I agree...we need new propulsion systems to make real progress. I see so many people falling over themselves over spaceshipone, but it's nothing new, and it's not some kind of sign that space will be available to the common man anytimes soon.
Just marketing and tourism that extends into the edges of space for a few minutes and then comes back down.
I mean exploitation as in the development of space as a tourist venture and not as a permanent foothold to other worlds and space exploration.
What I oppose is the idea that spaceshipone is some groundbreaking venture. It's great that people care about space again, but I fear that it's going to be in a commercialized and watered-down form. I want to see exploration beyond our solar system, not just tourism.
I have no qualms about mining an asteroid (the moon is different) or other celestial body in the infinite void of space.
/.ers are kind indeed...here's some interesting text from the wikipedia article on the X-15
The North American X-15 rocket plane was perhaps the most important of the USAF/USN X-series of experimental aircraft. Although not as famous as the Bell X-1, the X-15 set numerous speed and altitude records in the early 1960s, reaching the edge of space and bringing back valuable data that was used in the design of later aircraft and spacecraft.
During the X-15 programme, 13 flights met the US criterion for a spaceflight by passing an altitude of 50 miles (80 km) and the pilots were accordingly awarded astronaut status by the USAF. Out of these, 2 also qualified for the international FAI definition of a spaceflight by passing the 62.5 miles (100 km) mark.
Spaceshipone is nothing but a cheap corporate-sponsored venture to develop space. True manned space exploration has been dead since we got to the moon. I admire the goals of the Anasari prize, and I hope it will increase an interest in space exploration, but I am not optimistic.
We as a world went from simple rockets to the moon itself in a very short time. Then we just hit a wall. I think to progress as a people we need to bring back more risk-taking.
Spaceshipone is great, god bless, but it's not a risky new technology. It's regurgitated and being made progressively safer so that passengers won't sue the space travel company.
How can you think that the development of space will have anything but a corporate logo on it? The Anasri prize was a great idea, but spaceshipone isn't LINUX for god's sake. It's a 1950's concept for space flight packaged and promoted to be sold to consumers as a product.
Who was the first person to seriously commit to using spaceshipone's concept for mass tourism? Richard Branson. He's a cool guy, but once he makes his money and paves the way, the big publicly held conglomerates will be tripping over eachother's fattened bodies to profit from space.
I do not support space tourism, which would lead to exploitation. I support space exploration and mining.
I wouldn't say they is a resemblance, i'd say they are virtually identical in design. The only major difference is newer technology in avionics, computers, and media coverage.
I don't know the details off-hand, but a plane in the x-project went 65 plus miles above the earth sometime in the early 60's. Hopefully a good/.er with time to kill at work will look it up.
But yeah, take away the technology and its undeniable.
This is a time for everyone captivated by spaceshipone to remember Gordon Cooper and all the astronauts for their contributions to space exploration and for just having the right stuff.
Notice on spaceshipone's first space flight last week, when asked about the 29 rolls at the top of his ascent, the pilot brushed it all off, "oh, it was nothing, training just took over."
Also, notice spaceshipone's incredible resemblance to the X-planes tested in 50's by test pilots like Chuck Yeager. Basically, spaceshipone is using 1950's technology to make its headlines.
It was the mercury astronauts and Russian cosmonauts who brought our backward world kicking and screaming to new frontiers first.
As anyone who works/lives in a tourist area knows, tourism isn't the same as the real thing.
I hope with every fiber of my being that space tourism will ignite a new interest in space exploration, but it's more likely to fuel a new interest in space 'development'. There's a big difference.
What we need are leaders and entrepreneurs who are interested in exploring space for its own sake...just because it is there.
I would love to be an astronaut, but who wants to be a tour guide?
I should have been more specific with the question I posed. I'm not asking how scientists determine if the environments of the two basins were interacting; my problem with this article is the 500,000 yrs. figure.
How is that determined with the scientific method? Microbes compared with other microbes from other ancient ponds? Is that a concrete source of extrapolation?
"When a theory comes along that can better fit the evidence then great. "
My question to this is, who determines what theory best fits the evidence? Other, more prestigious scientists, right? What if most scientists are simply embracing the basic theory of evolution b/c that's what is accepted in academia in order advance their careers? Is there room to do science without having any theory of the earth's (and universe's) origin?
I've studied creation science (science without evolutionary assumtions) and I'm just wondering how many other/.'ers are skeptical about the determination that the two basins haven't been touched for 500,000 yrs.
How do the scientists determine this in a way using the scientific method?
well in cyberpunk...i live in Korea (which does it's best to copy Japan) and have visit japan many times.
