What makes you think so? CEO's salaries have skyrocketed compared to the average salaries of the employees at a company. It was about 30X in the 60s, and is now 500X in the 00s.
If you've studied economics at all, it is well agreed upon. You must agree that no economic system can make everybody get richer, or else inflation would just rise to counteract it.
Your misconception is because you are looking at the US as a closed system. It is not; right now, the average US worker is getting richer when compared to the world, but developing countries in Africa, Asia, and Central/South America are getting poorer.
Capitalism is an economic system based on selfishness. That is to say, the incentive for an individual to be productive is not loyalty to the state, nor fear of persecution. It is the desire to buy stuff like TV, video games, and beers at the bar. It works to separate those who want to play the game (business owners) from those who want to watch (employees).
People will not be interested in the government until they can't afford a car, a house, or a chicken for the pot.
Capitalism will always tend to make the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. America has found that using Third World countries as our poor people, we can have relatively well-off (meaning not starving, with a car and a shelter) Americans, even for the small farmers and the 40 hour/week sheep.
It's only if the US allows foreigners to protect their poor in the same way will the global economy be strained enough for the average apathetic American to notice.
The current method of paying a mandatory annual fee to one of the anti-virus companies seems almost like an inherent conflict of interest, much as plumbers used to install pipes that easily corrode in a few years. We're always playing catchup, and I have an *extra* annual fee for each of my computers connected to the internet.
Searching and scanning for new viral signatures are not a final solution. The real solution is a transparent system where processes running are recognized by the operator, much as you recognize a familiar face when the mailman comes to the door.
I have so many services/processes running on WinXP that I have no idea what half of them do, but I can't turn them off, or something won't work. Seems like virus authors hardly have to try to find ways to exploit millions of systems with a single outbreak.
To those working on a different solution, thanks in advance.
I downloaded a video of an astronaut jumping at Nasa's Archive.
The frames are 0.03 seconds each. Assuming that it is full speed, which is reasonable since the audio matches the actions of the astronauts, watch the astronaut jump and salute.
How high did he get? I counted the frames from his apex to his landing: 21 frames.
At 0.03 sec/frame, this is 0.63 seconds.
Correct my math here, but in.63 seconds, a dropped object would fall D=0.5*a*t^2. The moon's gravity is 1/6g, or 1.63 f/s^2. So this gives 0.32 feet, or 3.88 inches.
The guy was much higher than that! I estimated that from boot to pack he was about 70 inches high. On the video it was 130 pixels, giving 0.53 inches per pixel. By my count, he jumped 32 pixels or about 17 inches.
How far does one fall on earth in 0.63 seconds? D=1/2*9.8*0.63^2 = 1.94 feet, or 23 inches.
Now, it seems to me either the video is at the wrong speed, or this guy was raised by a cable and then lowered.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills, but I even think I see, on two frames when he nears the apex of the first jump, a blip of a line of four white pixels above the exact middle of his pack for a second, as if I could actually get a glimpse of the cable!
Is anybody willing to do similar measurements and discuss? This guy was definitely higher than 4 inches from the ground, so how did it only take him 0.63 seconds to reach the ground?
And if he feels like he only weighs 40 pounds, why does he absorb his 17 inch jump with so much knee recoil? That isn't scientific, but it does point out another fact that corroborates that his jump was performed under a full 1g.
I did vote Libertarian, but with the knowledge that my choice wouldn't even get 1% of the vote. And I misspoke when I said that Libertarians and Greens fractured from the Dems.
I meant to say that the Dems were so centrist that the left had to find other parties to rally around. I agree with the Libertarian platform, and am proud of the way I voted.
I am very upset about current voter apathy, and disappointed in my inability to even arouse my own family to make it to the booth. How could I run myself if I can't even get my own sister to go vote for anybody?
Well, I had more questions, but instead of just ranting to you, I checked out nasa.gov again. They have a better section for clearing up the moon hoax. I don't have the inclination to actually measure the trajectories of rooster tails, etc.
