt at a manned lunar landing before Apollo 11 to concentrate on building a space station. They knew they weren't going to beat us. (I'd have to dig thru my back issues of Aviation Week for quotes, but I know the info is out there; I just don't have time to dig it up right now)
Anyway, whether you found my post amusing or not means nothing to me. You and a few other people misread the intent of the post. Happily it appears that many others did not.
Well, I'm not trying a semantic argument; while most others consider Salyut a space station, I'm afraid I don't. I admit that it was *intended* as one, but only had one mission crew and was never really used fully for it's intended purpose.
However I will admit that it certainly was the first try at one. It's a damned shame they brought it down so soon, it might have made the Mir concept come alive a lot sooner.
Actually IIRC most if not all Sov walks before '70 were mostly showboating. I don't recall that they did any real experiments in such things as construction techniques (which White did).
Correct me if I'm wrong, tho. I still haven't managed to read all the newly released stuff that's come out over the last ten years; I'm trying furiously to rememdy that however:)
A tether seriously limits the ability of an astronaut to do work. Really serious stuff like construction and moving satellites around is extremely difficult with one. For that matter, even the hand-held "gas gun" that the early American spacewalkers had wasn't all that great, but it led to the more modern MMUs (which are still sort of clutzy, but they work well)
If I sounded that way, it wasn't meant so. I simply wanted to point out that while the Soviets had some firsts, we had quite a few more and passed them quickly once we got our cart rolling - it was like the Hare and the Tortoise race.
I admire the Soviet achievements, also - but I'd like to point out that they (you?) pushed hard to do what they did for political reasons and actually was the real pusher to getting America kickstarted:)
Korolev was the real driver; and his death in '66 was a great loss. He was a brilliant man and the Soviet equivalent of Gilruth.
When I think of what could have been accomplished had both countries been cooperating back then instead of competing, it almost makes me weep.
Agreed, in part. But I feel the need to bitch, and what you said is a fine opener, so here goes:)
--
Then start donating whatever you have (time, money, posts) to private space efforts, rather than bitching about how the government spends money (more or less useless bitch, at least on this site)...
Right now, the fact is that we need *both* NASA and the private efforts. Maybe more people need to realize that they could compliment each other. For all it's faults, NASA has a lot of trained and experienced people who could really help the private efforts get off the ground.
But there is too much of your kind of attitude - especially among the NASA people and the many layers of management above them - including Congress - to make that a reality.
Your analogy about NASCAR is in one sense a troll, but also very insightful.
What would happen wrt to space flight if the public spent even a tenth on it (as they did back during Apollo) as they do on NASCAR?
Boggles the mind. Maybe we'd have a public who would realize that risk is risk, no matter what venue it's in, and cheer their heroes by participating.
Then again, maybe not. It might become BORING. So racing around a track can't become boring, and space flight can? I mean, JESUS, people might get killed! Oh, fucking really!?
Never mind me, I just think that most of the public is too ignorant to understand what's important. Sorry I feel that way. It's not really their fault, anyway. But I'll lay a Large Frozen Trout (~1x10^11 metric tons) on the media. Sorry to be pissy, but the desire to meet frontiers head-on died in this country with Apollo. Guess "Reality TV" and "Seinfeld" is more interesting; but I bet they don't get the billions of people watching them at any one moment that Apollo 11 did.
Which was up there for all of 6 months, with two crews.
Skylab was up a lot longer, and accomplished a lot more (especially given the engineering problems the first astronauts up encountered - and SOLVED.
Mr. AC, you might want to read a bit about the history of NASA around and after the Apollo 11 flight; you are woefully uninformed about the impact the budget cuts for NASA had on the skilled and trained engineers who were there.
You might also want to peruse some of the budget history from the late 60s/ early 70s, and particularly WRT to the shuttle designs and the politics involved therein.
Idiot, yourself. You have no clue what you are talking about.
FY, SB
Re:If you are tired of 503
on
Soyuz To The Moon?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
You know that things are really going to hell (facing possible improvement? * ) at slashdot when complaints about the service get modded UP - and consistently!
ruh roh, raggy LOL
SB * maybe we need a permanent slashdot bitch forum, with moderation, and I'm NOT talking about email or IRC.
Von Braun did a lot; but he was also somewhat of an obstructionist. His (and his team's) greatest contribution, late in the program, was the Saturn 1B and 5 rockets. Before that he was pretty well out of the picture, somewhat during Mercury, and totally out during Gemini and Apollo, other than his contribution to the launch platform.
