Interesting article, but it still doesn't address the "building complex
things in space" problem. I mean, we're pretty good at building things in
gravity, with an abundance of raw materials, but we just haven't built much
of note in hard vacuum zero gravity where you have to truck everything you
need there. Even the space station was flown in modular format from Earth -
at huge expense. Lagrange points are cool - but planets are cooler.
Everything you want to fly to somewhere else from a Lagrangian point you first have to fly to a Lagrangian point from some planet!
Frankly, the best place from which to get to pretty much anywhere in the
solar system (including the Moon!) is from the surface of Mars. Two reasons:
you can build things there, and the cost in fuel is lower. Here's a table which uses
deltaV (total change in velocity required and thus fuel) to illustrate this
very point.
First get humans to Mars, then the whole solar system is within reach.
How can that be? Well, if you take off that 90 tonne waste-of-space 70s technology monster that is the frickin' orbiter we could get some real lifting done around here! Has this "radical" design been actually engineered? of course it has. It's called the Ares booster.
Now if only NASA would get over their bad case of NIH we could do things, like, oh, I don't know, throw the ISS to orbit in 3 shots, go to Mars (2 shots), go back to the moon (1 shot)? And that's just three off the top of my head. In 6 launches. Sigh.
You wrote: To the point where it's doubtful it would much, if any effect for commercial flights.
You're still missing the point. Let's say your solution is 99.99% safe. That still means that somewhere a 747 is missing a transmission, or other effect as outlined by the original poster, every single week on average. That is WAY too dangerous. But I just invented 99.99%, so what's the point of that? The point is this: Make the number as small as you like, it's still too big a risk to take.
By the way, 400 cell phones on maximum strength trying to pick up the same faint ground station? Sounds to me like a lot of unwanted, pulsing EMF. You know that cell phones vary their transmission strenght, don't you?
Read my other response. Your "point" was made by a non-AC and so I answered that one. By the way, it's got nothing remotely to do with what you are suggesting.
Which would probably correlate to the percentage actually on the front line and fighting at any given moment or to the percentage actually using rifles
Nope. Sorry. Dead wrong. Although "distance" does have something to do with the explanation for why they didn't fire (ie. your tanks planes etc.) actually the figure is exactly what I said. Out of all the people with rifles, who were supposed to fire, only 15-20% of them did. Read the research, it's utterly more fascinating that cheap shots on slashdot I assure you. As for your "tell that to all the..." well, yeah, and your point is?
Hey, funny comment! Those dumb Frenchies, ho ho ho. Boy you're a card. Pity about the rifle slur, which shows a vast lack of anything approaching knowledge about WWII.
You may be interested in repairing that ignorance. Here's part of the picture:
A certain General S.L.A. Marshall did unimpeachable research after WWII which determined, among other things, that out of all the American soldiers directly involved in fighting (ie. infantry) in World War II, only 15 to 20 percent of them ever fired their weapons.
It's an odd statistic, but a fascinating one. It's all in this book, which I recommend to everyone, and not just makers of half-funny "those dumb frogs" comments on slashdot.
I have a feeling that the answer to this question is going to shock and dismay us all. Some individual, common, hitherto-thought-harmless pollutant? Ambient noise levels?
Surely the way to chase this down is to get some clever cross-disciplinary folk on the case. Meanwhile, here's two links that don't require registration:
Well, as I said, if you pick a) World will get better - then how much better and how quickly?
And what type of "better"?
Less poverty is worse, it means your dollar doesn't go as far, and all those cool grungy destinations no longer exist.
Safer? I would argue that travelling is already the safest possible thing you can be doing. Look at the stats - your home or your car or your workplace are the most dangerous places to be.
Prettier? Come on! Won't even bother to argue this one. What's pretty anyway?
More brotherly love? Sorry pal, forces of nationalism on the rise everywhere, not likely. There are plenty of people, for example, that still think America / Americans is/are not half bad. I don't see this number _rising_ do you?
So "better" means "more boring" for any definition of the word that actually applies to travel, which is what we're talking about, right?