So for now, I will defer to the collective intelligence of my beloved slashdotters. They seem to all be convinced.
Next they're going to tell me they can actually compute complicated algorithms by connecting thousands of computers over the internet.;)
Yes, I believe the gov't in 1969 had access to very good photograph manipulation software. Nothing like we have today, but state-of-the-art photograph manipulation sounds like exactly the sort of thing a gov't would spend money to improve.
People could use a magnifying glass if they had the originals, but when you just see the pics on tv or reproduced in the newspaper, a magnifying glass wouldn't help.
If you do have a hi-res moon surface photo, take a magnifying glass and study it.
If you don't, just download some of the available NASA photos and zoom in. Doctored photos doesn't prove that they were not on the moon, just that there were things that needed to be touched up. So we can shelve that bit.
More importantly, where was the rover on the Lunar Module? How did they get perfect camera shots of Armstrong emerging?
Honest questions from a guy that is 90% sure we made it.
It seems like everybody that refutes the hoax thinks that insulting the intelligence of the skeptic will shut him up. I prefer actual evidence, like how Schmitt fell down. That's more like it. Did anybody time his descent on the footage and see if it matched up with D=at^2, where a=1/6g ?
I believe the rate of gravity is the best proof of all. Time the footage and see if it matches Newton's Laws.
I reserve my right to complain (whether I voted or not) because the plurality voting system has caused the Democratic party to fracture into the Libertarian and Green parties, as well as others. The only reason the GOP did so well is because we, as voters, don't get to vote for the person we want without "wasting" it.
How can I vote Green, without automatically helping the GOP (my last choice), since I didn't vote for the Democratic candidate?
My sister just sent me an email: "I can't believe you are wasting your vote with that Libertarian candidate. I'm not even voting."
The system is flawed, and I can't help but wonder if it is maintained precisely for its most powerful effect: voter apathy.
I never questioned the landing until I saw the Fox special. I also understood that they were trying to convince me of bullshit, but I'd like to be able to refute it myself. The stuff on badastronomy.com never seemed to answer things intelligently, so I welcome the new piece.
I find it difficult to believe that the men in suits were not jumping higher in 1/6th gravity. That seems totally strange to me. I don't care if you have 200 pounds of equipment, you'd still be under 100 pounds on the moon, and you could jump very high, and would probably end up stumbling a little.
The external camera placed to witness the Eagle landing and Armstrong emerging on the surface seems to be awfully difficult to get right the first time. I also never saw the lunar module with the cool electric ATV that they drove around.
As for badastronomy.com, they never refute these things in particular. I also got some of the NASA pictures up close, and could see very easily that they were photoshopped. In 1969, they didn't have access to the zooming, so it was unnoticeable.
The mirror is a good example of facts that can put my doubts to rest. (Well, maybe not 1969 in particular, but at least they made it!)
As I said, I never questioned the landing until that Fox special. Yes, I know they are idiots on that channel, but I took some time to do disprove the conspiracy freaks and I got more nervous.
It also seems strange that all moon landings occurred while Tricky Dick was in office.
If you haven't heard of Provigil yet, check it out. It is a revolutionary new drug that allows one to stay focused, alert, and with all of your faculties, all without making one jittery, and no annoying requirement of sleeping in once you stop taking it.
There are reputedly no known side effects. You just have to convince your doctor that you have narcolepsy, which shouldn't be difficult if you are halfway into a marathon session at the time!
I wish programmers would grow up and actually act like capitalists. Everybody talks about jobs. Where's the good jobs? Where do they pay the most? Where can I dress like a slob and come in late?
Companies love the fact that they've convinced all of these smart programmers that they need jobs. But they are stealing from you everyday you work for them!
If you want to go to work to learn Java (or something) for a year, fine. But once you've learned the skill, get out!
The more money you make for a company... the more money you made for the company.
Talented programmers have got to stop being satisfied with 50-100K and paying 20K in taxes. If you want to live on 50K per year, then you only need to work 5 months a year!
The gov't loves you at work, the companies love you at work. That alone should make you reconsider. It's not about being rich, it's about freedom to work on what you want, and make the money you want.
