got the show for you...
on
Mind Over Machine
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
It's called "Ghost in the Shell" and discusses issues like this (it's an anime BTW). In the case of the article, though, there isn't any feedback or direct neural stimulation, so now you couldn't be hacked.
The Constitution defines all of the powers of government, deliniating as clearly as possible the limits of these powers. In addition, it clearly defines certain "inaliable" rights that must not be infringed upon. It doesn't limit the freedom of the people, simply defines some very important freedoms that explicitly can not be intruded upon (at the time, several if not all of these explicit rights were continuously stepped on by the British government). The only limit explicitly placed on people by the Constitution that I'm aware of is that they can't commit treason. But even here it makes it difficult for there must be two witnesses and a difficult trial. If you look at the history of the US, this limit has been enforced very rarely.
Fortunately for us, they also made the Constitution exceedingly difficult to change, keeping it a stable document for future generations. The only downside to it is that there is (apparently) insufficient enforcement of its provisions. The legislature knowingly and unknowingly passes unconstitutional laws all the time, requiring an expensive and tedious judicial process to repeal it, at which point they can quickly rewrite the law and put it back in action, repeating the process ad naseum. It also let a huge hole for "executive orders" which are orders by the President and can only be stopped by impeachment of the President (another difficult process) AFAIK.
The caption over the far left picture says "display system", the one to its right says "camera system", the one below the bottom right picture says "(the hologram) can be seen from anywhere". I'm not sure what the caption for the top-right picture says (don't have my kanji book with me).
So how is this playing to win? IMHO, both sides are desperately trying not to lose, which explains the death spiral they are locked into.
You are correct in that the Israelis aren't truly playing to win either. It seems to me that they are, at best, playing for a stalemate. I have no idea what their long-term ambitions are other than protecting the land they're already occupying. However, so long as the main Palestinian militant group (Hamas) has the stated position of essentially driving the Israelis into the sea, never even proposing more than a temporary truce, and has the support of the Palestinians this conflict will never end as far as I can tell.
You have to admit that the Israelis are in a difficult spot just as the Palestinians are. The Israelis are occupying a rather small area compared to most nations and, like the Palestinians, have nowhere else to go. They are surrounded by people who would like nothing more than simply wiping them off from the face of the earth. There is not a way to punish a suicide bomber after the fact and difficult to stop them before hand, so what would you have them do? And PLEASE don't tell me that simply having them back out of Gaza and the West Bank will miraculously solve all of the problems. Also, remember that this Second Intifada was caused by the slightest provocation (Sharon visiting the Temple Mount, boy that sure is something worth sacrificing thousands of lives to prevent).
I think that the biased US media have taught you to look at this in a very one-sided way, but I really don't think that only one party is to blame in this conflict.
I rarely watch the local news and don't have cable, so it would be unfair to blame American media that I don't watch. I keep track of the news via the web, using google news and reading various blogs by people living in the relevant regions. There is no bias when I say that the Palestinians are loosing sympathy in the West as there is some evidence proving that this is likely. For instance, the Palestinians are getting significantly less financial support from Europe and the US than it was during the Clinton years. The scene of dozens of Palestinians dancing in the streets the day after 9/11 was seen by many in the US. Not surprisingly, this had a negative effect on many Americans' good will towards these people (not to mention that they loved Saddam, which doesn't sit well with Americans, much less Iraqis).
This is pure FUD. There is no evidence that Palestinians get many children for that purpose.
No it isn't. I was paraphrasing a direct quote from a Palestinian woman. They ARE trying to have as many children as possible, resulting in one of the most densly populated areas on earth. They aren't exactly shy about this, so I presume you haven't even tried to keep track of what the Palestinians have been saying during the last couple of years.
The Palestinian organizations aren't religious either (although the members are), so your argument that Muslims are still in the dark ages doesn't fly either if you don't accept my viewpoint.
No, the Palestinian organizations ARE religious as a matter of fact (although there are a couple that are nonsecular). Hamas is certainly a religous militant group with very religous followers. The Nazis, on the other hand, were essentially a nonsecular organization with mostly nonsecular members (they certainly weren't fervently Christian, not even close).
If you accept that an attack on a mostly civilian target can be justified, it becomes very hard to argue against such things as suicide bombers.