Your point about cell phones being a 'must have' in japan is especially important, and unfourtunately missed in the article and in the discussion on this forum.
i'm not an 'net expert like some/.'ers, but i thought it was common knowledge that blogs were personal things....
As far as journalism goes, I have a little more expertise. Sites like slashdot are best compared to the old 'reader's digest' type publications that collected interesting articles from other sources and combined them with some original content. It's worth study in a journalism class, but I don't think it merits it's own corses/majors and such.
Microsoft should open itself up to some open source applications because it is the only way to keep its place as the globalleader in software.
Open source will only get stronger. Right now, people who just use their computer for net surfing/email, home finance, and word processing or for low-level business applications at work most likely do not even know what 'open source' is, and think Linux is a cousin of the Lynx.
Right now, using Microsoft makes sense for these people, who, by the way, make up the majority of the computer using cohort (it's true, accept it).
But this dominace will change when/if Microsoft starts charging a monthly/yearly licensing fee, in effect 'renting' its software. People who have all their lives been able to use whatever they want on their computer will start seeing "Word cannot open because your subscription is lapsed" and get very angry.
Word of mouth is the best advertising, and when people start talking about ways to get around paying a monthly fee to write letters to grandma on 'word'---that will be open source's defining moment. When the general public becomes aware that free software exists. In turn, open source software will become much more user friendly for novice computer users (RIGHT NOW IT'S NOT...ACCEPT IT GEEKS!!!), and will attract even more attention from software developers. M$ eventually would become marginalized.
If Microsoft wants to continue to be the leading software company, it needs to scrap its 'subscription' plans, and make windows able to run open source programs, in essence make windows an all in one compatable with everything OS. And on top of that, provide cheap tech support to users (this is VERY important and should not be overlooked). Doing this will keep Windows as the OS of choice for new PC buyers in the GENERAL PUBLIC which is where the battle will ultimately be won or lost.
Microsoft is a profit-driven enterprise that MUST continue to show increasing profits. The more aggressive it becomes, the more open source will become the method of choice. To continue to be profitable, M$ must choose...try to kill 'open source' at all costs and sink themselves in the long run, or take the "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" approach.
i think the whole dot.com bust was basically a self-fullfilling profecy. Industry observers, and anyone else who didn't get in on the dot.com boom because they thought it would come crashing down were looking for something to call a 'dot.com crash' in order to justify their not taking the risk and getting involved themselves.
So the first time the industry showed any signs of slowing down, they (newspaper writers included) said 'oh look, there's the bust, I told you it would happen. I knew I was right not getting into it.'
But what really happend? Sure some guys had to get real jobs, but their effort (and investor's dollars) were not wasted. They are like ants who drown themselves so that other ants can walk across the dead bodies to the food (analogies rule!).
So what separated the drowners from the walkers? Same things as always, innovation, practical thinking, communication skills and HARD WORK.
"One point is that the many of the comparisons here are on domestic gross, not international. At least that's what I watch at The Numbers [the-numbers.com]"
I went to the-numbers.com and I could not find anything that stipulated whether it listed domestic or international gross. Industry analysts generally look at international gross.
It's definitely worth noting that international and domestic gross are two different things. I think alot of/.'ers miss that.
off-topic, I'm an American teaching english in South Korea, and I got to see the original trailer for the movie. It had a helicopter chase that ended with the helicopter getting stuck in a web inbetween the two wtc towers, right at sunset...really cool
This analysis article sounds like the overdramatized fluff that I subjected my proffesors to when I was in school. John Katz??? Who the ----?
Really, the difference in money intake of these movies is negligable, and partially due to the fact that the AOTC was shown on fewer theaters worldwide, and won't even open until next month in some countries.
There is no overarching generaltional statement in the ticket sales of these two movies. Since when do you judge a movie's impact on ticket sales alone anyway?
1) You would not ask him the question you posted, and here's why: Since you read slashdot, I'm assuming you are not a complete idiot. If a non-idiot, like yourself, stood up in the middle of a town meeting, mic in hand, and said what you posted, no one would listen to you past
"Mr. Senator, why are the rights of the corporations (who aren't really people, btw...) being considered before the rights of the voting public?"
because every thinking person in the room would (rightly) see that your question was in reality a famebait rant. And when you saw the disgusted look on his face after hearing your first line, you'd realize how stupid and flamebait your question is, finish it early, and sit down.
