Holographic media has great potential in this area because the holographic film can potentially store a large amount of data in a redundant fashion.
In a "typical" holographic image, one tiny cross section of the film stores the entire set of data as visible from that point, which constitutes greater than 50% and potentially up to 100% of the entire image.
I have never been convinced this type of redundancy could move into data storage, but I would be interested to hear.
I think they're thousands of miles apart. I would imagine that overcoming centripidal force (IE, slowing orbit) while dropping the altitude of the orbit would require a good deal of thrust. Getting that much fuel to that altitude and "attaching" it somehow to the telescope would be tricky. Moving the thing would then be slow... getting it to move fast enough for it to travel thousands of miles in a reasonable amount of time would require MORE thrust. Then, getting it to STOP within feet of the space station... would require uhm... well it'd be hard without smacking into the ISS. (and it would require an equal amount of fuel as was required to get it moving in the first place.
Sounds like it would be cheaper to build a new one and launch it from scratch.:-)
If you develop a multi-million dollar patented process or software utility on your nights and weekends, but your contract says that it belongs to the company, they would have PLENTY of incentive to HIRE someone just to sue you until you give in and hand them 100% of the proceeds.
Stupid things like not delivering pizza on your off-time (if stated in the contract that other employment is not allowed) probably won't be of much interest to them, but things like Itillectual Property could tip the scales against you.
Well first, this is the reason they launched TWO rovers to Mars.
Second, the cost of the rover itself is just a fraction of the cost required to 1) hire the staff to man and control it and 2) to get any payload at all to critical velocity and out of orbit.
So, an pair of unmarried guys costs the insurance company somewhere on the order of 6x more over their lifetime?
Assuming the average married couple incurs $200,000 in health insurance claims, can you say that the average unmarried couple incurs what? $1,200,000
That's what I was saying was rediculous.
If you claim that married couples are healthier and live longer... hmm let gays get married and they will most likely be more healthy and live longer. Seems the insurance companies would love that.
Or are you going to stand there and say that the benefit if living in a monogomous relationship is somehow limited to a male-female interaction.
The point you were trying to refute was "married gay people pay an order of magnitude more than straight people while single people of either orientation pay similar amounts"
You refuted it by saying "married people live longer and therefore SHOULD cost less"
So... by that reasoning... gay people who ARE married should cost less, right?
My best friend (a woman) is married (ceremony, but without legal recognition) and they have been together for almost 15 years and raised 3 kids. They pay 6x the amount of a straight couple in insurance though neither of them has made a single claim other than basic checkups since they had kids 15+ years ago. Sure it's anecdotal, but at least it's true.
I pay $50/month for my insurance (being single). If I were married, I could add my spouse to my plan for $35/month.
If i were gay and he did not have his own policy, I would have to pay $350/mo for the same plan (that's not sponsored by my company and a part of my employment benefits).
Not too hard to see that $85/mo (man/woman marraige) is cheaper than $400/mo (man/man union).
even if it caught him getting out of his car, the timeframe is still too slim. The best it could do would be to identify him as the kidnapper in case nobody in the school got a good look at him while he was doing it.
Also, who gets to appeal on what grounds you get added to the database that automatically calls police. If she had a legal restraining order, then I could see it MAYBE being justified (still a stretch because she may not even have been there when he arrived!!) But just a "we don't like you" database triggering a call to the police CAN and WOULD be abused.:-)
Not a bad argument. Didn't sway my opinion at all though.:-D
Now... a sattellite-tracking system for every citizen... THAT would have stopped this crime... and 60% of other serious crimes... except the ones perpetrated by those who control the sattelites... *dramatic pause*
i believe it has a provision for "genuine medical procedures" or somesuch... Though a doctor was arrested here for examining a patient "too much" *shrugs* no idea what the details of that case were
A cop with a radar gun is totally legal... BUT, it's already been ruled that a video/photo camera with a radar gun is an invasion of privacy and represents a threat to society. They were introduced and were common here for several years but were retired a few years back due to public outcry.
Unfortunately, in a school and when the word "sex offender" is used, nobody will outcry (and if they do, they will be labeled a "danger to kids"). So simply stated, a school is a place that is the LEAST likely to be criticized for using these privacy defeating technologies. But once they're in every school, it's a small step to government buildings... and then to street corners... and then occassionally through windows.... etc
Several members of the jury approached this boys' mother after the trial and apologized. The remainder could not look her in the face. The prosecutor was gleeful and his conviction, however.
This would have never gone anywhere if the system 1) did not have mandatory reporting (it's a draconian law that's too broad) or 2) allowed the family and the "victim" to ask to withdraw the charges.
