Pay more attention before you haul off a reply. Firing dead weight into space with such a device is undoubtedly possible. Consistently firing items without damaging their fine structure would be so expensive as to be pointless.
And as to blowhards like me, it's thanks to simpletions such as yourself that politicians, contractors, and military officials are able to sell moronic projects such as this to the citizenry and embezzle tens or hundreds of bilions of taxpayer dollars.
If you think containers with food and other consumables can withstand these G forces and changes in G forces, you're dreaming. Wake up and look at this with practical eyes, not through the foggy lens of 1950's SciFi or aerospace contractor hype.
This project is pure bullshit to suck billions out of federal coffers.
Who makes this shit up? Why are we spending money on this?
Can't anyone see that this is nothing but Pentagon pork-barrel spending? It is worthless, impractical, and will/would be colossally expensive to implement.
Scientists at the University of Arf Arf Arf have discovered that a barrel containing 30% red ping pong balls contains more red ping pong balls than a barrel containing only red ping pong balls.
News Flash!
Scientists at the University of Rowr Rowf have discovered that a Sodium Borohydride solution in water can be used in batteries, even though Sodium Borohydride quickly decomposes in water.
News Flash!
Scientists at the Univerity of Bow Wow Wow have discovered that batteries can be made using materials that cost vastly more to produce than the energy that can be obtained from the batteries themselves.
News Flash!
Homer Simpson buys a whole lot of bacon in order to render the fat and sell it to fat recyclers.
News Flash!
Scientists at the University of Ow Ow Ahwooo discover a miscellaneous effect with dubious practical benefits. They foresee a vast and highly profitable industry based on it, showering society with myriad benefits like Manna from heaven.
a one-time payment of only $19.95 says the (c) 2003 web page. In order to pay US$30 million, that's 1.5 million paying users. Add to that the operating expenses for however long they lasted. Any info on how much money passed through their hands (like sand between their fingers)?
There is absolutely nothing wrong with recording music for the purpose of sale, with the expectation that its copyright will be respected. It is moronic to think otherwise, as it implies that musicians in particular and content producers in general (including software developers) have some sort of obligation to give their work away. That is a ridiculous premise.
The problem is not that music is easy to pirate and therefore copyright is meaningless and music should be free. Please stop insisting on that, it gets in the way of any reasonable solution. The problem is the rapacious business model of the overall commercial recording industry. Add on top of that these windfall legal victories, and they have very little incentive to develop a more realistic business model.
If a commodity is in high demand but is very expensive, people will try to steal it. If it is very easy to steal, many people will steal it. It is still theft. Ask Richard Stallman if violations of GPL are litigable offenses or not. Copyright must be respected. It is dangerous to suggest that copyright has no usefulness anymore.
If music tracks cost US$0.25 or less each, it would still be a lucrative business, people would have much less incentive to steal it, and copyright would be much easier to uphold. Personally, I think tracks should cost five or ten US cents each starting about 6 months or so after their release. Then again, I don't make my living that way.
Just what do you mean by "it's widely credited with being worse than Windows 98?" Show us three credible references where Win98 is shown to be better than XP for any common activity today. Win98 was a nightmare, XP more or less works. Believe me, I'm as much of a Microsoft basher as the next guy, but Dude, don't get all foaming-at-the-mouth on us.
At a moment where many people wonder if the use of nanoparticles is safe, it's good to know that nanotechnology has been widely used for a very long time.
Right. Unless they were rubbing lead onto their bodies.
Dude, nanotechnology or not, they were using lead. Lead is toxic, remember?
OK Slashdotters, let's all get on the Nanotechnology Is Modern Cool And Futuristic And Is Therefore A Good Thing So It Must Be Safe In All Cases bandwagon.
You're missing the point, which is "Kids should use computers in school because computers are cool and modern and futuristic," or some variant of such sappy reasoning.
There really is no compelling reason for computers to be a central part of early 21st century education, and many compelling reasons why they should not be, in particular those having to do with cost.
But this is Slashdot where no problem exists that can't be solved by attaching a computer to it.
For example, when a new nutrient shows up in its neighborhood this species can build a kit to suck the nutrient in, degrade it, and turn it into cellular biomass quickly. Thus whereas humans use their genomic complexity in part to create a stable environment for the body, this species simply uses a genomic swiss army kit to make do with whatever environment it encounters.
That is so vastly over-simplified, over-analogized, and over-metaphorized as to be practically devoid of meaning.