2)your question is stupid because it is a flamebait rant that would be impossible for anyone to really give an answer to in a 'town meeting'-typ setting. You make alot of broad statements, like the one quoted above, that are prenthetical to the specific issue of the DCMA (and are insulting to anyone in goverment: you're basically calling him corrupt). All he would do is make a few broad statements about not being owned by corporations and having people's rights in mind when he voted for the DCMA, and move on to someone else.
I shouldn't have just posted 'your question is stupid'...that was pretty stupid on my part. See my post "I've Questioned a Senator before" for more on why I can say this with some authority.
When I was an intern in a Congressman's office, I was able to attend a number of informal, off-the-record talks between senators, congressman, and interns (and only interns!)
At the end of the talk, we were allowed to ask questions on any topic, and I got to see first hand what questions work and what questions fail.
Your question needs to be pointed, but not too specific because believe it or not, a congressman votes on alot of bills everyday, and he doesn't have time to read all of them in depth, that's why he has a staff.
So a question like "line 2 paragraph 8 of the DMCA says this, but...." won't cut it, he won't know what the hell you're talking about. But if you are too broad, he will just ramble on about nothing for 2 minutes and then move on to another question.
The best thing for you to do is present one or two simple and well-documented problems/weaknesses with the DCMA, and then ask him how he thinks the problems could be solved.
And, damn, this is the most important of all...don't buy into the media's portrayal of all government officials being corrupt...give the man the benefit of the doubt and give him the respect he deserves
True...Farnsworth had engineers working for him in two different labratories.
But the point is, Farnsworth had the idea, and Farnsworth should have been the one in control of his invention as it became a reality, but instead RCA used its resources to squeeze him out.
I don't know the solution, but I do know that it is anti-competitive (and downright anti-american) to allow corporations to abuse the legal system to squeeze out smaller independant competitors.
Slashdot Mirror
hybrid rocket motors are cool and all, but rocket technology has been around for centuries and all we can do now is make a 'hybrid'...
I think we can do better.
I agree...we need new propulsion systems to make real progress. I see so many people falling over themselves over spaceshipone, but it's nothing new, and it's not some kind of sign that space will be available to the common man anytimes soon.
Just marketing and tourism that extends into the edges of space for a few minutes and then comes back down.
How does a post about Gordon Cooper end up with some guy trashing Chuck Yeager?
He also flew around the world in a human powered airplane, btw.
Look, I'm not an environmentalist.
I mean exploitation as in the development of space as a tourist venture and not as a permanent foothold to other worlds and space exploration.
What I oppose is the idea that spaceshipone is some groundbreaking venture. It's great that people care about space again, but I fear that it's going to be in a commercialized and watered-down form. I want to see exploration beyond our solar system, not just tourism.
I have no qualms about mining an asteroid (the moon is different) or other celestial body in the infinite void of space.
/.ers are kind indeed...here's some interesting text from the wikipedia article on the X-15
The North American X-15 rocket plane was perhaps the most important of the USAF/USN X-series of experimental aircraft. Although not as famous as the Bell X-1, the X-15 set numerous speed and altitude records in the early 1960s, reaching the edge of space and bringing back valuable data that was used in the design of later aircraft and spacecraft.
During the X-15 programme, 13 flights met the US criterion for a spaceflight by passing an altitude of 50 miles (80 km) and the pilots were accordingly awarded astronaut status by the USAF. Out of these, 2 also qualified for the international FAI definition of a spaceflight by passing the 62.5 miles (100 km) mark.
Spaceshipone is nothing but a cheap corporate-sponsored venture to develop space. True manned space exploration has been dead since we got to the moon. I admire the goals of the Anasari prize, and I hope it will increase an interest in space exploration, but I am not optimistic.
We as a world went from simple rockets to the moon itself in a very short time. Then we just hit a wall. I think to progress as a people we need to bring back more risk-taking.
Spaceshipone is great, god bless, but it's not a risky new technology. It's regurgitated and being made progressively safer so that passengers won't sue the space travel company.
Space tourists are the true 'spam in a can'
Oh give me a break...
How can you think that the development of space will have anything but a corporate logo on it? The Anasri prize was a great idea, but spaceshipone isn't LINUX for god's sake. It's a 1950's concept for space flight packaged and promoted to be sold to consumers as a product.
Who was the first person to seriously commit to using spaceshipone's concept for mass tourism? Richard Branson. He's a cool guy, but once he makes his money and paves the way, the big publicly held conglomerates will be tripping over eachother's fattened bodies to profit from space.
I do not support space tourism, which would lead to exploitation. I support space exploration and mining.
I wouldn't say they is a resemblance, i'd say they are virtually identical in design. The only major difference is newer technology in avionics, computers, and media coverage.
/.er with time to kill at work will look it up.