Both of these are important in my opinion, but there are few socieites in the world where it's possible anymore (not even the Netherlands as of October 2002).
A teacher at my elementary school was kidnapped from her classroom at gunpoint one day by her estranged husband. One possible use for this would be to feed his picture into it and when he showed up, the cops could have been called before he even got to the door.
1) Do you want to enter all the "estranged husbands" into the database? How do you define "estranged"? What if he has a kid at the school?
2) The police wouldh ave been called WHEN he got to the door and ONLY if he entered the principles office first to say "hi". Assuming the outlandish, that he DID go to the office to announce his presence, he would have then proceeded to the classroom and pulled his gun. The cops would have showed up 2 minutes later and a) there would have been a shootout b) he would have escaped and kidnapped her anyway or c) he would have surrendered at gunpoint in front of a bunch of kids.
Don't forget to mention the camera is installed in the OFFICE of the school. So, fortuately for kidnapper pedophiles, kid-snatching on the campus is still unaffected.
No. Certain predatory pedophiles, yes. But many sex offenders are not. Some have their own kids. Some recieve probation-only sentences. Some are on a lifetime registry for something they did as a teen dozens of years ago.
Don't ask me why or how or what... I don't know, nor do I care to try to read the minds of the people who come up with some of it...
Slashdot Mirror
Fixed Link
Stewey
Here is a link to an article about the new SanDisk 1GB memory card.
s k1 gbsdcard.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0401/04012909sandi
Stewey
Holographic media has great potential in this area because the holographic film can potentially store a large amount of data in a redundant fashion.
In a "typical" holographic image, one tiny cross section of the film stores the entire set of data as visible from that point, which constitutes greater than 50% and potentially up to 100% of the entire image.
I have never been convinced this type of redundancy could move into data storage, but I would be interested to hear.
Stewey
SmartMedia cards never passed 128MB and they never will. Development on SmartMedia is dead.
CompactFlash, on the other hand, has passed 4GB and an 8GB card is due out very soon.
In addition, SD cards are past 1GB and xD cards are approaching that as well.
But the point is still valid.
Stewey
Well, the trick with that is.... you have to have some DAMN well written software to run effectively on an old machine.
:-)
Using outdated hardware platforms encourages being creative and writing good, tight code.
None of this MS-style bloatware.
Stewey
I think they're thousands of miles apart. I would imagine that overcoming centripidal force (IE, slowing orbit) while dropping the altitude of the orbit would require a good deal of thrust. Getting that much fuel to that altitude and "attaching" it somehow to the telescope would be tricky. Moving the thing would then be slow... getting it to move fast enough for it to travel thousands of miles in a reasonable amount of time would require MORE thrust. Then, getting it to STOP within feet of the space station... would require uhm... well it'd be hard without smacking into the ISS. (and it would require an equal amount of fuel as was required to get it moving in the first place.
:-)
Sounds like it would be cheaper to build a new one and launch it from scratch.
Stewey
You stole my sig!!!!!!!
I think...
Eric
My only comment would be...
If you develop a multi-million dollar patented process or software utility on your nights and weekends, but your contract says that it belongs to the company, they would have PLENTY of incentive to HIRE someone just to sue you until you give in and hand them 100% of the proceeds.
Stupid things like not delivering pizza on your off-time (if stated in the contract that other employment is not allowed) probably won't be of much interest to them, but things like Itillectual Property could tip the scales against you.
Eric
Well first, this is the reason they launched TWO rovers to Mars.
Second, the cost of the rover itself is just a fraction of the cost required to 1) hire the staff to man and control it and 2) to get any payload at all to critical velocity and out of orbit.
Stewey
You need a humor transplant....
So, an pair of unmarried guys costs the insurance company somewhere on the order of 6x more over their lifetime?
Assuming the average married couple incurs $200,000 in health insurance claims, can you say that the average unmarried couple incurs what? $1,200,000
That's what I was saying was rediculous.
If you claim that married couples are healthier and live longer... hmm let gays get married and they will most likely be more healthy and live longer. Seems the insurance companies would love that.
Or are you going to stand there and say that the benefit if living in a monogomous relationship is somehow limited to a male-female interaction.
The point you were trying to refute was "married gay people pay an order of magnitude more than straight people while single people of either orientation pay similar amounts"
You refuted it by saying "married people live longer and therefore SHOULD cost less"
So... by that reasoning... gay people who ARE married should cost less, right?
My best friend (a woman) is married (ceremony, but without legal recognition) and they have been together for almost 15 years and raised 3 kids. They pay 6x the amount of a straight couple in insurance though neither of them has made a single claim other than basic checkups since they had kids 15+ years ago. Sure it's anecdotal, but at least it's true.