Von Braun was often described as someone who'd work for anyone, and had no allegiance to any country. I find that simultaneously despicable and admirable. The guy was one helluva engineer, and knew how to drive brilliant people to accomplish things.
You should really read Kraft's book. There were many things in it that were an eye-opener.
You should also think on how hard it is to work for someone you detest - Braun detested the Nazis, but he had little choice during WWII. We're just damned lucky that the Soviets didn't capture him first (IIRC he and his team *chose* to be captured by the Americans. THINK on that).
Yeah, we'll be helping them fund their program - again. Um, somewhat "unofficially". Not a bad thing, mind you.
Not to disparage the Sovs, they have their own problems. But the irony, both ways, is getting pretty thick at this point, and I'm not just talking about the cold war, either.
First *guided* and piloted (as opposed to launched on similar orbits passing somewhat close at 4k mph) rendezvous in space: America, Gemini 6/7, which achieved rendezvous via onboard thrusters, computers, and radar.
First men around the moon, first men *on* the moon: America (Apollos 8 and 11) - if anyone thinks that wasn't a win, you don't know what you are talking about - the Soviets simply couldn't match our determination and engineering)
First human in space to move around with a device made for the purpose: Ed White, America ( the Soviet space walk was tethered and non-propelled; we developed something to allow him to move around and attempt the first useful work in orbit)
First serious use of Geosynch communications sats: America; also first "spy" sats that could transmit via encrypted video and not rely on de-orbited film canisters.
First unmanned docking with a booster which was used to boost our manned spacecraft into higher orbits: America (Gemini, with the Agena)
First Human-guided landing on the moon: America (Neil piloting the LM down after the guidance computers failed - also, mind you, we essentially *boasted* that we'd land a man on the moon within ten years, and we did it - the Russians did not and still haven't. )
First space "station": Skylab (yeah, not permanently manned, but it was the first, and very profitable knowledge-wise.) The Sovs profited a lot from the knowledge we gained from Skylab. Note that they didn't launch Mir for many years afterward.
First reusable orbital vehicle that could deliver cargo: America - the space shuttle (yeah, it's a clusterfuck now - but blame the funders, not the engineers, at least not the original ones. We could do better, if the idiots in the many layers of "oversight" had got the hell out of the way in the 70s. )
The Soviets won a lot of the unmanned contests back then, and some of the manned. We passed them by in the mid 60s and went higher and a *lot* further. (Yeah, we stagnated after that. But that's politics for ya; thanks for nothing, Nixon; despite your public support for the space program, you did doodly to stop it getting shafted by Congress.)
What it comes down to, tho, is that the Soviets had no "firsts" in space after Leonov's space walk; and despite starting way behind them, we passed them and beat them hands down in the "space race". It wasn't until Mir that they did something we hadn't done - and if we'd taken advantage of the infrastructure we had at the point of Apollo 11, they'd not even done that.
SB (apologies, I've just finished reading Chris Kraft's excellent book "Flight", and I recommend it highly.)
If it was the US, there'd be lawyers begging to do so.
Can just imagine it: "My client is currently in a Schrodinger state"
--
Meh. This whole scenario is unlikely to happen anyhow. Looks to me like it's vaporware at this point. Not saying I wouldn't love to see it happen, just that I don't think it's likely they'll succeed - it's not quite the time yet.
I'm wondering at this point if we're not going to see a lot of startups riding Rutan's coattails? After all, the dotcomm bust was only a few years ago...
Good points! Now as to whether or not they'd stand up in court,:D - but hell, why not? I'm one of those who has more friends that I communicate with over the internet than in person (hell, my entire family communicates via internet, as scattered as we are)...
The dismantlement of the Constitution has been going on for decades. It's only recently that's it become blatant - mostly from a lack of any form of serious opposition (fighting them on their own ground - not even the Republican party members who oppose it seem willing to do so.)
(my personal opinion is that Godwin's "law" has a caveat; if the person posting can relate it realistically to current events, said "law" is null and void. But then I was on usenet long before all that bullshit came to be.;)
It's not really a dictatorship we're becoming - it's a quasi-empire. The main difference there is how we deal with foreign powers; and the only reason I say "quasi" is because we can't seem to make up our mind just *what* we are doing; which mainly seems to be flailing around with no clear direction. Seems there is little reading of history there - not that it's surprising.
Parallels to Nazi tactics, in a political sense, go all the way back to McCarthy, the UnAmerican tribunals, etc. Power Hunger in all it's forms has always been around. It's ironic to see how it seems to get treated only when it becomes a election issue (this year is the worst I've seen by far.)