I don't know the details off-hand, but a plane in the x-project went 65 plus miles above the earth sometime in the early 60's. Hopefully a good
But yeah, take away the technology and its undeniable.
This is a time for everyone captivated by spaceshipone to remember Gordon Cooper and all the astronauts for their contributions to space exploration and for just having the right stuff.
Notice on spaceshipone's first space flight last week, when asked about the 29 rolls at the top of his ascent, the pilot brushed it all off, "oh, it was nothing, training just took over."
Also, notice spaceshipone's incredible resemblance to the X-planes tested in 50's by test pilots like Chuck Yeager. Basically, spaceshipone is using 1950's technology to make its headlines.
It was the mercury astronauts and Russian cosmonauts who brought our backward world kicking and screaming to new frontiers first.
As anyone who works/lives in a tourist area knows, tourism isn't the same as the real thing.
I hope with every fiber of my being that space tourism will ignite a new interest in space exploration, but it's more likely to fuel a new interest in space 'development'. There's a big difference.
What we need are leaders and entrepreneurs who are interested in exploring space for its own sake...just because it is there.
I would love to be an astronaut, but who wants to be a tour guide?
~j
I should have been more specific with the question I posed. I'm not asking how scientists determine if the environments of the two basins were interacting; my problem with this article is the 500,000 yrs. figure.
How is that determined with the scientific method? Microbes compared with other microbes from other ancient ponds? Is that a concrete source of extrapolation?
"When a theory comes along that can better fit the evidence then great. "
My question to this is, who determines what theory best fits the evidence? Other, more prestigious scientists, right? What if most scientists are simply embracing the basic theory of evolution b/c that's what is accepted in academia in order advance their careers? Is there room to do science without having any theory of the earth's (and universe's) origin?
I've studied creation science (science without evolutionary assumtions) and I'm just wondering how many other /.'ers are skeptical about the determination that the two basins haven't been touched for 500,000 yrs.
How do the scientists determine this in a way using the scientific method?
Someone explain
You science types love to draw lines in the sand and say works like 'never' and 'can't'.
The world can't be round, right?
One day another Galileo will come along and make all of you eat your words.
The world is infinitely more complex and all of our understanding doesn't even scratch the surface.
Now all we need is a lego Guillotine.
well in cyberpunk...i live in Korea (which does it's best to copy Japan) and have visit japan many times.
Your point about cell phones being a 'must have' in japan is especially important, and unfourtunately missed in the article and in the discussion on this forum.
~j
i'm not an 'net expert like some /.'ers, but i thought it was common knowledge that blogs were personal things....
As far as journalism goes, I have a little more expertise. Sites like slashdot are best compared to the old 'reader's digest' type publications that collected interesting articles from other sources and combined them with some original content. It's worth study in a journalism class, but I don't think it merits it's own corses/majors and such.
Microsoft should open itself up to some open source applications because it is the only way to keep its place as the globalleader in software.
Open source will only get stronger. Right now, people who just use their computer for net surfing/email, home finance, and word processing or for low-level business applications at work most likely do not even know what 'open source' is, and think Linux is a cousin of the Lynx.
Right now, using Microsoft makes sense for these people, who, by the way, make up the majority of the computer using cohort (it's true, accept it).
But this dominace will change when/if Microsoft starts charging a monthly/yearly licensing fee, in effect 'renting' its software. People who have all their lives been able to use whatever they want on their computer will start seeing "Word cannot open because your subscription is lapsed" and get very angry.
Word of mouth is the best advertising, and when people start talking about ways to get around paying a monthly fee to write letters to grandma on 'word'---that will be open source's defining moment. When the general public becomes aware that free software exists. In turn, open source software will become much more user friendly for novice computer users (RIGHT NOW IT'S NOT...ACCEPT IT GEEKS!!!), and will attract even more attention from software developers. M$ eventually would become marginalized.
If Microsoft wants to continue to be the leading software company, it needs to scrap its 'subscription' plans, and make windows able to run open source programs, in essence make windows an all in one compatable with everything OS. And on top of that, provide cheap tech support to users (this is VERY important and should not be overlooked). Doing this will keep Windows as the OS of choice for new PC buyers in the GENERAL PUBLIC which is where the battle will ultimately be won or lost.
Microsoft is a profit-driven enterprise that MUST continue to show increasing profits. The more aggressive it becomes, the more open source will become the method of choice. To continue to be profitable, M$ must choose...try to kill 'open source' at all costs and sink themselves in the long run, or take the "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" approach.
Well, money isn't everything...
People with alot of money and no knowlegde of what it takes to earn and keep money usually end up loosing their money.