And please stop working in a cubicle! SourceForge is proof that coordinated development can take place from the home. Unclog the highways! Save oil!
Slashdot Mirror
What makes you think so? CEO's salaries have skyrocketed compared to the average salaries of the employees at a company. It was about 30X in the 60s, and is now 500X in the 00s.
If you've studied economics at all, it is well agreed upon. You must agree that no economic system can make everybody get richer, or else inflation would just rise to counteract it.
Your misconception is because you are looking at the US as a closed system. It is not; right now, the average US worker is getting richer when compared to the world, but developing countries in Africa, Asia, and Central/South America are getting poorer.
Capitalism is an economic system based on selfishness. That is to say, the incentive for an individual to be productive is not loyalty to the state, nor fear of persecution. It is the desire to buy stuff like TV, video games, and beers at the bar. It works to separate those who want to play the game (business owners) from those who want to watch (employees).
People will not be interested in the government until they can't afford a car, a house, or a chicken for the pot.
Capitalism will always tend to make the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. America has found that using Third World countries as our poor people, we can have relatively well-off (meaning not starving, with a car and a shelter) Americans, even for the small farmers and the 40 hour/week sheep.
It's only if the US allows foreigners to protect their poor in the same way will the global economy be strained enough for the average apathetic American to notice.
The current method of paying a mandatory annual fee to one of the anti-virus companies seems almost like an inherent conflict of interest, much as plumbers used to install pipes that easily corrode in a few years. We're always playing catchup, and I have an *extra* annual fee for each of my computers connected to the internet.
Searching and scanning for new viral signatures are not a final solution. The real solution is a transparent system where processes running are recognized by the operator, much as you recognize a familiar face when the mailman comes to the door.
I have so many services/processes running on WinXP that I have no idea what half of them do, but I can't turn them off, or something won't work. Seems like virus authors hardly have to try to find ways to exploit millions of systems with a single outbreak.
To those working on a different solution, thanks in advance.
I downloaded a video of an astronaut jumping at
.63 seconds, a dropped object would fall D=0.5*a*t^2. The moon's gravity is 1/6g, or 1.63 f/s^2. So this gives 0.32 feet, or 3.88 inches.
Nasa's Archive.
The frames are 0.03 seconds each. Assuming that it is full speed, which is reasonable since the audio matches the actions of the astronauts, watch the astronaut jump and salute.
How high did he get?
I counted the frames from his apex to his landing: 21 frames.
At 0.03 sec/frame, this is 0.63 seconds.
Correct my math here, but in
The guy was much higher than that! I estimated that from boot to pack he was about 70 inches high. On the video it was 130 pixels, giving 0.53 inches per pixel. By my count, he jumped 32 pixels or about 17 inches.
How far does one fall on earth in 0.63 seconds?
D=1/2*9.8*0.63^2 = 1.94 feet, or 23 inches.
Now, it seems to me either the video is at the wrong speed, or this guy was raised by a cable and then lowered.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills, but I even think I see, on two frames when he nears the apex of the first jump, a blip of a line of four white pixels above the exact middle of his pack for a second, as if I could actually get a glimpse of the cable!
Is anybody willing to do similar measurements and discuss? This guy was definitely higher than 4 inches from the ground, so how did it only take him 0.63 seconds to reach the ground?
And if he feels like he only weighs 40 pounds, why does he absorb his 17 inch jump with so much knee recoil? That isn't scientific, but it does point out another fact that corroborates that his jump was performed under a full 1g.
I WANNA BELIEVE! PLEASE HELP!
I did vote Libertarian, but with the knowledge that my choice wouldn't even get 1% of the vote. And I misspoke when I said that Libertarians and Greens fractured from the Dems.
I meant to say that the Dems were so centrist that the left had to find other parties to rally around. I agree with the Libertarian platform, and am proud of the way I voted.
I am very upset about current voter apathy, and disappointed in my inability to even arouse my own family to make it to the booth. How could I run myself if I can't even get my own sister to go vote for anybody?