Personally I think the best thing that could happen right now would be a Bush reelection, followed by the GAO and SCOTUS getting some judicial balls and slapping his advisors upside the head. Kerry and his cronies are not going to accomplish jackdoodle, even assuming they could figure out how to wield the power they would hold. Not that they would care, anyway - or even realize what the hell is going on.
I'm not going to hold my breath. America has become a chaotic system, in that it doesn't matter what pressures are brought to bear, there is no one influence that can make a difference in how things work here anymore.
Oh, sure, there are initiatives which get implemented - but their real results mostly have little to do with the initial ideals that implemented them.
Meanwhile, as always, everyone on the pointy end has to deal with the results. As is often happens in history, it's the revolt of the pointy end that decides the end results. What scares me is the chaos that can and will result from that, and all these bloody fools who think that they can direct the course of this country right now. Wisdom and intelligence has not been a requirement for election in this country since the founders; if even then. One could put it better by saying that humans who are willing to let themselves be led by others deserve what they get.
It's out of *anyone's* hands at this point - and the greedheads and powerseekers set the stage (of both parties). At this point it's a self-sustaining reaction that nobody - absolutely NOBODY - can control.
Maybe in a couple of generations somebody might figure out how to sort out this mess. Until then, the US is essentially an Empire without portfolio. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if there was a military coup down the road. It'd be historically classic. But then again, we're breaking new ground here.
Entropy always wins.
I don't want to talk about this anymore tonite. Sorry.
Which is why I made the distinction. I'm libertarian, but I don't consider myself part of the "mainstream" lib party (lol!) - nor any of the offshoots. To me, being libertarian is exercising my right to choose who I vote for, and not following party lines whatsoever, but rather voting based on how I feel about each candidate.
Perhaps I would better describe my leanings as "anti-partisan". I don't really know, and I don't really care.:) Labels are for lemmings. Don't necessarily consider Rand/Birch/etc wackos, either - they have some really strange views, but often some good points. Ashcroft, on the other hand;)
If I write-in Clark, it won't have anything to do with polls - rather it'll have to do with his conduct in the campaign, and what he says, how he says it, and how much I think he believes in it.
I don't play voting games based on polls or likelihoods. I vote according to who I think could do the job, and my belief wrt to such, and I stick with it, until they prove otherwise. Political and Partisan games are for pussies who don't know what integrity is. (sorry, but that's the way I see it)
Yeah, I know, it's a vanishing demographic:D
I have to agree about the assraping Bush vs. Kerry wrt to constitution etc - but there are other kinds of assraping. WRT to Kerry, it's not so much that he's a dickhead, than it is that he comes across to me as being an incompetent dickhead. Bush and his cronies certainly aren't incompetent - they accomplish things - even if I think their agenda is terrifying, at least they do what they say they are going to. Can't say that I think Kerry understands what commitment is - and can't agree with the neocons, either.
No matter who wins the election in November (or whenever it actually happens), we all know who the losers are going to be: the American people and the Constitution
Yeah, but it's been like that for a long time. They wanted sheep, they produced a lot of compliant sheep. It's unlikely that any of them will live long enough to see the real consequences of their actions. It's the system that's borked; but at this point, it's not likely that anyone living will live long enough to see it fixed. If such is possible.
They wanted sheep, they got sheep. Let's see how long they can support the sheep, and how long it is before Those Who Are Serious do something about it.
There's honestly little difference between what's happening now and the events that destroyed most political systems which let the greedy and the radical idiots run rampant. The main difference now is that there is a much more effective media, which is, basically, adding to the confusion among the sheep.
Not sure that Shrub, Ashcroft and the ilk would agree to using condoms of *any* kind, lol!
Meh. Half the country is catatonic, the other half is busy flaming each other, and meanwhile there's some shards leftover who are just doing what we can to keep things going. It would not surprise me in the least if we experience an insurrection in this country in the next generation. T'would be the end of the US as an effective political entity, yet I'm not sure that such has not already happened.
Recording industry? Not even, read some of my other posts today:D
I do know something about statistical analysis WRT to polls, however - and I've been prowling usenet, slashdot, and many other places for a long, long time - and know a fair amount about how to spot a troll.
What you are gathering doesn't provide you with enough information to spot an effective troll - even consecutive entries by the same user can't do so. Come on, now - there are slashdot trolls who are extremely effective, even with the mindpool available here.:)
I realize that I don't know what methods you are using to filter trolls - but they are probably the same ones I use. Problem is, as I see it, you've just challenged what is probably the most creative group of lusers on the internet (short of the usenet assholes, anyway:)
I've seen almost $200,000 in the past 6 hours.