Yay! Now we can have the same virus and worm spreading strategies from Outlook in a portable electronic device! Infect people who don't know you, see you, or are even aware that you are within bluetooth earshot! Infect friends and strangers alike!
Then the next time you get one of these, you should buy the stock ASAP and also profit, along with the original spammer. This can really get out of hand.
Microsoft claims that file sizes for the new Office 2007 XML-based formats are up to 75 percent less than existing Office formats.
What a surprise. The Office formats are two or three times as bloated as storing things in XML. Who would have suspected it, from Microsoft.
I was just "upgraded" at work to the current version of MS Office, and several of my Word paragraph styles now have unwanted tab stops that can only be removed one paragraph at a time with the unindent toolbar key. They do not appear anywhere in the style definitions. Great. Let's all upgrade to 2007.
I too am dubious about the "liquid explosive" part. I hope they are not proposing that acetone and hydrogen peroxide from a drug store were going to be used in-flight to prepare tri-acetone peroxide. That's just not credible. I am not knowledgable enough about explosives to know of other options that may be practical enough to actually work.
I suspect you would need upwards of a kilogram detonated at a key location within the cabin to ensure a crash.
One of the underlying ideas here seems to be that music should be free. Music conceived as evanescent things of beauty that spring forth and elevate our souls, blah blah blah.
Why should a musician or a company, even a greedy insolent exploitative company, be compelled to give away its products?
Do you give away all of your work, or even some of it? If you work for a big, greedy company, do they give away their main product?
Surely, many things can be had for free, especially if you are willing to tolerate some additional advertising, or spend lots of money on consumables later. Indeed, some have proposed ways for musicians to make a living giving away recordings and making money on live performances. But for the public to expect that an entire genre of product to be free, in this case recorded music, is absolutely ludicrous. In any case, there is nothing wrong with somebody wanting to make a living selling recorded music.
On the other hand, RIAA members are insistent on a dead business model. To my mind, it is difficult to justify in today's digital world, a price higher than a few cents for a track of music. The vast economies of scale and modest costs of production and distribution on a planetary scale have utterly destroyed the notion of selling what used to be known as "record albums." If advertising and promotion are claimed to be the big cost, then change the model and stop wasting so much money building personality cults around wannabe celebrity musicians.
It is a largely uninformative technique that is used to frighten prisoners with the belief that the interrogators can somehow see into and read their minds. Similar to the anti-matter bomb claim circulated some months ago.
...creating prioritized vertical slices that iterate on the most critical elements and features. The method also puts great emphasis on the organization of teams and the relationships therein...
Reengineering our paradigm towards monetizing our customer base will indubitably ramp-up our global synergies and dovetail smoothly with our virtual workspace vertical portal initiatives, monetize bleeding-edge networks cultivate end-to-end infrastructures utilize interactive applications brand frictionless web-readiness scale value-added networks harness impactful mindshare revolutionize one-to-one architectures drive killer e-services aggregate bricks-and-clicks applications, and stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
And as to blowhards like me, it's thanks to simpletions such as yourself that politicians, contractors, and military officials are able to sell moronic projects such as this to the citizenry and embezzle tens or hundreds of bilions of taxpayer dollars.
Sucker.
This project is pure bullshit to suck billions out of federal coffers.
Can't anyone see that this is nothing but Pentagon pork-barrel spending? It is worthless, impractical, and will/would be colossally expensive to implement.
Like we have nothing more pressing on the docket.
Not to mention the fact that their business model seems to lack a revenue stream.
Bastards.
Scientists at the University of Arf Arf Arf have discovered that a barrel containing 30% red ping pong balls contains more red ping pong balls than a barrel containing only red ping pong balls.
News Flash!
Scientists at the University of Rowr Rowf have discovered that a Sodium Borohydride solution in water can be used in batteries, even though Sodium Borohydride quickly decomposes in water.
News Flash!
Scientists at the Univerity of Bow Wow Wow have discovered that batteries can be made using materials that cost vastly more to produce than the energy that can be obtained from the batteries themselves.
News Flash!
Homer Simpson buys a whole lot of bacon in order to render the fat and sell it to fat recyclers.
News Flash!
Scientists at the University of Ow Ow Ahwooo discover a miscellaneous effect with dubious practical benefits. They foresee a vast and highly profitable industry based on it, showering society with myriad benefits like Manna from heaven.
Suckers around the world rejoice at the news.
a one-time payment of only $19.95 says the (c) 2003 web page. In order to pay US$30 million, that's 1.5 million paying users. Add to that the operating expenses for however long they lasted. Any info on how much money passed through their hands (like sand between their fingers)?