But then, you didn't really _read_ my post or understand the _point_ I was making, there, did you?
And sadly, that whole idea was the cleverest, most breathtaking thing in the film.
But that didn't stop it somehow being rated Top 250 by imdb (#91 when I looked).
What is up with that? Even Mr Cranky didn't entirely hate it.
Bad Idea for the Morning: Hey! I should do a review site and post how much this movie sucked. Or maybe I should just get another Oola-flavoured-beverage and shut the fskc up. Yeah. The second one.
You wrote: Hooked up with total strangers for a couple of days. Drifted apart. Took pictures
You know, the order probably should have been: Hooked up, took pictures, drifted apart. But then that's just me I'm sure!
Heh, I'm just kidding you - sounds like you had a hell of a time, I did the same thing at 19, except my 3 months turned into a lifetime obsession. Still loving it at 30+!:) Thanks for the memories your post invoked!
You wrote: but *NOW* is just so very much not the time to see the world.
Sorry to disagree, but this is completely wrong in scope and feeling. Here's why:
You have three options, you think things will get a) better, b) worse or c) stay the same. So you then have three "do I see the world now or later" arguments.
a) World will get better - well how much better and how quickly? Doesn't matter, it's an excellent time to see the world right now - and then when the world's all better, see it again and contrast!
b) World will get worse - so now you have no excuse at all for "seeing it later". Getting worse, very much the most likely scenario, tends to say "pack your bags and get your seeing done while you still can" to me, but YMMV.
c) World will stay the same - so then, no time like the present, go out there and see things!
In short, you have no excuse, whatsoever, to avoid doing what you want to do, what you will find is the best thing you have ever done, and what will be the most fantastic thing you ever do by far.
The only thing you actually have reason to fear is fear itself.
You wrote: How does one look "American"? Do you mean look "white"? Or do you mean "not Chinese"? Seems like a bad generalization?.
Just as bad a generalisation as "not Chinese" one thinks... be careful when you attack.
But leaving that aside, the original poster's point is an excellent one, and has left many of my North American, Australian, British friends here in China with a bad taste in their mouths, trying to get jobs teaching English (their mother tongue) but being disqualified for "looking Asian", which is their racial but not cultural or linguistic heritage.
Sucks, sure, but it's the facts. Bad generalizations seem to be everywhere these days, don't they?
You wrote: This is hardly as easy a feat as you make it out to be.
Huh?! When did I ever say it was easy? In fact, when did I ever say any of the things you attribute to me? If you are the future of medicine, I hope they include some courses on reading comprehension before you are done. Your analysis of the article was equally flawed, but since I'm now essentially doing your homework for you, I respectfully decline to pointlessly elaborate.
Since you addressed none of the points I actually made, I assume you agree with them all?
All the "Dr. Nick" type comments miss one essential truth about non-online medical training, and that is:
Q: What do they call the person who graduates bottom of their medical class?
A: Doctor.
I, for one, think any new well-researched, diagnosis-focused, detailed and systematic way of partially training doctors (read the fsking article!) is to be welcomed.
After segmenting the data into over 100 different categories of software, 9 operating environments and 6 different geograpic regions, we model the shipments based upon survey research.
No matter how many ways you slice a rotten apple - it's still rotten. No matter how many ways you slice bad data... I'll leave the rest of that sentence as an exercise for the reader.
The modeling of the financal data is reviewed by the suppliers. We listen to their input. We also listen to the input of many other reviewers.
I'm sorry, but "listening"?! And I thought that research where you produce numbers was all about hard data. You can "listen" all you like, and then distill, but then what you produce is called "comment" not "research".
After weighing all of the input, we publish something which is supportable based upon all of the research.
You "weigh" it all, do you? What, with a scale? "Microsoft sent us 20lbs of press releases this month - we better up their percentage in the server sector". Perhaps you mean that statistical-sounding word "weight", as in "lightweight commentary masquerading as research".