Bog help you:)
Good luck; but so far there is nothing I've seen that shows me that your results will be significant. You're going to have to outline your methods here on slashdot (and listen to the criticism) for it to be taken seriously. Yeah, I'm serious.
While I'm certain there are some trolls among us, I doubt they are more than a small percentage.
With all due respect, there is no way whatsoever that you can determine that short of validated proof thru investigation of each submitter.
Personally - and especially at this point in time - I'd bet that the ratio is at least 50/50, and likely to rise after the slashdot exposure.
The obvious bogus entries will be removed after human review.
I think you underestimate the creativity, motivation, and intelligence of trolls:)
Cheers and good luck, but again, with all respect for your attempt, I wouldn't treat your results as statistically valid. Problem is mainly that you have no control - nothing to compare your results to that can put them in perspective. Of course, that is often the problem with new approaches to analysis...
Making backup copies of a book is considerably more difficult, tho - and making backup copies of music media for personal use was once a more or less solid right.
The RIAA would evidently prefer that instead of backing up my tape collection to CD - I have a rather massive tape collection yet which I am trying to get transferred - that I go out and buy it again, and again, and again, as the media dies and the formats change.
/rant
Well, fuck that. I don't particularly give a shit about the moral or legal aspects of it - I PAID for that music, and I'll be damned if I'll just let it go to hell. Besides, much of it simply isn't obtainable at any price anymore from "authorized" distributors anyway, and a lot of the stuff I see out there is not the same performance I have on tape (or LP) and so enjoyed then - it's rehashes or "Best Of" crap that simply isn't as good.
I do buy a lot of Indie stuff nowadays, mostly because their music is a helluva lot better than the crap the mainstream is pushing, but also because they have the moxie to do things for themselves.
I hate greedy corporate bastards who think that we are but cogs in their financial quests, and I wish quick death on their business models and their personal fortunes. If those idiots had woken up some years ago, they might have a clue as to why so many people are getting pissed off at them. Guess they were too blinded by the $$figures to actually ask their customers what they wanted. Too f'k bad.
I'd vote Libertarian if they wern't a pack of slavering nutjobs.
Ah, but - remember that Libertarian != libertarian != libertarian(singular):) Not all of us agree with the "party" - as if the Libertarian "party" were truly representative of all views libertarian; they are just the radical wing, so to speak.
The only serious candidate this time around who didn't make my skin crawl was Gen. Wesley Clark. Of course he's too honest and has too much personal integrety to be allowed to be President. I used to think that Powell had integrety
Agreed about both. Shame about Powell, I used to have a lot of respect for him - nowadays he's mostly a parrot. Given a choice, I'll write-in Clark, and to hell with anyone who thinks that's taking away votes for either Bush or Kerry - I am NOT going to vote for either of them.
Indeed, and wouldn't it be the Ultimate In Irony if the end result of this whole fracas was that the copyrights held by Richmond Organization were declared null?:) (Is it possible for a court to do so in this case?)
Very well put, especially your final point, which I think is really the reason why this whole snafu started in the first place:
It is not to give the copyright holder veto power over messages they don't like.
I don't know about anyone else, but I think the motive of the Richmond Organization here is pretty clear, and it sure as h*** isn't about copyright enforcement. (It's either that or their lawyers haven't done their homework.)
Slashdot Mirror
First of all, I wasn't trying to show that America was *first* - I was responding to the parent poster claiming that the Soviets were *first*. The fact is that both nations claimed a lot of firsts in that ten years, and we surpassed the Russians fairly quickly, in addition to building our ability quicker - powered rendezvous in orbit was EXTREMELY important, the lunar missions could have been done without it, but only at a very increased cost.
:)
;)
Rendezvous: What the Russians did was not "slightly easier" it was *enormously* easier! There is a vast gulf between two spacecraft passing each other at four thousand miles per hour and two spacecraft deliberately rendezvousing under power from a starting distance of 1200 km. A VAST difference!
First unthethered, powered space walk not particularly important? Tell that to the astronauts who repaired Hubble (and other sats) using the MMU to maneuver them into the shuttle bay. Where do you think that technology started? (BTW, I was wrong about White, he was tethered, although he did have his own propulsion. But we still did the first untethered flights when the MMU was deployed. I should have previewed
I'm not sure whether the Sovs attempted geosynch sats before we did, hence the qualification. However, we were certainly the first to exploit their benefits.
