The timing issue is definitely political. If they don't launch very soon, they will miss a golden opportunity to get a good gravity assist from Jupiter, lowering the overall cost of the mission by a fortune. I don't believe another opportunity like this will come around for many decades.
RTGs have been around for decades. They are sort of like the black boxes in airplanes that can survive virtually any impact/heat/etc (they're designed to withstand orbit re-entries, explosions, etc.). Even if that's not enough for you, they don't actually carry that much radiation. I read a report a long time ago that if a RTG vaporized directly over a large city, it would be the equivalent of everyone outside getting a tan.
It's also unbelievably unlikely that a s/c would re-enter the earth's atmosphere on a gravity assist as many people would be tracking it as it approached and be able to correct any orbit errors with time to spare.
if they wait much longer, Jupiter will be out of alignment for a gravity assist. It's hard to overstate how much time/money that gravity assist will have on the mission. During my senior year at college, we designed a theoretical (flyby) mission to Pluto and found that there was no way to get there in roughly 8 years for less than $500 million without the gravity assist using current technology.
Incidentially, it was also found to be impossible to keep the s/c powered without nuclear power (batteries would weigh too much -- on the order of thousands of tons -- as would fly wheels; fuel cells also weighed many tons; the sun would be too far away to use solar panels past Jupiter).
I don't know where you're getting those numbers, but solar sails are not terribly efficient once you pass Jupiter or so. Here's a quote from JPL:
Light sailing works well for inner planet missions and for activities extending out to the Mars orbit. However, the solar flux falls off as the inverse square of the distance from the sun. Thus for missions beyond the Jupiter orbit, an alternative to solar propulsion is to use directed light from a high power laser.
I don't know of anyone who has tried using a laser for deep space propulsion. There's also the little matter of how do you stop once you reach Pluto. Since you're on a hyperbolic (or very elliptical) orbit to get there, you'll need a pretty large delta V (change in velocity) to slow down to the crawl that Pluto is travelling at. With ion propulsion or solar sails (using high powered earth lasers), you would need to accelerate for half the trip and decelerate the other half. Although it's possible that this could be faster than rockets (if the accleration was great enough), it wouldn't be if using current technology, especially when you consider the extra velocity a rocket-propelled spacecraft will get from a gravity assist from Jupiter if launched soon.
I'll admit that I was being a bit flippant:). Of course it would be a HUGE pain in the ass to switch universities once you've started attending the school. But how much research did you put into finding the right school before starting? I'm sure new students would think twice before going to a college with very restricted internet access (or in my example no cable). This would be the main reason why universities wouldn't kill cable or whatever. I still would argue they have the right to shoot themselves in the foot if they want (at the expense of their current student population).
I bet the university wouldn't have much of an issue with it if it didn't require so much bandwidth. I have a friend that just graduated from this U. and believe me they are having serious financial problems. I'm just guessing here, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if they're just trying to cut down on their overall internet usage.
Never the less, it is the university's property. They'd have every right to disconnect cable TV from the dorms if they wanted. Then the students would have every right to switch to a different university. If people still want to download p0rn, etc., nothing's stopping them from going to another U.
People tried this towards the end of Napster (renaming the files to strange variants of the real name), but I think they were still able to track most of the copyrighted files.
I'm sure you're not being serious. But if you are, there is an encrypted way to open terminals using ssh. I commonly use terraterm pro with ssh enabled to login to work from home (of course this only works when your server is ssh enabled).
That must be one heck of a lunch break! Even at 50mph that would take at least 4 hours! I don't think even Lance Armstrong himself could pull that one off (in that time), or at least not around here because its much too hilly.
'Alot' is relative, which is why I specified what I considered alot in parenthesis. I was going to try Ride the Rockies last year (even got registered) but ultimately had to cancel due to a scheduling conflict. Even for that, though, I thought my bike was sufficient, not that I would have finished anywhere near first, of course. I think the longest route I took while training was about 100 miles and that took the entire afternoon (it was hilly and windy, what can I say). Several guys flew past me after a while, but I blamed that entirely on their superior conditioning, not their bikes. I guess it could have been both... As far as lowering costs, I think you'd have to bike as much as most people drive their cars before that would happen (heck I had the same bike (no car) through college and did fine). As long as you don't grind your gears, clean your chain and otherwise regularly maintain your bike, how much could you really save by getting a more expensive bike?