How many civilians were going to die in an all-out invasion of Japan, esp. when you consider all the propaganda they had been fed from the start? They were told to fight/die/commit suicide rather than give up, otherwise they would face consequences worse than death. The circumstances under which these two nukes were used were very extraordinary and hasn't occured since for a good reason. After the war, the US then
I once saw a documentary about the N-1. I agree that it failed due to its complexity. While the Russian engineers liked to reuse old designs, sometimes it can go too far. (If I remember correctly, the problem was fueling all of the mini-rockets at the exact same rate. If there were any fluctuations, the entire rocket would explode)
I believe I saw in the same documentary that the cosmonauts felt that the trip to the moon was a one-way trip due to the untested and underdesigned lunar module.
Wasn't the Soviet Union just a little bit secretive? Slightly?
They were mostly secretive with their failures, not their successes. They tried to get as much propaganda as they could from their successes (after the fact, of course).
Then why were they developing a manned mission to the moon? If they didn't keep blowing up test rockets they certainly would have tried to get a man there (with little hope of getting him back I might add). The cosmonauts were very relieved when the manned moon project was canceled.
First off: good response! I still mostly disagree with you but that certainly was a well formed counter point. Thanks.
When you have little chance of hurting your opponent and surviving it, you might as well choose a suicide attack. When even that doesn't work against the military, why not attack the civilian population?
I think Gandhi may have something to say about that. Clearly, even in very difficult situations there are still peaceful alternatives which may prove effective. Besides, what on earth are the suicide bombers' military objective? Do they honestly expect the Israelis to capitulate by using methods to terrorize and infuriate them?! No, they only have the selfish desire to kill for their own glory, getting to heaven, and terrorizing their enemy. At least Gandhi was playing to win.
Heck, we are living in a world undergoing globalization. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict clearly is not happening in a vacuum. If the Palestinians had continued to suffer without declaring the second Intifada, then they would be generating more and more sympathy in the West (and the Middle East as well) to their cause, leading to more pressure on Israel to improve their relations with the Palestinians. Gandhi knew that an outright struggle with Britain would have lead to countless deaths on both sides and would have sullied the relationship between the two nations. So he chose to lead by example and organized some of the most effective peace protests ever (relying heavily on worldwide opinion, especially that of British citizens). The Palestinians are having the opposite effect, hardening feelings both of Israel supporters and those of people who formally were sympathetic to their cause.
I still feel that the Japanese valued life, namely their own. However, as you pointed out, they would also kill themselves out of their honor code. This seems to be the biggest difference between the Japanese and Palestinian cultures to me. The Japanese in WW2 clearly still followed their honor code to some degree (clearly, their honor code only applied to Japanese opponents--what can I say, they were pretty f'd up at the time). However, as far as I can tell, the Palestinian attackers aren't following any honor or moral code at all. Worst of all they are teaching their children that it is OK to hate and loath and do anything to kill "the enemy," whoever they may be. And they are having as many children as possible simply for the purpose of using them as human bombs and bullets against "the enemy." This is about as far away from Gandhi's philosophy as a culture can get, and in my opinion also about as depraved and as low as a culture can achieve as well. In a way, anarchy would even be a higher cultural standard.
And how civilized was the use of the atomic bomb to attack two cities filled with civilians?
This was an action to take the least of two evils and one that even the Japanese don't generally hold against the US (for the reason that they started the war against us in the first place). The only other alternative at the time was to invade Japan, killing many on both sides. BTW, the fire-bombing of Tokyo killed many more people than these two bombs combined yet somehow that is more 'fair' than these two nukes? Also, the cities that were destroyed were producing most of the equipment and ships for the Japanese fleet. So rather than destroying the ancient capital of Japan (Kyoto), they chose to attack two industrial zones. It also abruptly ended the war, saving who knows how many POWs and the people in the Japanese slave worker camps. The Nazis, on the other hand, clearly weren't a Christian organization. They played some lip service to being Catholics early in the war, but that's it as far as I can tell.
I never said that being "forcibly 'saved'" was OK. I clearly said "voluntarily converted" which is not the same thing. If the worst that Christians are doing now (in the name of their faith) is pestering you to convert, it still can't compare to the worst that some Muslims are d
Anti-counterfeiting technology has a direct constitutional basis (congress has the power to provide currency and such and has the power to punish counterfeiting individuals). Disparaging the president is a direct constitutional protected right. A bit of a difference, wouldn't you say?
The article mentioned that some 40% of counterfeited currency is produced electronically now. This is a problem and this is HP's partial solution to the problem. So long as HP's technology only affects printing bills that are not considered fair use (ie, close to 100% size of normal currency and looks sufficiently similar), I think they are being a responsible corporate citizen. Do you have a better idea on preventing electronic counterfeiting?
