You obviously missed the Fellowship expanded version then; the new scenes *greatly* enhanced the storyline, especially for someone who hadn't read the books.
There didn't really seem to be a huge difference between Cold War era and following within NASA; internal events (read: Challenger) have had much bigger impacts. However, the difference between when the "no, we're better than you" arguments were taking place, i.e. the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo programs, are tremendous. I tried to google funding info from the 1960s but failed. However, it was a hell of a lot higher than it was following the end of the Apollo program and the mostly ended US/Soviet rivalry as of Apollo-Soyuz.
The problem is that the "tool" was designed for an illegal purpose. It's not as if it's a tool that can be used occasionally for a bad result (like most guns), it's as if it's a tool that can be used occasionally for a good result. A more analogous example would be assult rifles. Should they be unbanned?
(Note: I'm not saying that Napster et. al. should be banned, just that your handgun analogy isn't really the best analogy)
>>The simplest solution is that a car that thinks it is pirated start warning 30 days before it's going to shut itself off to give the user a chance to do something and finally disable itself. That is effective and friendly.
>>They could ruin the livelihood of frenologists all over the US.
This would be tragic. Next we'd see mind readers and palm readers and astrologers and crystal ball peolpe disappear... it would ruin the whole livelihood of superstitious believers.
>>Every application should _not_ have it's own volume. Every input should. And they do.
Still doesn't work. What about the fact that I had to decrease the volume of the actual files that AIM uses for alerts so that when I'm listening to music at a reasonable volume (classical seems to be recorded low most of the time) the recieve message noise doesn't cause everyone within a block to go deaf? Both use the same output, but the volume needs to be decreased for AIM. (Or increased for Winamp...) I have the same problem with system sounds.
You're missing the point... even most enthusiasts won't buy things they won't be able to use or train to get skills that will essentially never be called upon.
The catch is that if 99.9% of the time people can't use ham radio, you're not going to have people who are FCC licensed (you need a license to use ham radio, right?) nor are you going to have people making equipment for when it is necessary.
My Athlon XP 2000+ is running at 49 degf with it's fan going at 3000rpm. (It's not stock, but with the original fan it only ran about 5 deg hotter.) Other than that I have the PS fan, two case fans (one temperature controlled, the other an intake that blows over the hard drives), chipset, and video. It's noisy, but no more so than a Pentium would be.
>>Fair enough for the interception case, but what about the login case? If anyone can claim to be you, then what value is your AOL screenname as an indication of your identity?
Actually, I don't see this as a huge problem either, as I'm on all the time. So if someone else signs on as me, I'm booted, I reconnect, they are booted. So they wouldn't be able to stay on for long. It's a legimate concern for people who don't use AIM like this, but for me I think the danger's bigger that someone will get on my computer physically when I forget to lock it between whenever I leave and when the screensaver comes on and automatically locks it.
>>Have you ever had a chat with a close friend or SO about something that you would rather not share with the world? Or, perhaps more relevantly, have you ever had a chat with a close friend or SO about something for which it is really important to you that you know with whom you're talking?
Actually, I have, and didn't qoute anything from those. Still, it's pretty infrequent that something like that happens, and when it does, I'd again be more worried about physical access. (The person in question uses AIM in much the same way I do.)
One thing I forgot to mention in the last post was the client; of the clients, I like AIM the best (and Gaim on Linux). This is what I was mainly referring to in the original post. Trillian has some neat features that the other clients don't (e.g. containers, though Gaim's tabbed windows are very close and acually usually work better), as do the other clients, but overall I think AIM has the best. I don't really know enough about the protocols the other services use well enough to rate them.
The benefits you name would be of use to some people, but not really me. I've done multi-user chats like twice in the last few years. I don't really care about security either; I don't really care if somone intercepts this: ***: i'm coding! me: what are you writing? ***: a thing to check graphs to see if they have a non-zero mod 3 dominating set me: um... ok... hehe me: part of the research prolem? ***: he said i could read stuff and then he could tell me what to code later, but i couldn't contain myself (plus i had already done some reading on graph theory muhahah)
I do get booted off once or twice a day I think, but it has to do with my connection in general, as usually if I try to go to websites at that point I can't connect to them either.
AOL users aren't the only ones using AIM... I haven't been a AOLer for years and yet I have AIM or Gaim open whenever my computer is on. Why? Between ICQ, MSN, Yahoo, Trillian, and AIM, AIM is the best IMO. Plenty of my friends are in the same boat.
>>Blackjack is a game that you are supposed to play hand to hand, and you are to bet on the situation.
And here I thought games were defined by their rules rather than what the casinos wish the rules would say.
>>It would be like playing euchre but seeing the cards that weren't turned up before calling trump
Rather, *guessing* what cards will come up.
>>In blackjack, counting cards means you now have the unfair advantage.