And then, as the final act, you publish, in your words, "something". Well, you've no argument from me there. You certainly publish a lot of "something". Research it isn't. Useful it isn't. But it is, without a doubt, something.
obtains software revenue information from software supplier's SEC forms or from public comments, executive interviews, and the like of privately held firms
Although your points seemed completely obvious to me, I was stunned reading through the stack of posters above you who seem to be taking the numbers quite seriously. And so, well done for pointing out the truth in a calm and reasoned way.
My window on this? In my job I have been approached many many times by these "number inventors" trying to sell their product to companies I have been working for. You know the names. Everytime they release a "report" you get that awkward phone call where the guy tries to convince you that your company will go bankrupt if it doesn't know what percentage of users use Visa as compared to Mastercard online, or something equally stupid.
Occasionally I have tried to ask how they collect their data, even told one guy I would buy his report if he would make available to me the survey method, but that stuff is hidden carefully because, as you point out, it is utter utter non-scientific shite.
I remain firmly convinved that these numbers would be more accurate if someone literally pulled them out of their arse. Don't feed these people - don't buy their reports.
Hello again neocon, I've been a bit long time no post. Sorry about that - real life has been fun for a change.
As for the post above, let me say that today it isn't the facts. Today I agree with all your calls to fact. It's just your conclusions today.
And even the conclusions are leading in the right direction. Follow the money my friend, follow the money. You're almost there!
And with that cryptic and entirely too "deep throat" sounding post, my time in this crappy internet cafe is up. Apologies. I have more and will post it another time. I have enjoyed our discussions! Being on "holiday" in a part of the world that demonstrates simply by walking out the door much of what you and I have discussed (no secret which side of the argument the real world illustrates here) makes me magnanimous! *grin*
Imagine, say, the outcry if you regularly got sales calls at work from telemarketers. Even if you were able to hang these calls up in a second or two, they would still be a completely unwarranted disturbance to your working routine, and heads would undoubtedly roll.
Why is spam any different? Your argument about yawning, etc, is totally spurious as this time is already factored in. In effect, the company PAYS you to be comfortable at work (ie. breathe in and out, shift in your chair, etc.) so you can be maximally productive. They DO NOT pay you to read advertisements for penile enlargement products, throw the paper version of such advertisements in the wastepaper basket, hang up the phone on such telemarketed advertisements, or delete the same email advertisements from your inbox.
I've never heard anybody who wanted to keep their job say they were going to miss any project meeting, by the way, but I have certainly heard people wish they had, say, another 10 productive minutes at a crucial time of the day, so they could go to that meeting more prepared.
Spam costs individuals time. Time they do not chose to spend - and that's the key. After all, time is money as we all know.
Not the 'Mars Radiation' virus again!
on
Today's Solar Flare
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
This one sure gets about! Don't worry though, from the very article actually linked in the story above, the "problem" is immediately debunked:
Fortunately, astronauts can find the protection they need indoors (from solar storms) ; shelter walls made of lightweight materials provide adequate shielding.
For those needing more on this, go find what you need here or, for something a little more cautious and "NASA" here.
Now only if we can get people to stop running about waving their arms and shouting "The Radiation! The Radiation!" we might get something productive done... Heh! No chance of that I guess, might as well join them...
*waves hands over head, runs about, starts screaming "The Radiation!" and giggling*
The Mars Society, in the process of encouraging and enabling manned missions to Mars, is currently doing this project among others.
Cool hack if ever I have seen one! Build-your-own Mars Base in one of the most Mars-Like places on Earth, and do real research on how to operate said base when (not if) we get to Mars.
If you keep up with the web traffic on this project, NASA's position seems to be basically "Great work guys!" and "Can we send our best people?" to which request the Mars Society seems to graciously and intelligently accede.
It's the way the shielding on every spacecraft before the Shuttle worked.
The shielding burns up, but at a predicted rate, and it lasts long enough to get the craft on the ground. Shuttle shielding is the opposite, it's a ceramic that simply "holds" the heat (vast simplification there, but well).
And it's ablation again with Orion. Sure, the explosions ablate part of the shielding, but it lasts long enough to get the craft where you want it to be.