Well, I did notice a big difference going from my old mountain bike to my new (used) road bike. Although the mountain bike had an aluminum frame, the road bike is at least 15 lbs lighter (which obviously makes a difference going up hills) and has skinny wheels (about 90 PSI at most I think). I guess integrated shift levers have come down in price as mine has them (although, like I said I bought it used). My normal advice to people is to do what I did and pick up a road bike used from a bike rental place as they usually take great care of their bikes and usually sell them after just a couple of years.
I usually shop at Performance Bikes for parts and I know for sure that they do allow test rides (I bought my mountain bike from them). I just couldn't stomach paying so much for a new bike when I could get one used for a fraction of the cost that (in my mind) was nearly equivalent in performance.
Thanks for the advice, though. In the future, I might get a more expensive bike, but only if I start riding more and/or make some more money:).
I bike alot (a few hundered to 1000 miles per year), but I've never payed more than about $400 for a bike. I'm currently using a cheaper model Schwinn road bike (used) and get around fine. It seems that wind, hills and conditioning make a much bigger impact on your speed than having great wheels, hubs or whatnot (although having a good gearset makes a world of difference, but those don't necessarily cost much).
I can understand spending more if you're racing or doing serious mountain biking and need good suspension and a solid frame, but otherwise I just don't see it.
You think we got it tough in the US, you ought to see Japan. In a formal introduction, you say, essentially "I'm <your company>'s <your name>" and exchange business cards (always)--so, for example "I'm Sony's Joe Shmoe" or if you're in college "I'm MIT's Billy Bob." Being unemployed there is a huge stigma and leads to a number of suicides, especially in these poor economic times.
"I want to be non-corporeal when I grow up."
On another note, I've never seen any point to purposefully depriving yourself of posessions altogether (unless you've taken religous vows or something similar). I would agree that materialism is much too pervasive in many western countries today. However, if you want to buy a top-of-the-line laptop, go ahead so long as it's within your means. Just don't go crazy thinking that your worth is simply the sum of the value of all of your posessions and at least try to only buy practical items and not blowing your dough on $10,000 TVs. And if you have talent, by all means succeed at your trade and, if you really don't want possessions, donate to charity (it really is a very rewarding endeavor). Try to donate time/$ to charity either way of course...
I feel kind of guilty replying to your post as I'm currently being lazy:). However, I agree with HanzoSan that you really should put your best effort into the things you do. In all of my (limited) experience, things have always, in the long run, been much easier and more fullfilling when I gave it 100% (which unfortunately rarely happened). It may come off as being pompous, but it doesn't negate the fact that it's good advice.
Case in point: I studied French for 2 years in high school and continued my studies in college (although it had nothing to do with my engineering major). However, I was awful at it (I was barely getting C's in 3 to 5 credit hour classes--goodbye GPA). I decided that I was wasting my time since I wasn't giving it any effort, so I decided to take Japanese instead. Although the Japanese classes needed much more effort, I flew through them because, obviously, I gave it a bit of effort.
Believe me, sloth rarely, if ever, begets hapiness. Heck, I had a roommate in college who essentially never attended class (he would just stay home playing games all day). He essentially wasted an entire year of his life and forfited his tuition up to that point. Life is way too precious to just be wasting it like that (not to mention you'll get rather depressed after a period of extended laziness).
Even though I'm from the US and went to a public school, I can relate:).
Although I wouldn't call the band geeks kings at the school or anything, they tended to be at least as well respected as the football players, usually much more so due to the utter lack of talent in the football team (they were always dead last in our division) and relatively talented and hard-working kids in the band (we tended to rank in the top 10 in marching competitions in Texas--not an easy feat). We always walked proudly through the school with tons of band patches on our letter jackets without worry about being picked on (although I haven't worn the jacket since; don't want to push my luck:P). I think part of the reason why there wasn't much of a clash between 'jocks' and 'nerds' at my school was at least in part due to the fact that both tended to participate in the (large) band (heck, even some cheerleaders were in the band!).
If 'A' is nothing, then what the heck are you supposed to do? Start playing football?