Why's it unfair? What rule did I break?
>>Players have been caught using small computers in their shoes (simple binary counters, a switch on the top and bottm of the toe of their shoe, all wired to a pager)
This is cheating, and IIRC, actually illegal in Nevada, unlike counting.
>>Privacy concerns and false positives? If you don't like showing up on video cameras, Don't set foot near a casino. Facial recognition has probably been in place for ten years, and is likely two steps ahead of where the casino's are admitting to right now.
I agree.
I'll post what I said in another post (as an AC accidentally, but whatever):
I support people who card count. It's not cheating, it's simple knowing the rules a bit better than most people. This is the same reason some people who make millions of dollars a year pay less taxes than we do; they can hire people who know the tax code inside out and exploit every little loophole. Do I fault them for doing this? No, not really. I fault the tax code and its complexity for allowing this to happen.
I also support the right of casinos to eject players. This way both parties are able to stop playing at any time. A visitor can walk away from a game if he's losing, so it only makes sense that a casino should be able to as well. Other strategies the casinos can use to try to foil counters are also perfectly acceptable, as long as any rules that need to be followed are stated up front.
>>I'd be more worried about what I was supposed to eat for the entire trip. Lab grown food? Pre-packaged junk? And what about drinks? How do you get any kind of water source when you're, like, in the middle of space?
Water's easy. Urine passed through filters such as what they have on the shuttle or I guess the ISS probably comes out cleaner than tap water in most major cities. Food's a bigger problem. It would probably have to be mostly grown.
>>The European Beagle is expected to take about 6 months to arrive on Mars (should get there sometime near Christmas this year). Many details left out of the article above. And after reading it, I don't understand a) how anyone could voluntarily make that kind of journey in a tiny space ship,
I probably wouldn't, but I'd think about it. Actually, this is a relatively big issue. Discover Magizene (I think) published an article a while ago about the psychological problems of this. Because of related concerns, NASA has actually talked to submarine crews a bit to see how they deal. Subs are a lot bigger than the space ship would be, but they also hold a ton more people.
>>b) how the crew will be able to survive on the way there (and even after they've arrived) given needs for food and water
See above; water can be largely recycled (no more "constillation urine" as in the Apollo 13 movie), while food would probably be grown.
>>c) how they're supposed to get back when they're ready to return to Earth
This would be the biggest problem. Read some of the other threads in this story though; there are several people advocating not worrying about this now. Send people to stay, then follow up with refueling supplies. If we develop a round trip system, great. Otherwise, the brave volunteers will be the first peolpe to die on anothesp;anet...
I agree with most of what you say, but don't lambast NASA's probing for life. Finding it would answer the second biggest question *virtually everyone* has *ever* had in the history of humanity. Delaying settling Mars a while to look for an answer is very much worth it.
You're confusing "safe" in the context I think it's meant here and "environmentally kind."
>>The soviets just fscked it up
Don't forget we almost did too. Three Mile Island is of course the most famous incident and the closest we've come to a real disaster, there have been numerous other smaller incidents.
>>The most glaring hole in the conspiracy theory is: Where did the money go,
Area 51 silly. We needed lots of money to keep up the research on the recovered UFOs.
>>and how did they keep the tens of thousands of contractors that would have had to be in on this silent?
They didn't know; or so the conspiracy theorists say. They were part of the plot.
But yes, the moon hoax conspiracy is a boatload of crap. Bad Astronomy does a handsome job debunking the arguments that are presented in the Fox show at http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html. There are links to other sites that have some other debunking pages.
The two biggest flaws IMHO follow:
1. Telemetry. Amateur radioheads with a ham radio set could have verified that there were at least transmissions being made from a path that was going near to the moon. No doubt the Soviets were paying careful attention to this as well. The only way to fake that is send an unmanned probe up and broadcast a recording.
2. Moon rocks. We have rocks from the moon. Or at least that are unlike any that we've seen on Earth, maybe with the exception of meteorites.
"First thing to do is SHUT OFF THE POWER AND INSURE IT WILL NOT BE TURNED BACK ON UNTIL YOU ARE DONE!!!"
This is extremely good advice.* Professional electricians will put a little warning sign over any breakers, switches, etc. that are shut off that says essentially, "if you turn on power here, you'll kill someone." Make sure you have one.
That said, I too think this is a very good way to add yourself to the next Darwin Awards.
*Ignoring the goofup with "insure" used rather than "ensure", but that's not a *big* deal.
Slashdot Mirror
You obviously missed the Fellowship expanded version then; the new scenes *greatly* enhanced the storyline, especially for someone who hadn't read the books.