And to answer your other question, the idea is like the engine of a car. If you can hear the individual pistons firing, then you've probably got a problem! But they do fire individually. Same thing with Orion (or similar) - the bombs are chucked out the back at a pretty rapid rate. At least in the designs I remember - I haven't read the book but I will based on the review. It sounds fascinating!
Seems to me that Gates must've read The Art of War.
Perhaps you're right. It looks to me, though, that since the original (slightly oddball) comments came from IBM, that the old saying about them needs to be updated. Here it is for those who have forgotten:
IBM, we're in the computer industry, but that hasn't stopped us from bringing you the very very best in F.U.D. since 196x.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting article, but it still doesn't address the "building complex things in space" problem. I mean, we're pretty good at building things in gravity, with an abundance of raw materials, but we just haven't built much of note in hard vacuum zero gravity where you have to truck everything you need there. Even the space station was flown in modular format from Earth - at huge expense. Lagrange points are cool - but planets are cooler.
Everything you want to fly to somewhere else from a Lagrangian point you first have to fly to a Lagrangian point from some planet!
Frankly, the best place from which to get to pretty much anywhere in the solar system (including the Moon!) is from the surface of Mars. Two reasons: you can build things there, and the cost in fuel is lower. Here's a table which uses deltaV (total change in velocity required and thus fuel) to illustrate this very point.
First get humans to Mars, then the whole solar system is within reach.
That's the world that many Asian IT companies and deparments live in.
Just think about that for a minute, and imagine how it would turn your world upside down: People are cheap - servers are expensive.
In this environment, stuff like Linux makes even more sense than it does in "the west".
People like TurboLinux and Red Flag Linux are all over this opportunity here in China and elsewhere in the region.
The STS is a 100 tonne to LEO launch vehicle.
How can that be? Well, if you take off that 90 tonne waste-of-space 70s technology monster that is the frickin' orbiter we could get some real lifting done around here! Has this "radical" design been actually engineered? of course it has. It's called the Ares booster.
Now if only NASA would get over their bad case of NIH we could do things, like, oh, I don't know, throw the ISS to orbit in 3 shots, go to Mars (2 shots), go back to the moon (1 shot)? And that's just three off the top of my head. In 6 launches. Sigh.
You're still missing the point. Let's say your solution is 99.99% safe. That still means that somewhere a 747 is missing a transmission, or other effect as outlined by the original poster, every single week on average. That is WAY too dangerous. But I just invented 99.99%, so what's the point of that? The point is this: Make the number as small as you like, it's still too big a risk to take.
By the way, 400 cell phones on maximum strength trying to pick up the same faint ground station? Sounds to me like a lot of unwanted, pulsing EMF. You know that cell phones vary their transmission strenght, don't you?
Isn't it possible someone, somewhere, on another flight might too? I think you just made the other poster's point my friend.
Read my other response. Your "point" was made by a non-AC and so I answered that one. By the way, it's got nothing remotely to do with what you are suggesting.
Nope. Sorry. Dead wrong. Although "distance" does have something to do with the explanation for why they didn't fire (ie. your tanks planes etc.) actually the figure is exactly what I said. Out of all the people with rifles, who were supposed to fire, only 15-20% of them did. Read the research, it's utterly more fascinating that cheap shots on slashdot I assure you. As for your "tell that to all the..." well, yeah, and your point is?
You may be interested in repairing that ignorance. Here's part of the picture:
A certain General S.L.A. Marshall did unimpeachable research after WWII which determined, among other things, that out of all the American soldiers directly involved in fighting (ie. infantry) in World War II, only 15 to 20 percent of them ever fired their weapons.
It's an odd statistic, but a fascinating one. It's all in this book, which I recommend to everyone, and not just makers of half-funny "those dumb frogs" comments on slashdot.
Surely the way to chase this down is to get some clever cross-disciplinary folk on the case. Meanwhile, here's two links that don't require registration:
The Independant's version of the same story.
The BBC is bringing up the MMR "link".