Although I was never bullied, I certainly have some empathy for the poor guys that were. If you are in the situation where you have no friends, have interests that are uncommon to others, and don't really know how to make friends, then it's a tough situation to get out of.
This strongly depends on the pay your willing to take, your competentness and your attitude. If you are a gifted programmer with a good attitude and a good work ethic, then there are still jobs out there. My advice is to get experience whenever you can while still in college (even if you get paid a measily $9-11 per hour). Heck, I'd even recommend working for free to gain the experience and make connections (it's hard to overstate how useful they are for forming new jobs for you in the future). To my knowledge, every single classmate of mine that was an intern immediately secured a job of their choosing upon graduation (in 2001).
I think that is an overly broad assessment of nerds. Of course, it all depends on how you define nerds, but if you're using the definition of which I'm accustomed to (a person with a non-trendy appearence, bad complexion or somehow otherwise visibly not perfect, bright, socially awkward), then I would disagree on several points:
Nerds can do much more than code. Based on my own experience (you may also refer to Howto Become a Hacker by Eric Raymond -- google cache, seems the site has been recently moved), nerds tend to be capable in many other areas, including music, the arts and sometimes even athletics.
Not all nerds are womanizers (especially the women:-). Although they tend to be especially awkward about the opposite sex, they don't necessarily behave as juveniles. I'll admit, though, that many nerds don't socialize enough with the opposite sex (at least when they're young) which can lead to the behavior you describe.
Not all nerds are so ridiculously judgemental and pompous. Heck, many of my high school friends were commonly called nerds and yet helped tutor other students in various subjects, were role model students, and, generally speaking, a very good influence on the students they interacted with, IMO.
As usual, it really isn't a good idea to stereotype a group of people as it will be woefully inaccurate and prolong outstanding (wrong) preceptions that people already harbor. IMO, it's thanks to people like you that nerds are so stigmatized, not the 1 or 2% of them that actually behave the way you describe.
Although I was the classic 'band geek' and not by any means popular, I always regarded my time in high school as at least a fun time as college was. There was tons of time to hack away on the home computer (or on the lans at school). I also enjoyed all of the chances to compete with my fellow classmates (such as in chess, track, etc.). Once in college, it was just the drudgery of "when's the next test, what's my GPA (if you actually cared), etc." and very little time to goof off (at least compared to high school).
I believe that there are a number of athiests on Earth that given the situation "we're going to be toast in 5 days no matter what", they'll no longer believe that 'morals' have any utility whatsoever (what's the point of keeping the glue of civilization when civilization itself will be gone?). This seems to be backed up by numerous other posts in this thread.
In the case of the religous guys (ones that believe in some sort of afterlife, karma, whatever), they'll have an additional motivating factor to keep their morality until the bitter end. Of course, some religous guys will probably go nuts while plenty of athiests stay civil and try to keep order until the end; but I bet, in general, the long-infused dogma will generally keep religous people in check (especially if their peers stay peaceful) while many others will go amock.
Note that this is different than simply saying "athiests live without morals." Rather, it's saying "given the total collapse of civilization and mass death, athiests (as well as others) will tend to loose their morality to the point of total anarchy and chaos".
There's more to it than that (as Kasparov says in his little article). He claims (as well as others) that the Deep Junior program was far superior to the program Deep Blue was using by virtue of its more intricate chess logic. It's really a blend between chess logic and brute strength that gives it the edge to compete with guys like Kasparov. As he said, there are nearly limitless possibilities in chess so you (or the computer) can really only imagine a relatively few number of moves in advance, so the program really does need a robust chess algorithm.
Of course, in games with even more exponential growth in possibilities (such as the Japanese game go), it will probably be a number of years before AI programming can catch up with the masters.
I'm sure you're correct in that they would be going around trying to convert as many people to their own faith as possible (and probably be fairly successfull given the circumstances) and be annoying the heck out of people like yourself.
However, I'd rather be around them than be around people who feel that they have absolutely nothing to loose (no afterlife, no consequences etc.), so let's turn Earth into a living hell. Just imagine the LA riots happening all over Earth and you get the picture.
As for what Europeans are doing today, I think their attitude of preferring non-involvement is the better one. It is the Americans that now erroneously believe that they can carry the torch of freedom and democracy around the world and do good everywhere. It won't work. America's foreign policy has caused, and will continue to cause, enormous suffering. Sooner or later, the Europeans and the UN will likely put pressure on the US to stop its foreign adventures and clean up its domestic problems.