Well, I had more questions, but instead of just ranting to you, I checked out nasa.gov again. They have a better section for clearing up the moon hoax. I don't have the inclination to actually measure the trajectories of rooster tails, etc.
;)
So for now, I will defer to the collective intelligence of my beloved slashdotters. They seem to all be convinced.
Next they're going to tell me they can actually compute complicated algorithms by connecting thousands of computers over the internet.
People could use a magnifying glass if they had the originals, but when you just see the pics on tv or reproduced in the newspaper, a magnifying glass wouldn't help.
If you do have a hi-res moon surface photo, take a magnifying glass and study it.
If you don't, just download some of the available NASA photos and zoom in. Doctored photos doesn't prove that they were not on the moon, just that there were things that needed to be touched up. So we can shelve that bit.
More importantly, where was the rover on the Lunar Module? How did they get perfect camera shots of Armstrong emerging?
Honest questions from a guy that is 90% sure we made it.
It seems like everybody that refutes the hoax thinks that insulting the intelligence of the skeptic will shut him up. I prefer actual evidence, like how Schmitt fell down. That's more like it. Did anybody time his descent on the footage and see if it matched up with D=at^2, where a=1/6g ?
I believe the rate of gravity is the best proof of all. Time the footage and see if it matches Newton's Laws.
I reserve my right to complain (whether I voted or not) because the plurality voting system has caused the Democratic party to fracture into the Libertarian and Green parties, as well as others. The only reason the GOP did so well is because we, as voters, don't get to vote for the person we want without "wasting" it. How can I vote Green, without automatically helping the GOP (my last choice), since I didn't vote for the Democratic candidate? My sister just sent me an email: "I can't believe you are wasting your vote with that Libertarian candidate. I'm not even voting." The system is flawed, and I can't help but wonder if it is maintained precisely for its most powerful effect: voter apathy.
I never questioned the landing until I saw the Fox special. I also understood that they were trying to convince me of bullshit, but I'd like to be able to refute it myself. The stuff on badastronomy.com never seemed to answer things intelligently, so I welcome the new piece.
I find it difficult to believe that the men in suits were not jumping higher in 1/6th gravity. That seems totally strange to me. I don't care if you have 200 pounds of equipment, you'd still be under 100 pounds on the moon, and you could jump very high, and would probably end up stumbling a little.
The external camera placed to witness the Eagle landing and Armstrong emerging on the surface seems to be awfully difficult to get right the first time. I also never saw the lunar module with the cool electric ATV that they drove around.
As for badastronomy.com, they never refute these things in particular. I also got some of the NASA pictures up close, and could see very easily that they were photoshopped. In 1969, they didn't have access to the zooming, so it was unnoticeable.
The mirror is a good example of facts that can put my doubts to rest. (Well, maybe not 1969 in particular, but at least they made it!)
As I said, I never questioned the landing until that Fox special. Yes, I know they are idiots on that channel, but I took some time to do disprove the conspiracy freaks and I got more nervous.
It also seems strange that all moon landings occurred while Tricky Dick was in office.
There are reputedly no known side effects. You just have to convince your doctor that you have narcolepsy, which shouldn't be difficult if you are halfway into a marathon session at the time!
I wish programmers would grow up and actually act like capitalists. Everybody talks about jobs. Where's the good jobs? Where do they pay the most? Where can I dress like a slob and come in late?
Companies love the fact that they've convinced all of these smart programmers that they need jobs. But they are stealing from you everyday you work for them!
If you want to go to work to learn Java (or something) for a year, fine. But once you've learned the skill, get out!
Talented programmers have got to stop being satisfied with 50-100K and paying 20K in taxes. If you want to live on 50K per year, then you only need to work 5 months a year!
The gov't loves you at work, the companies love you at work. That alone should make you reconsider. It's not about being rich, it's about freedom to work on what you want, and make the money you want.
And please stop working in a cubicle! SourceForge is proof that coordinated development can take place from the home.
Unclog the highways! Save oil!