I dealt with the Salyut vs. Skylab question in another reply in this thread tonite; but you are right, I should have explained why I felt that way. I was trying not to let the post run on and on, however. But you might want to read up on Salyut 1 and see just how useful it was, which was not much.
Of course in your efforts to big-up the US space program you also fail to mention that Russia visited a whole load of planets (both orbital and surface), which is a pretty significant achievement.
I believe we were talking about manned flight here, not unmanned. But we also visited quite a few planets in the 60s; not as many as we could have, given what we were pouring into Apollo. While it's true the Soviets were the first with a functioning Venus lander, Venera, we were the first with functioning Mars landers, and they did a lot more science. So there, nyah nyah nyah
Actually, from what I've read since the early 90s, the Soviets pretty much abandoned their serious attempt at a manned lunar landing before Apollo 11 to concentrate on building a space station. They knew they weren't going to beat us. (I'd have to dig thru my back issues of Aviation Week for quotes, but I know the info is out there; I just don't have time to dig it up right now)
Anyway, whether you found my post amusing or not means nothing to me. You and a few other people misread the intent of the post. Happily it appears that many others did not.
SB
Well, I'm not trying a semantic argument; while most others consider Salyut a space station, I'm afraid I don't. I admit that it was *intended* as one, but only had one mission crew and was never really used fully for it's intended purpose.
However I will admit that it certainly was the first try at one. It's a damned shame they brought it down so soon, it might have made the Mir concept come alive a lot sooner.
Anyway, I'll not argue it any further
Cheers,
SB
Actually IIRC most if not all Sov walks before '70 were mostly showboating. I don't recall that they did any real experiments in such things as construction techniques (which White did).
Correct me if I'm wrong, tho. I still haven't managed to read all the newly released stuff that's come out over the last ten years; I'm trying furiously to rememdy that however
A tether seriously limits the ability of an astronaut to do work. Really serious stuff like construction and moving satellites around is extremely difficult with one. For that matter, even the hand-held "gas gun" that the early American spacewalkers had wasn't all that great, but it led to the more modern MMUs (which are still sort of clutzy, but they work well)
Cheers,
SB
If I sounded that way, it wasn't meant so. I simply wanted to point out that while the Soviets had some firsts, we had quite a few more and passed them quickly once we got our cart rolling - it was like the Hare and the Tortoise race.
I admire the Soviet achievements, also - but I'd like to point out that they (you?) pushed hard to do what they did for political reasons and actually was the real pusher to getting America kickstarted
Korolev was the real driver; and his death in '66 was a great loss. He was a brilliant man and the Soviet equivalent of Gilruth.
When I think of what could have been accomplished had both countries been cooperating back then instead of competing, it almost makes me weep.
Cheers,
SB
Nope, that's not at all what I said.
SB
What on earth (or off it
Spacelab != Skylab.
Salyut was a capsule with a couple crews. Skylab was a lot more than a capsule.
SB
n/txt
Agreed, in part. But I feel the need to bitch, and what you said is a fine opener, so here goes :)
...
--
Then start donating whatever you have (time, money, posts) to private space efforts, rather than bitching about how the government spends money (more or less useless bitch, at least on this site)
Right now, the fact is that we need *both* NASA and the private efforts. Maybe more people need to realize that they could compliment each other. For all it's faults, NASA has a lot of trained and experienced people who could really help the private efforts get off the ground.
But there is too much of your kind of attitude - especially among the NASA people and the many layers of management above them - including Congress - to make that a reality.
Your analogy about NASCAR is in one sense a troll, but also very insightful.
What would happen wrt to space flight if the public spent even a tenth on it (as they did back during Apollo) as they do on NASCAR?
Boggles the mind. Maybe we'd have a public who would realize that risk is risk, no matter what venue it's in, and cheer their heroes by participating.
Then again, maybe not. It might become BORING. So racing around a track can't become boring, and space flight can? I mean, JESUS, people might get killed! Oh, fucking really!?
Never mind me, I just think that most of the public is too ignorant to understand what's important. Sorry I feel that way. It's not really their fault, anyway. But I'll lay a Large Frozen Trout (~1x10^11 metric tons) on the media. Sorry to be pissy, but the desire to meet frontiers head-on died in this country with Apollo. Guess "Reality TV" and "Seinfeld" is more interesting; but I bet they don't get the billions of people watching them at any one moment that Apollo 11 did.
SB
Which was up there for all of 6 months, with two crews.
Skylab was up a lot longer, and accomplished a lot more (especially given the engineering problems the first astronauts up encountered - and SOLVED.