Your view is a bit simplistic, especially given the global nature of the world's economies and geo-politics. At this point, it would be virtually impossible for the US to cease all foreign operations. However, it would be possible to stop performing military actions abroad. Although there are plenty of examples where the use of force by the US and other nations have resulted in horrendous results, there are others were inaction would have been significantly worse. For instance, if Isreal hadn't destroyed the nuclear power plant Iraq was building, it's certain that Iraq would now be a nuclear power. Another example (although hardly perfect) would be the recent war in Afganistan. If Afganistan had been left to its own devices, it would probably have ended up being a puppet state of either Iran or Pakistan and for the forseable future continue to spread hate-filled doctrines and live in abject poverty. In fact, most would argue that more intervention is now needed there to keep the peace, rebuild infrastructure, and educate the populace.
I'm sure I don't need to remind you, but the US nearly doomed England and the rest of Europe by a lack of military support in WW2 until Japan brought the war home. It is completely possible for a nation to become too isolationist just as it is possible for a nation to interfere too much with global affairs (in which case I would agree that the US needs to step back somewhat and focus more on domestic issues).
Slashdot Mirror
The timing issue is definitely political. If they don't launch very soon, they will miss a golden opportunity to get a good gravity assist from Jupiter, lowering the overall cost of the mission by a fortune. I don't believe another opportunity like this will come around for many decades.
It's also unbelievably unlikely that a s/c would re-enter the earth's atmosphere on a gravity assist as many people would be tracking it as it approached and be able to correct any orbit errors with time to spare.
Incidentially, it was also found to be impossible to keep the s/c powered without nuclear power (batteries would weigh too much -- on the order of thousands of tons -- as would fly wheels; fuel cells also weighed many tons; the sun would be too far away to use solar panels past Jupiter).
Light sailing works well for inner planet missions and for activities extending out to the Mars orbit. However, the solar flux falls off as the inverse square of the distance from the sun. Thus for missions beyond the Jupiter orbit, an alternative to solar propulsion is to use directed light from a high power laser.
I don't know of anyone who has tried using a laser for deep space propulsion. There's also the little matter of how do you stop once you reach Pluto. Since you're on a hyperbolic (or very elliptical) orbit to get there, you'll need a pretty large delta V (change in velocity) to slow down to the crawl that Pluto is travelling at. With ion propulsion or solar sails (using high powered earth lasers), you would need to accelerate for half the trip and decelerate the other half. Although it's possible that this could be faster than rockets (if the accleration was great enough), it wouldn't be if using current technology, especially when you consider the extra velocity a rocket-propelled spacecraft will get from a gravity assist from Jupiter if launched soon.
I'll admit that I was being a bit flippant :). Of course it would be a HUGE pain in the ass to switch universities once you've started attending the school. But how much research did you put into finding the right school before starting? I'm sure new students would think twice before going to a college with very restricted internet access (or in my example no cable). This would be the main reason why universities wouldn't kill cable or whatever. I still would argue they have the right to shoot themselves in the foot if they want (at the expense of their current student population).
I bet the university wouldn't have much of an issue with it if it didn't require so much bandwidth. I have a friend that just graduated from this U. and believe me they are having serious financial problems. I'm just guessing here, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if they're just trying to cut down on their overall internet usage.
Never the less, it is the university's property. They'd have every right to disconnect cable TV from the dorms if they wanted. Then the students would have every right to switch to a different university. If people still want to download p0rn, etc., nothing's stopping them from going to another U.
People tried this towards the end of Napster (renaming the files to strange variants of the real name), but I think they were still able to track most of the copyrighted files.
I'm sure you're not being serious. But if you are, there is an encrypted way to open terminals using ssh. I commonly use terraterm pro with ssh enabled to login to work from home (of course this only works when your server is ssh enabled).