Don't bother the poor schmuck asking for facts and credible evidence.
The problem is not that music is easy to pirate and therefore copyright is meaningless and music should be free. Please stop insisting on that, it gets in the way of any reasonable solution. The problem is the rapacious business model of the overall commercial recording industry. Add on top of that these windfall legal victories, and they have very little incentive to develop a more realistic business model.
If a commodity is in high demand but is very expensive, people will try to steal it. If it is very easy to steal, many people will steal it. It is still theft. Ask Richard Stallman if violations of GPL are litigable offenses or not. Copyright must be respected. It is dangerous to suggest that copyright has no usefulness anymore.
If music tracks cost US$0.25 or less each, it would still be a lucrative business, people would have much less incentive to steal it, and copyright would be much easier to uphold. Personally, I think tracks should cost five or ten US cents each starting about 6 months or so after their release. Then again, I don't make my living that way.
Just what do you mean by "it's widely credited with being worse than Windows 98?" Show us three credible references where Win98 is shown to be better than XP for any common activity today. Win98 was a nightmare, XP more or less works. Believe me, I'm as much of a Microsoft basher as the next guy, but Dude, don't get all foaming-at-the-mouth on us.
Right. Unless they were rubbing lead onto their bodies.
Dude, nanotechnology or not, they were using lead. Lead is toxic, remember?
OK Slashdotters, let's all get on the Nanotechnology Is Modern Cool And Futuristic And Is Therefore A Good Thing So It Must Be Safe In All Cases bandwagon.
There really is no compelling reason for computers to be a central part of early 21st century education, and many compelling reasons why they should not be, in particular those having to do with cost.
But this is Slashdot where no problem exists that can't be solved by attaching a computer to it.
That is so vastly over-simplified, over-analogized, and over-metaphorized as to be practically devoid of meaning.
Still, I think I'll take my time buying ASAP. Damn. I can't say that anymore...
Let the electronic infection orgy begin!
If only you were right. It wasn't beta.
Then the next time you get one of these, you should buy the stock ASAP and also profit, along with the original spammer. This can really get out of hand.
What a surprise. The Office formats are two or three times as bloated as storing things in XML. Who would have suspected it, from Microsoft.
I was just "upgraded" at work to the current version of MS Office, and several of my Word paragraph styles now have unwanted tab stops that can only be removed one paragraph at a time with the unindent toolbar key. They do not appear anywhere in the style definitions. Great. Let's all upgrade to 2007.
I welcome our new Office 2007 overlords.
Yes, it is just hype. The grave importance attributed to the Blogosphere is a passing fad much like "Way New Journalism" was over 10 years ago.
Don't take all this shit so seriously. Things come and go.
I suspect you would need upwards of a kilogram detonated at a key location within the cabin to ensure a crash.
[slap slap slap]
Wake the fuck up, Dude!
Why should a musician or a company, even a greedy insolent exploitative company, be compelled to give away its products?
Do you give away all of your work, or even some of it? If you work for a big, greedy company, do they give away their main product?
Surely, many things can be had for free, especially if you are willing to tolerate some additional advertising, or spend lots of money on consumables later. Indeed, some have proposed ways for musicians to make a living giving away recordings and making money on live performances. But for the public to expect that an entire genre of product to be free, in this case recorded music, is absolutely ludicrous. In any case, there is nothing wrong with somebody wanting to make a living selling recorded music.
On the other hand, RIAA members are insistent on a dead business model. To my mind, it is difficult to justify in today's digital world, a price higher than a few cents for a track of music. The vast economies of scale and modest costs of production and distribution on a planetary scale have utterly destroyed the notion of selling what used to be known as "record albums." If advertising and promotion are claimed to be the big cost, then change the model and stop wasting so much money building personality cults around wannabe celebrity musicians.
It is a largely uninformative technique that is used to frighten prisoners with the belief that the interrogators can somehow see into and read their minds. Similar to the anti-matter bomb claim circulated some months ago.
In other words, it is bullshit.
Reengineering our paradigm towards monetizing our customer base will indubitably ramp-up our global synergies and dovetail smoothly with our virtual workspace vertical portal initiatives, monetize bleeding-edge networks cultivate end-to-end infrastructures utilize interactive applications brand frictionless web-readiness scale value-added networks harness impactful mindshare revolutionize one-to-one architectures drive killer e-services aggregate bricks-and-clicks applications, and stuff.
But you have to use the process.