I went to this meeting, and I thought it was one of the best commercial space meetings I have been to.
The summary was pretty on point, except that it didn't mention the prospect of tourism really taking off as the costs and complexity of going on-orbit decrease. (Right now, among other things, you have to learn Russian to become a space tourist.) It really looks like commercial space stations will become a reality in the not too distant future.
If I remember correctly, Reagan supported giving NASA a few billion dollars for a space station, and NASA burned through all that money without putting a single part of it in space?
Then Clinton pushed ISS as a way of making friends with the Russians, and it survived various attempts to cull it on that basis.
That's not a bad summary.Al Gore actually did a lot of the pushing, it was not so much making friends with the Russians as keeping their scientists and engineers peacefully employed, and getting ESA and Japan on board was also essential (it turns out to be much harder to cut truly international programs), but you got the basics.
the space station, conceived by President Ronald Reagan in 1984,
Ronald Reagan no more conceived the International Space Station than he painted the Sistine Chapel. First, ideas for space stations go back to the 1920s, and in the 1970's the US and the USSR both started flying space stations (Skylab and Salyut, respectively). Second, while in 1984 Reagan proposed Space Station Freedom in his state of the union address, it is not what we have flying now. Third, while Reagan was not totally senile in 1984, he was never a technologist, and did not himself play any role in the development of the (proposed) station; the plans were developed by NASA and just announced by the White House.
Vaporware. They have no way of getting the energy density needed to make the 30 days to Mars a reality. It's not the rocket, it's the power source that's the problem, and waving your hands fast and saying it should be possible to improve 70 years of nuclear engineering by a couple of orders of magnitude in a single powerpoint slide doesn't cut it.
The nearest planet or moon where humans could live in an even remotely self-sustainable way is so far away that even if we could travel near the speed of light, it would still be well out of our reach.
Your definition of "reach" is obviously not the same as mine.
RICO is a bad law, tailor-made for prosecutorial overreach, and this would be a bad use of it.
I really dislike what the heavily funded "denialist" campaign has done to any chances of actually dealing usefully with this problem (not to mention what it has done rational discourse in this country), and if someone feels they can prove damages, more power to them if they sue everyone they can find behind the astro-turf, but please don't use this abominable law in the process.
That's why they introduce a NEW router. Forget about the old stuff.
Google brought in their own gear. It should be their latest-greatest. If it is, it is worse than the Ciscos AT&T had in these locations; if it isn't, they must have weird ideas about customer service. Either way, I would be wary.
Comparing various Starbucks locations (suburban and next to college campuses) where AT&T wifi networks were replaced with Google wifi, I would not buy a Google wifi router at present. In each case, the Google service is worse than its predecessor. This surprises me, but all I have to do is listen to the complaints of the students around me to know that I am not alone in this feeling.
You can't in general prove that something published post-1923 is public domain. We do not have (any more) a requirement to register copyrights, plus we now have very long copyright terms. Either would be bad, the combination is (quite deliberately) pernicious. It means that, while you may have good reasons to assume that something is PD, you can almost never know for sure. There are two major exceptions - works that have been declared to be PD by their owner, and works by the US Government (which are PD from birth). US Government works are generally pretty safe, but works declared PD are not always (as you have no way to prove the donor actually owns them).
If you think that this implies that our copyright laws need to be changed, you are IMO correct. I would go for a term of 14 years, one renewal possible, with registration required. The wailing from the rent-seeking entertainment industries would, of course, in that case be something to behold, but that would have some entertainment value in its own right.
Anyone who has ever worked or spent much time at JPL knows that the real architecture is chaotic too - a maze of buildings built over decades, and (like MIT) described only by arbitrary numbers.
Seriously. Here is a little history lesson for the august prosecutors from Manhattan, Paris, London and Spain
No matter where you set the bar, some cases will remain unsolved.
There is no procedure, no matter how heinous or how intrusive, that couldn't be justified on these terms. Come up with other reasons for what you want; this one is no real reason at all.
So, Larry, if the Congress ignores your "mandate for the fundamental change," and presents you with a hacked-up, watered down Bill (or no Bill at all), what are you going to do? Resign in shame having accomplished nothing? Or, stay on and violate your pledge to resign while you try and make tweaks and recover something of what you want?