'Alot' is relative, which is why I specified what I considered alot in parenthesis. I was going to try Ride the Rockies last year (even got registered) but ultimately had to cancel due to a scheduling conflict. Even for that, though, I thought my bike was sufficient, not that I would have finished anywhere near first, of course. I think the longest route I took while training was about 100 miles and that took the entire afternoon (it was hilly and windy, what can I say). Several guys flew past me after a while, but I blamed that entirely on their superior conditioning, not their bikes. I guess it could have been both... As far as lowering costs, I think you'd have to bike as much as most people drive their cars before that would happen (heck I had the same bike (no car) through college and did fine). As long as you don't grind your gears, clean your chain and otherwise regularly maintain your bike, how much could you really save by getting a more expensive bike?
I usually shop at Performance Bikes for parts and I know for sure that they do allow test rides (I bought my mountain bike from them). I just couldn't stomach paying so much for a new bike when I could get one used for a fraction of the cost that (in my mind) was nearly equivalent in performance.
Thanks for the advice, though. In the future, I might get a more expensive bike, but only if I start riding more and/or make some more money :).
I bike alot (a few hundered to 1000 miles per year), but I've never payed more than about $400 for a bike. I'm currently using a cheaper model Schwinn road bike (used) and get around fine. It seems that wind, hills and conditioning make a much bigger impact on your speed than having great wheels, hubs or whatnot (although having a good gearset makes a world of difference, but those don't necessarily cost much).
I can understand spending more if you're racing or doing serious mountain biking and need good suspension and a solid frame, but otherwise I just don't see it.
You think we got it tough in the US, you ought to see Japan. In a formal introduction, you say, essentially "I'm <your company>'s <your name>" and exchange business cards (always)--so, for example "I'm Sony's Joe Shmoe" or if you're in college "I'm MIT's Billy Bob." Being unemployed there is a huge stigma and leads to a number of suicides, especially in these poor economic times.
"I want to be non-corporeal when I grow up."
On another note, I've never seen any point to purposefully depriving yourself of posessions altogether (unless you've taken religous vows or something similar). I would agree that materialism is much too pervasive in many western countries today. However, if you want to buy a top-of-the-line laptop, go ahead so long as it's within your means. Just don't go crazy thinking that your worth is simply the sum of the value of all of your posessions and at least try to only buy practical items and not blowing your dough on $10,000 TVs. And if you have talent, by all means succeed at your trade and, if you really don't want possessions, donate to charity (it really is a very rewarding endeavor). Try to donate time/$ to charity either way of course...
Case in point: I studied French for 2 years in high school and continued my studies in college (although it had nothing to do with my engineering major). However, I was awful at it (I was barely getting C's in 3 to 5 credit hour classes--goodbye GPA). I decided that I was wasting my time since I wasn't giving it any effort, so I decided to take Japanese instead. Although the Japanese classes needed much more effort, I flew through them because, obviously, I gave it a bit of effort.
Believe me, sloth rarely, if ever, begets hapiness. Heck, I had a roommate in college who essentially never attended class (he would just stay home playing games all day). He essentially wasted an entire year of his life and forfited his tuition up to that point. Life is way too precious to just be wasting it like that (not to mention you'll get rather depressed after a period of extended laziness).
Although I wouldn't call the band geeks kings at the school or anything, they tended to be at least as well respected as the football players, usually much more so due to the utter lack of talent in the football team (they were always dead last in our division) and relatively talented and hard-working kids in the band (we tended to rank in the top 10 in marching competitions in Texas--not an easy feat). We always walked proudly through the school with tons of band patches on our letter jackets without worry about being picked on (although I haven't worn the jacket since; don't want to push my luck :P). I think part of the reason why there wasn't much of a clash between 'jocks' and 'nerds' at my school was at least in part due to the fact that both tended to participate in the (large) band (heck, even some cheerleaders were in the band!).
Although I was never bullied, I certainly have some empathy for the poor guys that were. If you are in the situation where you have no friends, have interests that are uncommon to others, and don't really know how to make friends, then it's a tough situation to get out of.
This strongly depends on the pay your willing to take, your competentness and your attitude. If you are a gifted programmer with a good attitude and a good work ethic, then there are still jobs out there. My advice is to get experience whenever you can while still in college (even if you get paid a measily $9-11 per hour). Heck, I'd even recommend working for free to gain the experience and make connections (it's hard to overstate how useful they are for forming new jobs for you in the future). To my knowledge, every single classmate of mine that was an intern immediately secured a job of their choosing upon graduation (in 2001).