There didn't really seem to be a huge difference between Cold War era and following within NASA; internal events (read: Challenger) have had much bigger impacts. However, the difference between when the "no, we're better than you" arguments were taking place, i.e. the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo programs, are tremendous. I tried to google funding info from the 1960s but failed. However, it was a hell of a lot higher than it was following the end of the Apollo program and the mostly ended US/Soviet rivalry as of Apollo-Soyuz.
The problem is that the "tool" was designed for an illegal purpose. It's not as if it's a tool that can be used occasionally for a bad result (like most guns), it's as if it's a tool that can be used occasionally for a good result. A more analogous example would be assult rifles. Should they be unbanned?
(Note: I'm not saying that Napster et. al. should be banned, just that your handgun analogy isn't really the best analogy)
>>The simplest solution is that a car that thinks it is pirated start warning 30 days before it's going to shut itself off to give the user a chance to do something and finally disable itself. That is effective and friendly.
How do you pirate a car?
>>They could ruin the livelihood of frenologists all over the US.
This would be tragic. Next we'd see mind readers and palm readers and astrologers and crystal ball peolpe disappear... it would ruin the whole livelihood of superstitious believers.
Any reason you think this? Or are you just speculating? If the latter, you realize you're essentially just spreading FUD against MS, right?
>>Every application should _not_ have it's own volume. Every input should. And they do.
Still doesn't work. What about the fact that I had to decrease the volume of the actual files that AIM uses for alerts so that when I'm listening to music at a reasonable volume (classical seems to be recorded low most of the time) the recieve message noise doesn't cause everyone within a block to go deaf? Both use the same output, but the volume needs to be decreased for AIM. (Or increased for Winamp...) I have the same problem with system sounds.
Or menus that actually stayed up when you clicked them... the ones where you had to hold down the button drove me insane.
Not a problem probably. The benefit comes with ideas on how to fake it; naturally grown 7" segments aren't going to be very useful.
You're missing the point... even most enthusiasts won't buy things they won't be able to use or train to get skills that will essentially never be called upon.
No need to make a new standard. RFC 1149 already defines "A Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams on Avian Carriers."
The catch is that if 99.9% of the time people can't use ham radio, you're not going to have people who are FCC licensed (you need a license to use ham radio, right?) nor are you going to have people making equipment for when it is necessary.
My Athlon XP 2000+ is running at 49 degf with it's fan going at 3000rpm. (It's not stock, but with the original fan it only ran about 5 deg hotter.) Other than that I have the PS fan, two case fans (one temperature controlled, the other an intake that blows over the hard drives), chipset, and video. It's noisy, but no more so than a Pentium would be.
Also, the wonder of removing epoxied heat sinks from $200 video cards. Who came up with such a stupid idea anyway?
>>Fair enough for the interception case, but what about the login case? If anyone can claim to be you, then what value is your AOL screenname as an indication of your identity?
Actually, I don't see this as a huge problem either, as I'm on all the time. So if someone else signs on as me, I'm booted, I reconnect, they are booted. So they wouldn't be able to stay on for long. It's a legimate concern for people who don't use AIM like this, but for me I think the danger's bigger that someone will get on my computer physically when I forget to lock it between whenever I leave and when the screensaver comes on and automatically locks it.
>>Have you ever had a chat with a close friend or SO about something that you would rather not share with the world? Or, perhaps more relevantly, have you ever had a chat with a close friend or SO about something for which it is really important to you that you know with whom you're talking?
Actually, I have, and didn't qoute anything from those. Still, it's pretty infrequent that something like that happens, and when it does, I'd again be more worried about physical access. (The person in question uses AIM in much the same way I do.)
One thing I forgot to mention in the last post was the client; of the clients, I like AIM the best (and Gaim on Linux). This is what I was mainly referring to in the original post. Trillian has some neat features that the other clients don't (e.g. containers, though Gaim's tabbed windows are very close and acually usually work better), as do the other clients, but overall I think AIM has the best. I don't really know enough about the protocols the other services use well enough to rate them.
The benefits you name would be of use to some people, but not really me. I've done multi-user chats like twice in the last few years. I don't really care about security either; I don't really care if somone intercepts this:
***: i'm coding!
me: what are you writing?
***: a thing to check graphs to see if they have a non-zero mod 3 dominating set
me: um... ok... hehe
me: part of the research prolem?
***: he said i could read stuff and then he could tell me what to code later, but i couldn't contain myself (plus i had already done some reading on graph theory muhahah)
I do get booted off once or twice a day I think, but it has to do with my connection in general, as usually if I try to go to websites at that point I can't connect to them either.
AOL users aren't the only ones using AIM... I haven't been a AOLer for years and yet I have AIM or Gaim open whenever my computer is on. Why? Between ICQ, MSN, Yahoo, Trillian, and AIM, AIM is the best IMO. Plenty of my friends are in the same boat.
>>Blackjack is a game that you are supposed to play hand to hand, and you are to bet on the situation.