This is the same sort of bright thinking that lost him the Eldred copyright-extension case.
Yugoslavia under Tito was not a totalitarian state. Dictatorship, yes. Keeping the ethnic tensions that later exploded in the 1990's repressed, yes. Totalitarian? No, at least, not by the 1970's.
(And, yes, I did go there and did know people there. It was the sort of place where people could travel abroad and dissidents could get their convictions thrown out on appeal. Tito was no Mao.)
The most conspicuous organisms have long since been cataloged and fixed on the tree of life, and the ones that remain undiscovered don't give themselves up easily.
Certainly not true if by "conspicuous" they mean "ones you can easily see with the naked eye." Most insect and beetle species are not cataloged yet, and for smaller critters the situation is even worse. Heck, you might even find a new frog species in Manhattan.
But, the funny thing is, if the authors of a study say that it doesn't confirm something, it doesn't confirm that something. If they are not going to step up the plate, I am for sure not going to do it for them.
"Our test campaign can not confirm or refute the claims of the EMDrive but intends to independently assess possible side-effects in the measurements methods used so far."
Carbon 14 dating hasn't been reliable (usable) for wood or other biological material formed since 1950, as open air nuclear testing put a lot of C14 into the atmosphere. This C14 has been slowly leaving the atmosphere, but it's not gone yet.
I think that the writers of the original article were just eager to get some attention, as they surely must have known this.
The Turing test is farcically out of date. AlanTuring couldn't have known this, but we humans are full of wetware that assumes that things that appear to be communicating are in fact communicating. Thus we can be fooled by programs such as Eliza (and its successors), which have no understanding of anything at all.
Downlink speed is limited to 1 kbps (bits, not bytes). 2 kbps if they use a trick involving shutting down power to instruments to boost transmit power.
That's actually a dual polarization mode - this is the first spacecraft with a dual-polarization data transmit capability. (And, yes, it does require more power, and so won't be used until they are well past Pluto and can put things on standby.) Even with that, it will take 16 months to get all of the data back.
Slashdot Mirror
I went to this meeting, and I thought it was one of the best commercial space meetings I have been to.
The summary was pretty on point, except that it didn't mention the prospect of tourism really taking off as the costs and complexity of going on-orbit decrease. (Right now, among other things, you have to learn Russian to become a space tourist.) It really looks like commercial space stations will become a reality in the not too distant future.
If I remember correctly, Reagan supported giving NASA a few billion dollars for a space station, and NASA burned through all that money without putting a single part of it in space?
Then Clinton pushed ISS as a way of making friends with the Russians, and it survived various attempts to cull it on that basis.
That's not a bad summary.Al Gore actually did a lot of the pushing, it was not so much making friends with the Russians as keeping their scientists and engineers peacefully employed, and getting ESA and Japan on board was also essential (it turns out to be much harder to cut truly international programs), but you got the basics.
Ronald Reagan no more conceived the International Space Station than he painted the Sistine Chapel. First, ideas for space stations go back to the 1920s, and in the 1970's the US and the USSR both started flying space stations (Skylab and Salyut, respectively). Second, while in 1984 Reagan proposed Space Station Freedom in his state of the union address, it is not what we have flying now. Third, while Reagan was not totally senile in 1984, he was never a technologist, and did not himself play any role in the development of the (proposed) station; the plans were developed by NASA and just announced by the White House.
Vaporware. They have no way of getting the energy density needed to make the 30 days to Mars a reality. It's not the rocket, it's the power source that's the problem, and waving your hands fast and saying it should be possible to improve 70 years of nuclear engineering by a couple of orders of magnitude in a single powerpoint slide doesn't cut it.
The nearest planet or moon where humans could live in an even remotely self-sustainable way is so far away that even if we could travel near the speed of light, it would still be well out of our reach.
Your definition of "reach" is obviously not the same as mine.
Wow, getting to Mars will be tough! Who knew?
Might as well tell the guys spending a year on the iSS as a Mars mission study to come home now.
RICO is a bad law, tailor-made for prosecutorial overreach, and this would be a bad use of it.
I really dislike what the heavily funded "denialist" campaign has done to any chances of actually dealing usefully with this problem (not to mention what it has done rational discourse in this country), and if someone feels they can prove damages, more power to them if they sue everyone they can find behind the astro-turf, but please don't use this abominable law in the process.