Mr. AC, you might want to read a bit about the history of NASA around and after the Apollo 11 flight; you are woefully uninformed about the impact the budget cuts for NASA had on the skilled and trained engineers who were there.
You might also want to peruse some of the budget history from the late 60s/ early 70s, and particularly WRT to the shuttle designs and the politics involved therein.
Idiot, yourself. You have no clue what you are talking about.
FY,
SB
You know that things are really going to hell (facing possible improvement? * ) at slashdot when complaints about the service get modded UP - and consistently!
ruh roh, raggy LOL
SB
* maybe we need a permanent slashdot bitch forum, with moderation, and I'm NOT talking about email or IRC.
Von Braun did a lot; but he was also somewhat of an obstructionist. His (and his team's) greatest contribution, late in the program, was the Saturn 1B and 5 rockets. Before that he was pretty well out of the picture, somewhat during Mercury, and totally out during Gemini and Apollo, other than his contribution to the launch platform.
Von Braun was often described as someone who'd work for anyone, and had no allegiance to any country. I find that simultaneously despicable and admirable. The guy was one helluva engineer, and knew how to drive brilliant people to accomplish things.
You should really read Kraft's book. There were many things in it that were an eye-opener.
You should also think on how hard it is to work for someone you detest - Braun detested the Nazis, but he had little choice during WWII. We're just damned lucky that the Soviets didn't capture him first (IIRC he and his team *chose* to be captured by the Americans. THINK on that)
SB
Yeah, we'll be helping them fund their program - again. Um, somewhat "unofficially". Not a bad thing, mind you.
Not to disparage the Sovs, they have their own problems. But the irony, both ways, is getting pretty thick at this point, and I'm not just talking about the cold war, either.
SB
America did not win the space race.
America did not win the 'first' race.
Hmmm.
Some other firsts:
First *guided* and piloted (as opposed to launched on similar orbits passing somewhat close at 4k mph) rendezvous in space: America, Gemini 6/7, which achieved rendezvous via onboard thrusters, computers, and radar.
First men around the moon, first men *on* the moon: America (Apollos 8 and 11) - if anyone thinks that wasn't a win, you don't know what you are talking about - the Soviets simply couldn't match our determination and engineering)
First human in space to move around with a device made for the purpose: Ed White, America ( the Soviet space walk was tethered and non-propelled; we developed something to allow him to move around and attempt the first useful work in orbit)
First serious use of Geosynch communications sats: America; also first "spy" sats that could transmit via encrypted video and not rely on de-orbited film canisters.
First unmanned docking with a booster which was used to boost our manned spacecraft into higher orbits: America (Gemini, with the Agena)
First Human-guided landing on the moon: America (Neil piloting the LM down after the guidance computers failed - also, mind you, we essentially *boasted* that we'd land a man on the moon within ten years, and we did it - the Russians did not and still haven't. )
First space "station": Skylab (yeah, not permanently manned, but it was the first, and very profitable knowledge-wise.) The Sovs profited a lot from the knowledge we gained from Skylab. Note that they didn't launch Mir for many years afterward.
First reusable orbital vehicle that could deliver cargo: America - the space shuttle (yeah, it's a clusterfuck now - but blame the funders, not the engineers, at least not the original ones. We could do better, if the idiots in the many layers of "oversight" had got the hell out of the way in the 70s. )
The Soviets won a lot of the unmanned contests back then, and some of the manned. We passed them by in the mid 60s and went higher and a *lot* further. (Yeah, we stagnated after that. But that's politics for ya; thanks for nothing, Nixon; despite your public support for the space program, you did doodly to stop it getting shafted by Congress.)
What it comes down to, tho, is that the Soviets had no "firsts" in space after Leonov's space walk; and despite starting way behind them, we passed them and beat them hands down in the "space race". It wasn't until Mir that they did something we hadn't done - and if we'd taken advantage of the infrastructure we had at the point of Apollo 11, they'd not even done that.
SB
(apologies, I've just finished reading Chris Kraft's excellent book "Flight", and I recommend it highly.)
If it was the US, there'd be lawyers begging to do so.
Can just imagine it: "My client is currently in a Schrodinger state"
--
Meh. This whole scenario is unlikely to happen anyhow. Looks to me like it's vaporware at this point. Not saying I wouldn't love to see it happen, just that I don't think it's likely they'll succeed - it's not quite the time yet.
I'm wondering at this point if we're not going to see a lot of startups riding Rutan's coattails? After all, the dotcomm bust was only a few years ago...
SB
I see your point, but appearing weak and floundering to the rest of the world isn't going to do this country any favors, either :)
:)
So basically we're pretty well fucked.