And what type of "better"?
Less poverty is worse, it means your dollar doesn't go as far, and all those cool grungy destinations no longer exist.
Safer? I would argue that travelling is already the safest possible thing you can be doing. Look at the stats - your home or your car or your workplace are the most dangerous places to be.
Prettier? Come on! Won't even bother to argue this one. What's pretty anyway?
More brotherly love? Sorry pal, forces of nationalism on the rise everywhere, not likely. There are plenty of people, for example, that still think America / Americans is /are not half bad. I don't see this number _rising_ do you?
So "better" means "more boring" for any definition of the word that actually applies to travel, which is what we're talking about, right?
But then, you didn't really _read_ my post or understand the _point_ I was making, there, did you?
But that didn't stop it somehow being rated Top 250 by imdb (#91 when I looked).
What is up with that? Even Mr Cranky didn't entirely hate it.
Bad Idea for the Morning: Hey! I should do a review site and post how much this movie sucked. Or maybe I should just get another Oola-flavoured-beverage and shut the fskc up. Yeah. The second one.
You know, the order probably should have been: Hooked up, took pictures, drifted apart. But then that's just me I'm sure!
Heh, I'm just kidding you - sounds like you had a hell of a time, I did the same thing at 19, except my 3 months turned into a lifetime obsession. Still loving it at 30+! :) Thanks for the memories your post invoked!
Sorry to disagree, but this is completely wrong in scope and feeling. Here's why:
You have three options, you think things will get a) better, b) worse or c) stay the same. So you then have three "do I see the world now or later" arguments.
a) World will get better - well how much better and how quickly? Doesn't matter, it's an excellent time to see the world right now - and then when the world's all better, see it again and contrast!
b) World will get worse - so now you have no excuse at all for "seeing it later". Getting worse, very much the most likely scenario, tends to say "pack your bags and get your seeing done while you still can" to me, but YMMV.
c) World will stay the same - so then, no time like the present, go out there and see things!
In short, you have no excuse, whatsoever, to avoid doing what you want to do, what you will find is the best thing you have ever done, and what will be the most fantastic thing you ever do by far.
The only thing you actually have reason to fear is fear itself.
Just as bad a generalisation as "not Chinese" one thinks... be careful when you attack.
But leaving that aside, the original poster's point is an excellent one, and has left many of my North American, Australian, British friends here in China with a bad taste in their mouths, trying to get jobs teaching English (their mother tongue) but being disqualified for "looking Asian", which is their racial but not cultural or linguistic heritage.
Sucks, sure, but it's the facts. Bad generalizations seem to be everywhere these days, don't they?
Huh?! When did I ever say it was easy? In fact, when did I ever say any of the things you attribute to me? If you are the future of medicine, I hope they include some courses on reading comprehension before you are done. Your analysis of the article was equally flawed, but since I'm now essentially doing your homework for you, I respectfully decline to pointlessly elaborate.
Since you addressed none of the points I actually made, I assume you agree with them all?
Q: What do they call the person who graduates bottom of their medical class?
A: Doctor.
I, for one, think any new well-researched, diagnosis-focused, detailed and systematic way of partially training doctors (read the fsking article!) is to be welcomed.
No matter how many ways you slice a rotten apple - it's still rotten. No matter how many ways you slice bad data... I'll leave the rest of that sentence as an exercise for the reader.
The modeling of the financal data is reviewed by the suppliers. We listen to their input. We also listen to the input of many other reviewers.
I'm sorry, but "listening"?! And I thought that research where you produce numbers was all about hard data. You can "listen" all you like, and then distill, but then what you produce is called "comment" not "research".
After weighing all of the input, we publish something which is supportable based upon all of the research.
You "weigh" it all, do you? What, with a scale? "Microsoft sent us 20lbs of press releases this month - we better up their percentage in the server sector". Perhaps you mean that statistical-sounding word "weight", as in "lightweight commentary masquerading as research".
And then, as the final act, you publish, in your words, "something". Well, you've no argument from me there. You certainly publish a lot of "something". Research it isn't. Useful it isn't. But it is, without a doubt, something.