That's why they introduce a NEW router. Forget about the old stuff.
Google brought in their own gear. It should be their latest-greatest. If it is, it is worse than the Ciscos AT&T had in these locations; if it isn't, they must have weird ideas about customer service. Either way, I would be wary.
Comparing various Starbucks locations (suburban and next to college campuses) where AT&T wifi networks were replaced with Google wifi, I would not buy a Google wifi router at present. In each case, the Google service is worse than its predecessor. This surprises me, but all I have to do is listen to the complaints of the students around me to know that I am not alone in this feeling.
If there was any doubt that Jeb (!) was his brother's son, this removes them.
I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.
You can't in general prove that something published post-1923 is public domain. We do not have (any more) a requirement to register copyrights, plus we now have very long copyright terms. Either would be bad, the combination is (quite deliberately) pernicious. It means that, while you may have good reasons to assume that something is PD, you can almost never know for sure. There are two major exceptions - works that have been declared to be PD by their owner, and works by the US Government (which are PD from birth). US Government works are generally pretty safe, but works declared PD are not always (as you have no way to prove the donor actually owns them).
If you think that this implies that our copyright laws need to be changed, you are IMO correct. I would go for a term of 14 years, one renewal possible, with registration required. The wailing from the rent-seeking entertainment industries would, of course, in that case be something to behold, but that would have some entertainment value in its own right.
Anyone who has ever worked or spent much time at JPL knows that the real architecture is chaotic too - a maze of buildings built over decades, and (like MIT) described only by arbitrary numbers.
Seriously. Here is a little history lesson for the august prosecutors from Manhattan, Paris, London and Spain
No matter where you set the bar, some cases will remain unsolved.
There is no procedure, no matter how heinous or how intrusive, that couldn't be justified on these terms. Come up with other reasons for what you want; this one is no real reason at all.
So, Larry, if the Congress ignores your "mandate for the fundamental change," and presents you with a hacked-up, watered down Bill (or no Bill at all), what are you going to do? Resign in shame having accomplished nothing? Or, stay on and violate your pledge to resign while you try and make tweaks and recover something of what you want?
This is the same sort of bright thinking that lost him the Eldred copyright-extension case.
Do more things for whom? Works better for what purpose?
Yugoslavia under Tito was not a totalitarian state. Dictatorship, yes. Keeping the ethnic tensions that later exploded in the 1990's repressed, yes. Totalitarian? No, at least, not by the 1970's.
(And, yes, I did go there and did know people there. It was the sort of place where people could travel abroad and dissidents could get their convictions thrown out on appeal. Tito was no Mao.)
Certainly not true if by "conspicuous" they mean "ones you can easily see with the naked eye." Most insect and beetle species are not cataloged yet, and for smaller critters the situation is even worse. Heck, you might even find a new frog species in Manhattan.
The trouble is, it by no means clear that, if he did could back to the US, he would indeed be judged in a fair trial.
Yes, that is interesting.
But, the funny thing is, if the authors of a study say that it doesn't confirm something, it doesn't confirm that something. If they are not going to step up the plate, I am for sure not going to do it for them.
What more do I need to say?
Oh, wait, we already did.
Carbon 14 dating hasn't been reliable (usable) for wood or other biological material formed since 1950, as open air nuclear testing put a lot of C14 into the atmosphere. This C14 has been slowly leaving the atmosphere, but it's not gone yet.
I think that the writers of the original article were just eager to get some attention, as they surely must have known this.
The Turing test is farcically out of date. AlanTuring couldn't have known this, but we humans are full of wetware that assumes that things that appear to be communicating are in fact communicating. Thus we can be fooled by programs such as Eliza (and its successors), which have no understanding of anything at all.
How can you be experts in something you don't know how to do?
Downlink speed is limited to 1 kbps (bits, not bytes). 2 kbps if they use a trick involving shutting down power to instruments to boost transmit power.
That's actually a dual polarization mode - this is the first spacecraft with a dual-polarization data transmit capability. (And, yes, it does require more power, and so won't be used until they are well past Pluto and can put things on standby.) Even with that, it will take 16 months to get all of the data back.
And, because this is the Internet, I'm being sarcastic.
And moving your decimal places to the left.