I say you came out ahead of those rich punks, b/c you have some knowledge about what it takes to really succeed over the long term.
~just a thought
i think the whole dot.com bust was basically a self-fullfilling profecy. Industry observers, and anyone else who didn't get in on the dot.com boom because they thought it would come crashing down were looking for something to call a 'dot.com crash' in order to justify their not taking the risk and getting involved themselves.
So the first time the industry showed any signs of slowing down, they (newspaper writers included) said 'oh look, there's the bust, I told you it would happen. I knew I was right not getting into it.'
But what really happend? Sure some guys had to get real jobs, but their effort (and investor's dollars) were not wasted. They are like ants who drown themselves so that other ants can walk across the dead bodies to the food (analogies rule!).
So what separated the drowners from the walkers? Same things as always, innovation, practical thinking, communication skills and HARD WORK.
"One point is that the many of the comparisons here are on domestic gross, not international. At least that's what I watch at The Numbers [the-numbers.com]"
/.'ers miss that.
I went to the-numbers.com and I could not find anything that stipulated whether it listed domestic or international gross. Industry analysts generally look at international gross.
It's definitely worth noting that international and domestic gross are two different things. I think alot of
off-topic, I'm an American teaching english in South Korea, and I got to see the original trailer for the movie. It had a helicopter chase that ended with the helicopter getting stuck in a web inbetween the two wtc towers, right at sunset...really cool
This analysis article sounds like the overdramatized fluff that I subjected my proffesors to when I was in school. John Katz??? Who the ----?
Really, the difference in money intake of these movies is negligable, and partially due to the fact that the AOTC was shown on fewer theaters worldwide, and won't even open until next month in some countries.
There is no overarching generaltional statement in the ticket sales of these two movies. Since when do you judge a movie's impact on ticket sales alone anyway?
1) You would not ask him the question you posted, and here's why: Since you read slashdot, I'm assuming you are not a complete idiot. If a non-idiot, like yourself, stood up in the middle of a town meeting, mic in hand, and said what you posted, no one would listen to you past
"Mr. Senator, why are the rights of the corporations (who aren't really people, btw...) being considered before the rights of the voting public?"
because every thinking person in the room would (rightly) see that your question was in reality a famebait rant. And when you saw the disgusted look on his face after hearing your first line, you'd realize how stupid and flamebait your question is, finish it early, and sit down.
2)your question is stupid because it is a flamebait rant that would be impossible for anyone to really give an answer to in a 'town meeting'-typ setting. You make alot of broad statements, like the one quoted above, that are prenthetical to the specific issue of the DCMA (and are insulting to anyone in goverment: you're basically calling him corrupt). All he would do is make a few broad statements about not being owned by corporations and having people's rights in mind when he voted for the DCMA, and move on to someone else.
I shouldn't have just posted 'your question is stupid'...that was pretty stupid on my part. See my post "I've Questioned a Senator before" for more on why I can say this with some authority.
You would not really ask a question as stupid as the one you posted...would you?
you idiot, yes i'm calling you an idiot, and i'm not flamebait....
you know it all computer geeks think you've got it all figured out, but you don't know a damn thing about politics....
these people deserve the benefit of the doubt.. If you look at politics expecting dishonesty and sugar coated answers, you will find exactly that...
have an open mind *maybe* some of our leaders *might* be honest people trying to do a difficult job
When I was an intern in a Congressman's office, I was able to attend a number of informal, off-the-record talks between senators, congressman, and interns (and only interns!)
At the end of the talk, we were allowed to ask questions on any topic, and I got to see first hand what questions work and what questions fail.
Your question needs to be pointed, but not too specific because believe it or not, a congressman votes on alot of bills everyday, and he doesn't have time to read all of them in depth, that's why he has a staff.
So a question like "line 2 paragraph 8 of the DMCA says this, but...." won't cut it, he won't know what the hell you're talking about. But if you are too broad, he will just ramble on about nothing for 2 minutes and then move on to another question.
The best thing for you to do is present one or two simple and well-documented problems/weaknesses with the DCMA, and then ask him how he thinks the problems could be solved.
And, damn, this is the most important of all...don't buy into the media's portrayal of all government officials being corrupt...give the man the benefit of the doubt and give him the respect he deserves
True...Farnsworth had engineers working for him in two different labratories. But the point is, Farnsworth had the idea, and Farnsworth should have been the one in control of his invention as it became a reality, but instead RCA used its resources to squeeze him out. I don't know the solution, but I do know that it is anti-competitive (and downright anti-american) to allow corporations to abuse the legal system to squeeze out smaller independant competitors.