The story poster even mentioned desiring to watch NASA TV. Guess what? They broadcast on the web as well! The quality isn't the same as broadcast TV, but most of the time the audio is fine and you can get more detailed photos from their website.
If you're unwilling to let go of your TV, then a nice substitution I've found for cable is Netflix. Let's face it. Out of 100+ channels, how often is nothing good on anyway? At least with a DVD subscription you can watch exactly what you want to watch whenever you have time to do so. It also can limit how much TV you watch during the week (which is a GOOD thing:).
So THAT is the real reason why those cell phones were exploding. So I guess if you start hearing key tones on your cell, it's time to hang up. And here people were worried about cell phone radiation. HA!
What are the odds on the same size chunk of foam falling from the same place on the tank at the same time (== velocity) into the launch and hitting the Orbiter? Especially if the ground crew had a pretty darn good idea that that was the problem in the first place (and they would, if they knew of the problem at all).
The odds are irrelevant. Obviously, it could happen. Considering that they knew that foam had been striking the orbiters for years and that they had never fixed it up to that point, I don't believe a quick way to fix it would have suddenly dawned on them. The current solution that they have come up with is to remove the foam from the area where it typically comes off, replacing it with electric heaters. I don't think it would be realistic to have done this in a timely manner for the Atlantis before sending it up to rescue the Columbia astronauts.
Also, if they could get the shuttle to the ISS (still a big if), it may have been possible to repair it on a future mission by another shuttle or using supplies from a future Soviet cargo ship. If they had sent the second shuttle up, it would have been certain doom for the other one over a populated area, not a pleasent option for NASA.
Step up the prep rate for that launch and put Columbia into survival mode (minimal power use, ration the consumables, etc) and they might have done it -- assuming they'd realized the problem right after launch rather than after a week in orbit squandering supplies.
Yes, but the second shuttle would have suffered the same flaw which they couldn't have fixed in time. Considering how catastrophic it would have been to loose two shuttles simultaneously, I really doubt that even if they knew how serious it was immediately they would have sent the second one up.
I know the Columbia can't reach the ISS under normal circumstances, but I wonder if it were possible for the ISS to use some of its manuvering fuel to lower its orbit and/or for Columbia to use the fuel allocated for deorbiting to instead use it to reach the ISS. Remember, when people say "the Columbia couldn't reach the ISS" what they really mean is "the Columbia couldn't reach the ISS and then safely return back to earth".
If it wasn't possible for the Columbia to reach the ISS and they were aware of their dire position, I can only guess they would have tried to do a spacewalk and try to repair the hole somehow, still burning up on re-entry, unfortunately.
I basically agree with how you feel about the Muslim religion in that they generally treat woman as inferior to men, and certainly not equals. While it is easy to say that women should be equals to men, I think it is important to keep in mind that they are not equivalent to men, which is a point lost on many modern feminists it seems. I could go on and on, but suffice it to say that I believe women should have the same rights and privelages as men so long as the reverse is true (such as allowing men to have significant time off when their wife is giving birth, etc.). Anthing else simply isn't fair. On the other hand, I think men by their nature are more inclined to participate in sports so the law that forces college funding to be equal among women's and men's programs really doesn't reflect reality and ends up giving women a higher quality program (per person) than their male counterparts (where most of the money goes to football, leaving little for average joes). When men's programs are being cut and women programs are struggling to fill their teams, I think this is a sign that "equality" can occasionaly go too far.
You really aren't staying on topic at all. His points were valid and refuted yours. The style in which he did it is irrelevent. He's correct in that you essentially put words in his mouth and jumped to wrong conclusions.
As another point, what religion was practiced in Nazi Germany? Or South Africa 20 years ago by the ruling class? As you can see, the religion of those countries (assuming you know your history) weren't indicative of the religion as a whole and were, in fact, regional (or cultural) problems. His point was that the (huge) difference of opinion on whether or not it is appropriate to treat women like they are treated in Saudi Arabia isn't a difference of religion, rather a difference of culture/government/region. That ISN'T being blase, just observant/insightful. While I think it was rash of him to call you a "stupid idiot," I think he would have been close to the mark to say that you are (too) quick to judge.
I would think you could do some radical overclocking in the sub-zero temperatures involved.