Stewey
Wow... Uhm... You do realize you can choose to NOT file your taxes jointly? There's no law saying you have to file jointly.
But if two gay guys are 'married' they have no option one way or the other.
Stewey
Wow, that's a very unintelligent response.
I pay $50/month for my insurance (being single). If I were married, I could add my spouse to my plan for $35/month.
If i were gay and he did not have his own policy, I would have to pay $350/mo for the same plan (that's not sponsored by my company and a part of my employment benefits).
Not too hard to see that $85/mo (man/woman marraige) is cheaper than $400/mo (man/man union).
Wow, that was so obvious it hurt to type.
Stewey
even if it caught him getting out of his car, the timeframe is still too slim. The best it could do would be to identify him as the kidnapper in case nobody in the school got a good look at him while he was doing it.
:-)
:-D
Also, who gets to appeal on what grounds you get added to the database that automatically calls police. If she had a legal restraining order, then I could see it MAYBE being justified (still a stretch because she may not even have been there when he arrived!!) But just a "we don't like you" database triggering a call to the police CAN and WOULD be abused.
Not a bad argument. Didn't sway my opinion at all though.
Now... a sattellite-tracking system for every citizen... THAT would have stopped this crime... and 60% of other serious crimes... except the ones perpetrated by those who control the sattelites... *dramatic pause*
ooooooooo
It was either a City or a Statewide decision here that they were not to be used anymore.
:-)
The PD fought hard though because they increased police revinue significantly.
Stewey
Tell that to John Ashcroft
:-)
He'll write you up for treason...
afterall, he doesn't love you.
Stewey
i believe it has a provision for "genuine medical procedures" or somesuch... Though a doctor was arrested here for examining a patient "too much" *shrugs* no idea what the details of that case were
There is wording something to the efect of.... "except for genuine medical or necessary hygenic purposes"
Not sure, I haven't *studied* that law in depth, tho I have read it a few times awhile ago.
How about "try not being accused of breaking the law"
I'm not the only person I know who's spent time (wrongly) in jail awaiting trial only to be told "oops, wrong person" and released.
I'm a middle class white american citizen. I can't imagine being a shifty looking black woman. *chuckles*
What problem is it that they are trying to fix?
Local officials needing to appear "interested in community security" due to low opinion polls.
A cop with a radar gun is totally legal... BUT, it's already been ruled that a video/photo camera with a radar gun is an invasion of privacy and represents a threat to society. They were introduced and were common here for several years but were retired a few years back due to public outcry.
Unfortunately, in a school and when the word "sex offender" is used, nobody will outcry (and if they do, they will be labeled a "danger to kids"). So simply stated, a school is a place that is the LEAST likely to be criticized for using these privacy defeating technologies. But once they're in every school, it's a small step to government buildings... and then to street corners... and then occassionally through windows.... etc
Stewey
Several members of the jury approached this boys' mother after the trial and apologized. The remainder could not look her in the face. The prosecutor was gleeful and his conviction, however.
This would have never gone anywhere if the system 1) did not have mandatory reporting (it's a draconian law that's too broad) or 2) allowed the family and the "victim" to ask to withdraw the charges.
Both of these are important in my opinion, but there are few socieites in the world where it's possible anymore (not even the Netherlands as of October 2002).
Stewey
A teacher at my elementary school was kidnapped from her classroom at gunpoint one day by her estranged husband. One possible use for this would be to feed his picture into it and when he showed up, the cops could have been called before he even got to the door.
1) Do you want to enter all the "estranged husbands" into the database? How do you define "estranged"? What if he has a kid at the school?
2) The police wouldh ave been called WHEN he got to the door and ONLY if he entered the principles office first to say "hi". Assuming the outlandish, that he DID go to the office to announce his presence, he would have then proceeded to the classroom and pulled his gun. The cops would have showed up 2 minutes later and a) there would have been a shootout b) he would have escaped and kidnapped her anyway or c) he would have surrendered at gunpoint in front of a bunch of kids.
Wow... sounds GREAT.
Stewey
Don't forget to mention the camera is installed in the OFFICE of the school. So, fortuately for kidnapper pedophiles, kid-snatching on the campus is still unaffected.
Stewey
No. Certain predatory pedophiles, yes. But many sex offenders are not. Some have their own kids. Some recieve probation-only sentences. Some are on a lifetime registry for something they did as a teen dozens of years ago.
Don't ask me why or how or what... I don't know, nor do I care to try to read the minds of the people who come up with some of it...
Stewey