And here I thought games were defined by their rules rather than what the casinos wish the rules would say.
>>It would be like playing euchre but seeing the cards that weren't turned up before calling trump
Rather, *guessing* what cards will come up.
>>In blackjack, counting cards means you now have the unfair advantage.
Why's it unfair? What rule did I break?
>>Players have been caught using small computers in their shoes (simple binary counters, a switch on the top and bottm of the toe of their shoe, all wired to a pager)
This is cheating, and IIRC, actually illegal in Nevada, unlike counting.
>>Privacy concerns and false positives? If you don't like showing up on video cameras, Don't set foot near a casino. Facial recognition has probably been in place for ten years, and is likely two steps ahead of where the casino's are admitting to right now.
I agree.
I'll post what I said in another post (as an AC accidentally, but whatever):
I support people who card count. It's not cheating, it's simple knowing the rules a bit better than most people. This is the same reason some people who make millions of dollars a year pay less taxes than we do; they can hire people who know the tax code inside out and exploit every little loophole. Do I fault them for doing this? No, not really. I fault the tax code and its complexity for allowing this to happen.
I also support the right of casinos to eject players. This way both parties are able to stop playing at any time. A visitor can walk away from a game if he's losing, so it only makes sense that a casino should be able to as well. Other strategies the casinos can use to try to foil counters are also perfectly acceptable, as long as any rules that need to be followed are stated up front.
>>I'd be more worried about what I was supposed to eat for the entire trip. Lab grown food? Pre-packaged junk? And what about drinks? How do you get any kind of water source when you're, like, in the middle of space?
Water's easy. Urine passed through filters such as what they have on the shuttle or I guess the ISS probably comes out cleaner than tap water in most major cities. Food's a bigger problem. It would probably have to be mostly grown.
>>The European Beagle is expected to take about 6 months to arrive on Mars (should get there sometime near Christmas this year). Many details left out of the article above. And after reading it, I don't understand a) how anyone could voluntarily make that kind of journey in a tiny space ship,
I probably wouldn't, but I'd think about it. Actually, this is a relatively big issue. Discover Magizene (I think) published an article a while ago about the psychological problems of this. Because of related concerns, NASA has actually talked to submarine crews a bit to see how they deal. Subs are a lot bigger than the space ship would be, but they also hold a ton more people.
>>b) how the crew will be able to survive on the way there (and even after they've arrived) given needs for food and water
See above; water can be largely recycled (no more "constillation urine" as in the Apollo 13 movie), while food would probably be grown.
>>c) how they're supposed to get back when they're ready to return to Earth
This would be the biggest problem. Read some of the other threads in this story though; there are several people advocating not worrying about this now. Send people to stay, then follow up with refueling supplies. If we develop a round trip system, great. Otherwise, the brave volunteers will be the first peolpe to die on anothesp;anet...
I agree with most of what you say, but don't lambast NASA's probing for life. Finding it would answer the second biggest question *virtually everyone* has *ever* had in the history of humanity. Delaying settling Mars a while to look for an answer is very much worth it.
You're confusing "safe" in the context I think it's meant here and "environmentally kind."
>>The soviets just fscked it up
Don't forget we almost did too. Three Mile Island is of course the most famous incident and the closest we've come to a real disaster, there have been numerous other smaller incidents.
>>The most glaring hole in the conspiracy theory is: Where did the money go,
. There are links to other sites that have some other debunking pages.
Area 51 silly. We needed lots of money to keep up the research on the recovered UFOs.
>>and how did they keep the tens of thousands of contractors that would have had to be in on this silent?
They didn't know; or so the conspiracy theorists say. They were part of the plot.
But yes, the moon hoax conspiracy is a boatload of crap. Bad Astronomy does a handsome job debunking the arguments that are presented in the Fox show at http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
The two biggest flaws IMHO follow:
1. Telemetry. Amateur radioheads with a ham radio set could have verified that there were at least transmissions being made from a path that was going near to the moon. No doubt the Soviets were paying careful attention to this as well. The only way to fake that is send an unmanned probe up and broadcast a recording.
2. Moon rocks. We have rocks from the moon. Or at least that are unlike any that we've seen on Earth, maybe with the exception of meteorites.
That's still legal however, assuming you can get the list of customers legally.
Yeah
"First thing to do is SHUT OFF THE POWER AND INSURE IT WILL NOT BE TURNED BACK ON UNTIL YOU ARE DONE!!!"
This is extremely good advice.* Professional electricians will put a little warning sign over any breakers, switches, etc. that are shut off that says essentially, "if you turn on power here, you'll kill someone." Make sure you have one.
That said, I too think this is a very good way to add yourself to the next Darwin Awards.
*Ignoring the goofup with "insure" used rather than "ensure", but that's not a *big* deal.