While that seems obvious, cooling is actually a major issue for spacecraft. The reason it is a problem is that the only way to cool the hardware is by radiating the heat into space, so there needs to be cooling systems onboard the spacecraft to transfer the heat to a radiator. So any overclocking would need even larger radiators, which given their weight probably isn't worth it. I forgot about that, but this is another reason to use the slower CPUs -- lower power consumption and thus less heat produced. On Mars with its atmosphere, I would guess that cooling is much easier.
Here is a link to a post by an Iraqi woman complaining angrily about the new Shari'a law passed in Iraq (similar to what is in effect in Saudi Arabia). It is a pretty thorough, though not exhaustive, list of complaints about how women are treated under that law. Perhaps you should try to make yourself less ignorant, eh?
I know it is a lossless format, so it obviously isn't JPEG. I would guess that they are using some form of RLE (run-length encoding), perhaps combined with a Huffman table for the shading values. I wonder what the pixel-depth is.
Slashdot Mirror
It's called "Ghost in the Shell" and discusses issues like this (it's an anime BTW). In the case of the article, though, there isn't any feedback or direct neural stimulation, so now you couldn't be hacked.
iie, rinukkusu desuyou!
Boy your dad was setting a great example. God, did ethics ever come up during any conversations?
Fortunately for us, they also made the Constitution exceedingly difficult to change, keeping it a stable document for future generations. The only downside to it is that there is (apparently) insufficient enforcement of its provisions. The legislature knowingly and unknowingly passes unconstitutional laws all the time, requiring an expensive and tedious judicial process to repeal it, at which point they can quickly rewrite the law and put it back in action, repeating the process ad naseum. It also let a huge hole for "executive orders" which are orders by the President and can only be stopped by impeachment of the President (another difficult process) AFAIK.
The caption over the far left picture says "display system", the one to its right says "camera system", the one below the bottom right picture says "(the hologram) can be seen from anywhere". I'm not sure what the caption for the top-right picture says (don't have my kanji book with me).
You are correct in that the Israelis aren't truly playing to win either. It seems to me that they are, at best, playing for a stalemate. I have no idea what their long-term ambitions are other than protecting the land they're already occupying. However, so long as the main Palestinian militant group (Hamas) has the stated position of essentially driving the Israelis into the sea, never even proposing more than a temporary truce, and has the support of the Palestinians this conflict will never end as far as I can tell.
You have to admit that the Israelis are in a difficult spot just as the Palestinians are. The Israelis are occupying a rather small area compared to most nations and, like the Palestinians, have nowhere else to go. They are surrounded by people who would like nothing more than simply wiping them off from the face of the earth. There is not a way to punish a suicide bomber after the fact and difficult to stop them before hand, so what would you have them do? And PLEASE don't tell me that simply having them back out of Gaza and the West Bank will miraculously solve all of the problems. Also, remember that this Second Intifada was caused by the slightest provocation (Sharon visiting the Temple Mount, boy that sure is something worth sacrificing thousands of lives to prevent).
I think that the biased US media have taught you to look at this in a very one-sided way, but I really don't think that only one party is to blame in this conflict.
I rarely watch the local news and don't have cable, so it would be unfair to blame American media that I don't watch. I keep track of the news via the web, using google news and reading various blogs by people living in the relevant regions. There is no bias when I say that the Palestinians are loosing sympathy in the West as there is some evidence proving that this is likely. For instance, the Palestinians are getting significantly less financial support from Europe and the US than it was during the Clinton years. The scene of dozens of Palestinians dancing in the streets the day after 9/11 was seen by many in the US. Not surprisingly, this had a negative effect on many Americans' good will towards these people (not to mention that they loved Saddam, which doesn't sit well with Americans, much less Iraqis).
This is pure FUD. There is no evidence that Palestinians get many children for that purpose.
No it isn't. I was paraphrasing a direct quote from a Palestinian woman. They ARE trying to have as many children as possible, resulting in one of the most densly populated areas on earth. They aren't exactly shy about this, so I presume you haven't even tried to keep track of what the Palestinians have been saying during the last couple of years.
The Palestinian organizations aren't religious either (although the members are), so your argument that Muslims are still in the dark ages doesn't fly either if you don't accept my viewpoint.
No, the Palestinian organizations ARE religious as a matter of fact (although there are a couple that are nonsecular). Hamas is certainly a religous militant group with very religous followers. The Nazis, on the other hand, were essentially a nonsecular organization with mostly nonsecular members (they certainly weren't fervently Christian, not even close).