Ditto...damn, my head hurts this morning. I know better than to spend 7 straight hours in front of a monitor.
Cheers,
SB
Good points! Now as to whether or not they'd stand up in court,
SB
They already have.
;)
The dismantlement of the Constitution has been going on for decades. It's only recently that's it become blatant - mostly from a lack of any form of serious opposition (fighting them on their own ground - not even the Republican party members who oppose it seem willing to do so.)
(my personal opinion is that Godwin's "law" has a caveat; if the person posting can relate it realistically to current events, said "law" is null and void. But then I was on usenet long before all that bullshit came to be.
It's not really a dictatorship we're becoming - it's a quasi-empire. The main difference there is how we deal with foreign powers; and the only reason I say "quasi" is because we can't seem to make up our mind just *what* we are doing; which mainly seems to be flailing around with no clear direction. Seems there is little reading of history there - not that it's surprising.
Parallels to Nazi tactics, in a political sense, go all the way back to McCarthy, the UnAmerican tribunals, etc. Power Hunger in all it's forms has always been around. It's ironic to see how it seems to get treated only when it becomes a election issue (this year is the worst I've seen by far.)
Personally I think the best thing that could happen right now would be a Bush reelection, followed by the GAO and SCOTUS getting some judicial balls and slapping his advisors upside the head. Kerry and his cronies are not going to accomplish jackdoodle, even assuming they could figure out how to wield the power they would hold. Not that they would care, anyway - or even realize what the hell is going on.
I'm not going to hold my breath. America has become a chaotic system, in that it doesn't matter what pressures are brought to bear, there is no one influence that can make a difference in how things work here anymore.
Oh, sure, there are initiatives which get implemented - but their real results mostly have little to do with the initial ideals that implemented them.
Meanwhile, as always, everyone on the pointy end has to deal with the results. As is often happens in history, it's the revolt of the pointy end that decides the end results. What scares me is the chaos that can and will result from that, and all these bloody fools who think that they can direct the course of this country right now. Wisdom and intelligence has not been a requirement for election in this country since the founders; if even then. One could put it better by saying that humans who are willing to let themselves be led by others deserve what they get.
It's out of *anyone's* hands at this point - and the greedheads and powerseekers set the stage (of both parties). At this point it's a self-sustaining reaction that nobody - absolutely NOBODY - can control.
Maybe in a couple of generations somebody might figure out how to sort out this mess. Until then, the US is essentially an Empire without portfolio. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if there was a military coup down the road. It'd be historically classic. But then again, we're breaking new ground here.
Entropy always wins.
I don't want to talk about this anymore tonite. Sorry.
SB
Which is why I made the distinction. I'm libertarian, but I don't consider myself part of the "mainstream" lib party (lol!) - nor any of the offshoots. To me, being libertarian is exercising my right to choose who I vote for, and not following party lines whatsoever, but rather voting based on how I feel about each candidate.
:) Labels are for lemmings. Don't necessarily consider Rand/Birch/etc wackos, either - they have some really strange views, but often some good points. Ashcroft, on the other hand ;)
:D
Perhaps I would better describe my leanings as "anti-partisan". I don't really know, and I don't really care.
If I write-in Clark, it won't have anything to do with polls - rather it'll have to do with his conduct in the campaign, and what he says, how he says it, and how much I think he believes in it.
I don't play voting games based on polls or likelihoods. I vote according to who I think could do the job, and my belief wrt to such, and I stick with it, until they prove otherwise. Political and Partisan games are for pussies who don't know what integrity is. (sorry, but that's the way I see it)
Yeah, I know, it's a vanishing demographic
I have to agree about the assraping Bush vs. Kerry wrt to constitution etc - but there are other kinds of assraping. WRT to Kerry, it's not so much that he's a dickhead, than it is that he comes across to me as being an incompetent dickhead. Bush and his cronies certainly aren't incompetent - they accomplish things - even if I think their agenda is terrifying, at least they do what they say they are going to. Can't say that I think Kerry understands what commitment is - and can't agree with the neocons, either.
No matter who wins the election in November (or whenever it actually happens), we all know who the losers are going to be: the American people and the Constitution
Yeah, but it's been like that for a long time. They wanted sheep, they produced a lot of compliant sheep. It's unlikely that any of them will live long enough to see the real consequences of their actions. It's the system that's borked; but at this point, it's not likely that anyone living will live long enough to see it fixed. If such is possible.
They wanted sheep, they got sheep. Let's see how long they can support the sheep, and how long it is before Those Who Are Serious do something about it.