What?! You get the numbers from THE SUPPLIERS?!
And you have the balls to call that "research"?!
Man, you must have trouble walking!
My window on this? In my job I have been approached many many times by these "number inventors" trying to sell their product to companies I have been working for. You know the names. Everytime they release a "report" you get that awkward phone call where the guy tries to convince you that your company will go bankrupt if it doesn't know what percentage of users use Visa as compared to Mastercard online, or something equally stupid.
Occasionally I have tried to ask how they collect their data, even told one guy I would buy his report if he would make available to me the survey method, but that stuff is hidden carefully because, as you point out, it is utter utter non-scientific shite.
I remain firmly convinved that these numbers would be more accurate if someone literally pulled them out of their arse. Don't feed these people - don't buy their reports.
As for the post above, let me say that today it isn't the facts. Today I agree with all your calls to fact. It's just your conclusions today.
And even the conclusions are leading in the right direction. Follow the money my friend, follow the money. You're almost there!
And with that cryptic and entirely too "deep throat" sounding post, my time in this crappy internet cafe is up. Apologies. I have more and will post it another time. I have enjoyed our discussions! Being on "holiday" in a part of the world that demonstrates simply by walking out the door much of what you and I have discussed (no secret which side of the argument the real world illustrates here) makes me magnanimous! *grin*
Imagine, say, the outcry if you regularly got sales calls at work from telemarketers. Even if you were able to hang these calls up in a second or two, they would still be a completely unwarranted disturbance to your working routine, and heads would undoubtedly roll.
Why is spam any different? Your argument about yawning, etc, is totally spurious as this time is already factored in. In effect, the company PAYS you to be comfortable at work (ie. breathe in and out, shift in your chair, etc.) so you can be maximally productive. They DO NOT pay you to read advertisements for penile enlargement products, throw the paper version of such advertisements in the wastepaper basket, hang up the phone on such telemarketed advertisements, or delete the same email advertisements from your inbox.
I've never heard anybody who wanted to keep their job say they were going to miss any project meeting, by the way, but I have certainly heard people wish they had, say, another 10 productive minutes at a crucial time of the day, so they could go to that meeting more prepared.
Spam costs individuals time. Time they do not chose to spend - and that's the key. After all, time is money as we all know.
Fortunately, astronauts can find the protection they need indoors (from solar storms) ; shelter walls made of lightweight materials provide adequate shielding.
For those needing more on this, go find what you need here or, for something a little more cautious and "NASA" here.
Now only if we can get people to stop running about waving their arms and shouting "The Radiation! The Radiation!" we might get something productive done... Heh! No chance of that I guess, might as well join them...
*waves hands over head, runs about, starts screaming "The Radiation!" and giggling*
Cool hack if ever I have seen one! Build-your-own Mars Base in one of the most Mars-Like places on Earth, and do real research on how to operate said base when (not if) we get to Mars.
If you keep up with the web traffic on this project, NASA's position seems to be basically "Great work guys!" and "Can we send our best people?" to which request the Mars Society seems to graciously and intelligently accede.
The shielding burns up, but at a predicted rate, and it lasts long enough to get the craft on the ground. Shuttle shielding is the opposite, it's a ceramic that simply "holds" the heat (vast simplification there, but well).
And it's ablation again with Orion. Sure, the explosions ablate part of the shielding, but it lasts long enough to get the craft where you want it to be.
And to answer your other question, the idea is like the engine of a car. If you can hear the individual pistons firing, then you've probably got a problem! But they do fire individually. Same thing with Orion (or similar) - the bombs are chucked out the back at a pretty rapid rate. At least in the designs I remember - I haven't read the book but I will based on the review. It sounds fascinating!
Perhaps you're right. It looks to me, though, that since the original (slightly oddball) comments came from IBM, that the old saying about them needs to be updated. Here it is for those who have forgotten:
IBM, we're in the computer industry, but that hasn't stopped us from bringing you the very very best in F.U.D. since 196x.