If you accept that an attack on a mostly civilian target can be justified, it becomes very hard to argue against such things as suicide bombers.
How many civilians were going to die in an all-out invasion of Japan, esp. when you consider all the propaganda they had been fed from the start? They were told to fight/die/commit suicide rather than give up, otherwise they would face consequences worse than death. The circumstances under which these two nukes were used were very extraordinary and hasn't occured since for a good reason. After the war, the US then
I believe I saw in the same documentary that the cosmonauts felt that the trip to the moon was a one-way trip due to the untested and underdesigned lunar module.
It's not a big deal when your only going a few meters per minute. I presume that rover maxed out at a speed of no more than 15-20 meters/min.
They were mostly secretive with their failures, not their successes. They tried to get as much propaganda as they could from their successes (after the fact, of course).
Then why were they developing a manned mission to the moon? If they didn't keep blowing up test rockets they certainly would have tried to get a man there (with little hope of getting him back I might add). The cosmonauts were very relieved when the manned moon project was canceled.
When you have little chance of hurting your opponent and surviving it, you might as well choose a suicide attack. When even that doesn't work against the military, why not attack the civilian population?
I think Gandhi may have something to say about that. Clearly, even in very difficult situations there are still peaceful alternatives which may prove effective. Besides, what on earth are the suicide bombers' military objective? Do they honestly expect the Israelis to capitulate by using methods to terrorize and infuriate them?! No, they only have the selfish desire to kill for their own glory, getting to heaven, and terrorizing their enemy. At least Gandhi was playing to win.
Heck, we are living in a world undergoing globalization. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict clearly is not happening in a vacuum. If the Palestinians had continued to suffer without declaring the second Intifada, then they would be generating more and more sympathy in the West (and the Middle East as well) to their cause, leading to more pressure on Israel to improve their relations with the Palestinians. Gandhi knew that an outright struggle with Britain would have lead to countless deaths on both sides and would have sullied the relationship between the two nations. So he chose to lead by example and organized some of the most effective peace protests ever (relying heavily on worldwide opinion, especially that of British citizens). The Palestinians are having the opposite effect, hardening feelings both of Israel supporters and those of people who formally were sympathetic to their cause.
I still feel that the Japanese valued life, namely their own. However, as you pointed out, they would also kill themselves out of their honor code. This seems to be the biggest difference between the Japanese and Palestinian cultures to me. The Japanese in WW2 clearly still followed their honor code to some degree (clearly, their honor code only applied to Japanese opponents--what can I say, they were pretty f'd up at the time). However, as far as I can tell, the Palestinian attackers aren't following any honor or moral code at all. Worst of all they are teaching their children that it is OK to hate and loath and do anything to kill "the enemy," whoever they may be. And they are having as many children as possible simply for the purpose of using them as human bombs and bullets against "the enemy." This is about as far away from Gandhi's philosophy as a culture can get, and in my opinion also about as depraved and as low as a culture can achieve as well. In a way, anarchy would even be a higher cultural standard.
And how civilized was the use of the atomic bomb to attack two cities filled with civilians?
This was an action to take the least of two evils and one that even the Japanese don't generally hold against the US (for the reason that they started the war against us in the first place). The only other alternative at the time was to invade Japan, killing many on both sides. BTW, the fire-bombing of Tokyo killed many more people than these two bombs combined yet somehow that is more 'fair' than these two nukes? Also, the cities that were destroyed were producing most of the equipment and ships for the Japanese fleet. So rather than destroying the ancient capital of Japan (Kyoto), they chose to attack two industrial zones. It also abruptly ended the war, saving who knows how many POWs and the people in the Japanese slave worker camps. The Nazis, on the other hand, clearly weren't a Christian organization. They played some lip service to being Catholics early in the war, but that's it as far as I can tell.
I never said that being "forcibly 'saved'" was OK. I clearly said "voluntarily converted" which is not the same thing. If the worst that Christians are doing now (in the name of their faith) is pestering you to convert, it still can't compare to the worst that some Muslims are d
How does this compare to your workplace (I assume you don't work from home)?
Hurry, someone strangle him immediately!!!
The article mentioned that some 40% of counterfeited currency is produced electronically now. This is a problem and this is HP's partial solution to the problem. So long as HP's technology only affects printing bills that are not considered fair use (ie, close to 100% size of normal currency and looks sufficiently similar), I think they are being a responsible corporate citizen. Do you have a better idea on preventing electronic counterfeiting?