- Nerds can do much more than code. Based on my own experience (you may also refer to Howto Become a Hacker by Eric Raymond -- google cache, seems the site has been recently moved), nerds tend to be capable in many other areas, including music, the arts and sometimes even athletics.
- Not all nerds are womanizers (especially the women
:-). Although they tend to be especially awkward about the opposite sex, they don't necessarily behave as juveniles. I'll admit, though, that many nerds don't socialize enough with the opposite sex (at least when they're young) which can lead to the behavior you describe.
- Not all nerds are so ridiculously judgemental and pompous. Heck, many of my high school friends were commonly called nerds and yet helped tutor other students in various subjects, were role model students, and, generally speaking, a very good influence on the students they interacted with, IMO.
As usual, it really isn't a good idea to stereotype a group of people as it will be woefully inaccurate and prolong outstanding (wrong) preceptions that people already harbor. IMO, it's thanks to people like you that nerds are so stigmatized, not the 1 or 2% of them that actually behave the way you describe.Although I was the classic 'band geek' and not by any means popular, I always regarded my time in high school as at least a fun time as college was. There was tons of time to hack away on the home computer (or on the lans at school). I also enjoyed all of the chances to compete with my fellow classmates (such as in chess, track, etc.). Once in college, it was just the drudgery of "when's the next test, what's my GPA (if you actually cared), etc." and very little time to goof off (at least compared to high school).
I believe that there are a number of athiests on Earth that given the situation "we're going to be toast in 5 days no matter what", they'll no longer believe that 'morals' have any utility whatsoever (what's the point of keeping the glue of civilization when civilization itself will be gone?). This seems to be backed up by numerous other posts in this thread.
In the case of the religous guys (ones that believe in some sort of afterlife, karma, whatever), they'll have an additional motivating factor to keep their morality until the bitter end. Of course, some religous guys will probably go nuts while plenty of athiests stay civil and try to keep order until the end; but I bet, in general, the long-infused dogma will generally keep religous people in check (especially if their peers stay peaceful) while many others will go amock.
Note that this is different than simply saying "athiests live without morals." Rather, it's saying "given the total collapse of civilization and mass death, athiests (as well as others) will tend to loose their morality to the point of total anarchy and chaos".
Of course, in games with even more exponential growth in possibilities (such as the Japanese game go), it will probably be a number of years before AI programming can catch up with the masters.
However, I'd rather be around them than be around people who feel that they have absolutely nothing to loose (no afterlife, no consequences etc.), so let's turn Earth into a living hell. Just imagine the LA riots happening all over Earth and you get the picture.
IEEE-USA quietly published two position papers asking the US Congress to re-examine and/or clarify sections of the DMCA last year
Actually, there are three papers:
Kudos. This could very well be the best post in this thread. I wish I had something to add, but I doubt I can top what you already wrote.
As for what Europeans are doing today, I think their attitude of preferring non-involvement is the better one. It is the Americans that now erroneously believe that they can carry the torch of freedom and democracy around the world and do good everywhere. It won't work. America's foreign policy has caused, and will continue to cause, enormous suffering. Sooner or later, the Europeans and the UN will likely put pressure on the US to stop its foreign adventures and clean up its domestic problems.
Your view is a bit simplistic, especially given the global nature of the world's economies and geo-politics. At this point, it would be virtually impossible for the US to cease all foreign operations. However, it would be possible to stop performing military actions abroad. Although there are plenty of examples where the use of force by the US and other nations have resulted in horrendous results, there are others were inaction would have been significantly worse. For instance, if Isreal hadn't destroyed the nuclear power plant Iraq was building, it's certain that Iraq would now be a nuclear power. Another example (although hardly perfect) would be the recent war in Afganistan. If Afganistan had been left to its own devices, it would probably have ended up being a puppet state of either Iran or Pakistan and for the forseable future continue to spread hate-filled doctrines and live in abject poverty. In fact, most would argue that more intervention is now needed there to keep the peace, rebuild infrastructure, and educate the populace.
I'm sure I don't need to remind you, but the US nearly doomed England and the rest of Europe by a lack of military support in WW2 until Japan brought the war home. It is completely possible for a nation to become too isolationist just as it is possible for a nation to interfere too much with global affairs (in which case I would agree that the US needs to step back somewhat and focus more on domestic issues).