There's honestly little difference between what's happening now and the events that destroyed most political systems which let the greedy and the radical idiots run rampant. The main difference now is that there is a much more effective media, which is, basically, adding to the confusion among the sheep.
Not sure that Shrub, Ashcroft and the ilk would agree to using condoms of *any* kind, lol!
Meh. Half the country is catatonic, the other half is busy flaming each other, and meanwhile there's some shards leftover who are just doing what we can to keep things going. It would not surprise me in the least if we experience an insurrection in this country in the next generation. T'would be the end of the US as an effective political entity, yet I'm not sure that such has not already happened.
Thanks for the conversation.
Cheers,
SB
Recording industry? Not even, read some of my other posts today :D
:)
:)
:)
I do know something about statistical analysis WRT to polls, however - and I've been prowling usenet, slashdot, and many other places for a long, long time - and know a fair amount about how to spot a troll.
What you are gathering doesn't provide you with enough information to spot an effective troll - even consecutive entries by the same user can't do so. Come on, now - there are slashdot trolls who are extremely effective, even with the mindpool available here.
I realize that I don't know what methods you are using to filter trolls - but they are probably the same ones I use. Problem is, as I see it, you've just challenged what is probably the most creative group of lusers on the internet (short of the usenet assholes, anyway
I've seen almost $200,000 in the past 6 hours.
Bog help you
Good luck; but so far there is nothing I've seen that shows me that your results will be significant. You're going to have to outline your methods here on slashdot (and listen to the criticism) for it to be taken seriously. Yeah, I'm serious.
Cheers,
SB
While I'm certain there are some trolls among us, I doubt they are more than a small percentage.
:)
With all due respect, there is no way whatsoever that you can determine that short of validated proof thru investigation of each submitter.
Personally - and especially at this point in time - I'd bet that the ratio is at least 50/50, and likely to rise after the slashdot exposure.
The obvious bogus entries will be removed after human review.
I think you underestimate the creativity, motivation, and intelligence of trolls
Cheers and good luck, but again, with all respect for your attempt, I wouldn't treat your results as statistically valid. Problem is mainly that you have no control - nothing to compare your results to that can put them in perspective. Of course, that is often the problem with new approaches to analysis...
SB
Vinyl is better anyway.
*runs*
SB
The RIAA would evidently prefer that instead of backing up my tape collection to CD - I have a rather massive tape collection yet which I am trying to get transferred - that I go out and buy it again, and again, and again, as the media dies and the formats change.
Well, fuck that. I don't particularly give a shit about the moral or legal aspects of it - I PAID for that music, and I'll be damned if I'll just let it go to hell. Besides, much of it simply isn't obtainable at any price anymore from "authorized" distributors anyway, and a lot of the stuff I see out there is not the same performance I have on tape (or LP) and so enjoyed then - it's rehashes or "Best Of" crap that simply isn't as good.
I do buy a lot of Indie stuff nowadays, mostly because their music is a helluva lot better than the crap the mainstream is pushing, but also because they have the moxie to do things for themselves.
I hate greedy corporate bastards who think that we are but cogs in their financial quests, and I wish quick death on their business models and their personal fortunes. If those idiots had woken up some years ago, they might have a clue as to why so many people are getting pissed off at them. Guess they were too blinded by the $$figures to actually ask their customers what they wanted. Too f'k bad.
SB
I'd vote Libertarian if they wern't a pack of slavering nutjobs.
Ah, but - remember that Libertarian != libertarian != libertarian(singular)
The only serious candidate this time around who didn't make my skin crawl was Gen. Wesley Clark. Of course he's too honest and has too much personal integrety to be allowed to be President. I used to think that Powell had integrety
Agreed about both. Shame about Powell, I used to have a lot of respect for him - nowadays he's mostly a parrot. Given a choice, I'll write-in Clark, and to hell with anyone who thinks that's taking away votes for either Bush or Kerry - I am NOT going to vote for either of them.
Sigh.
SB
Indeed, and wouldn't it be the Ultimate In Irony if the end result of this whole fracas was that the copyrights held by Richmond Organization were declared null?
Well put, friend!
SB, a Guthrie fan
Mod parent into the stratosphere.
Very well put, especially your final point, which I think is really the reason why this whole snafu started in the first place:
It is not to give the copyright holder veto power over messages they don't like.
I don't know about anyone else, but I think the motive of the Richmond Organization here is pretty clear, and it sure as h*** isn't about copyright enforcement. (It's either that or their lawyers haven't done their homework.)
SB