I'm pretty sure it comes standard with Windows. I know it has been a free download from microsoft.com for quite some time (at least several years).
If you're unwilling to let go of your TV, then a nice substitution I've found for cable is Netflix. Let's face it. Out of 100+ channels, how often is nothing good on anyway? At least with a DVD subscription you can watch exactly what you want to watch whenever you have time to do so. It also can limit how much TV you watch during the week (which is a GOOD thing :).
So THAT is the real reason why those cell phones were exploding. So I guess if you start hearing key tones on your cell, it's time to hang up. And here people were worried about cell phone radiation. HA!
4) settle out of court (such as in the vision system patents mentioned the other day)
The odds are irrelevant. Obviously, it could happen. Considering that they knew that foam had been striking the orbiters for years and that they had never fixed it up to that point, I don't believe a quick way to fix it would have suddenly dawned on them. The current solution that they have come up with is to remove the foam from the area where it typically comes off, replacing it with electric heaters. I don't think it would be realistic to have done this in a timely manner for the Atlantis before sending it up to rescue the Columbia astronauts.
Also, if they could get the shuttle to the ISS (still a big if), it may have been possible to repair it on a future mission by another shuttle or using supplies from a future Soviet cargo ship. If they had sent the second shuttle up, it would have been certain doom for the other one over a populated area, not a pleasent option for NASA.
Yes, but the second shuttle would have suffered the same flaw which they couldn't have fixed in time. Considering how catastrophic it would have been to loose two shuttles simultaneously, I really doubt that even if they knew how serious it was immediately they would have sent the second one up.
I know the Columbia can't reach the ISS under normal circumstances, but I wonder if it were possible for the ISS to use some of its manuvering fuel to lower its orbit and/or for Columbia to use the fuel allocated for deorbiting to instead use it to reach the ISS. Remember, when people say "the Columbia couldn't reach the ISS" what they really mean is "the Columbia couldn't reach the ISS and then safely return back to earth".
If it wasn't possible for the Columbia to reach the ISS and they were aware of their dire position, I can only guess they would have tried to do a spacewalk and try to repair the hole somehow, still burning up on re-entry, unfortunately.
I basically agree with how you feel about the Muslim religion in that they generally treat woman as inferior to men, and certainly not equals. While it is easy to say that women should be equals to men, I think it is important to keep in mind that they are not equivalent to men, which is a point lost on many modern feminists it seems. I could go on and on, but suffice it to say that I believe women should have the same rights and privelages as men so long as the reverse is true (such as allowing men to have significant time off when their wife is giving birth, etc.). Anthing else simply isn't fair. On the other hand, I think men by their nature are more inclined to participate in sports so the law that forces college funding to be equal among women's and men's programs really doesn't reflect reality and ends up giving women a higher quality program (per person) than their male counterparts (where most of the money goes to football, leaving little for average joes). When men's programs are being cut and women programs are struggling to fill their teams, I think this is a sign that "equality" can occasionaly go too far.
As another point, what religion was practiced in Nazi Germany? Or South Africa 20 years ago by the ruling class? As you can see, the religion of those countries (assuming you know your history) weren't indicative of the religion as a whole and were, in fact, regional (or cultural) problems. His point was that the (huge) difference of opinion on whether or not it is appropriate to treat women like they are treated in Saudi Arabia isn't a difference of religion, rather a difference of culture/government/region. That ISN'T being blase, just observant/insightful. While I think it was rash of him to call you a "stupid idiot," I think he would have been close to the mark to say that you are (too) quick to judge.
While that seems obvious, cooling is actually a major issue for spacecraft. The reason it is a problem is that the only way to cool the hardware is by radiating the heat into space, so there needs to be cooling systems onboard the spacecraft to transfer the heat to a radiator. So any overclocking would need even larger radiators, which given their weight probably isn't worth it. I forgot about that, but this is another reason to use the slower CPUs -- lower power consumption and thus less heat produced. On Mars with its atmosphere, I would guess that cooling is much easier.
Here is a link to a post by an Iraqi woman complaining angrily about the new Shari'a law passed in Iraq (similar to what is in effect in Saudi Arabia). It is a pretty thorough, though not exhaustive, list of complaints about how women are treated under that law. Perhaps you should try to make yourself less ignorant, eh?
I know it is a lossless format, so it obviously isn't JPEG. I would guess that they are using some form of RLE (run-length encoding), perhaps combined with a Huffman table for the shading values. I wonder what the pixel-depth is.