...this certainly raises some questions about the likelihood of successful privatization of the Space industry.
No, it doesn't. It raises questions about SpaceX and their ability to produce a launch vehicle with an acceptable flight record. It raises questions about private willingness to accept failure on a design they think is fundamentally sound. It doesn't raise any more questions about the "future" of private spaceflight than when an Pegasus blows up or when SeaLaunch has a failure. The ENTIRE spaceflight communit owes a debt to and exists on a continuum of government influence. That doesn't make government the only entity that can test those waters. It just means that in the 20th century spaceflight was subsidized heavily, by and large. Since the entire industry was basically created by government action and most products either had only a government use or were dual use, even corporations who were ostensibly private relied on these pioneering steps made by governments. Even with that in mind, plenty of companies out there operate without government subsidy--and if you consider a government contract earned (and not a subsidy....but I don't), many do so. There are THOUSANDS of companies supporting private aerospace and private spaceflight, just not exclusively.
We need to get out of the mindset of "only government can do X". Sometimes that is true. Sometimes governments are the only ones who can provide certain services (or more accurately, they are the only ones willing to). But in the case of spaceflight, this is not always true. In the 1960's, only government was willing to go to space because the cost was large and the payoff in dollar terms was small (and highly uncertain). By the 1970's cable companies and phone companies were paying to go into space. IF the space race had never happened, we would probably have built launch vehicles to enter low earth orbit anyway. It would have come later (maybe much later), but it would have happened.
Failures don't represent a fundamental flaw in an industry. SpaceX had insurance, so this failure is not financially fatal for them--insurance is a good counter to the argument of "too much risk" in private spaceflight. If they fail, someone else will take up the mantle.
Not to diminish the idea, but this is already done with wine. I suspect it is much EASIER to do it with wine rather than with paintings, as you are relying on deposition rather than absorption through soil, but the technique has been around for a bit.
DPI? encrypt. Throttle anything encrypted? Piss off lots of banking and e-mail customers. throttle based on header info? Spoof the headers.
An ISP throttles any home user that connects directly to several other home users. How would you get around that?
How do you tell the other end is a home user if it is outside the ISP? I mean, it seems easy to ban/throttle traffic that is entirely internal to the ISP (the rationale is less because the cost/gigabyte is lower) but how do you enforce that across ISP's? Do we keep a whitelist of domains to allow SSL to?
Throttling intra-isp traffic is like the usenet debate. It's kind of a dick move but seems technically easy. Doing this on a broader front seems prohibitively difficult. Once an update to azueruousuosusosus (or whatever) goes out, that 250,000 dollar DPI machine needs to be updated.
Old people are old. Whether they helped create the system we work with today or not. First, p2p isn't the ridiculous bandwidth hog we all though it was (compared to legit streaming video). Second, p2p was designed as a means around previous circumvention measures. Future circumvention measures will have to change things pretty radically before they will be able to effectively throttle only p2p traffic.
DPI? encrypt. Throttle anything encrypted? Piss off lots of banking and e-mail customers. throttle based on header info? Spoof the headers.
I'm not arguing that it is pointless. just very hard and liable to have a greater negative net effect for non-infringing users than we would anticipate. Nevertheless that does not stop companies from doing things that will eventually be deemed not in their self interest.
Most of those happened a long time ago. You can't hold that against the people who are in charge today. I'm sure everyone on/. has at least a dozen murderers among their ancestors, but I don't see you complaining about that.
A long time ago, like...less than 50 years? I'm sure I've got murderers in my ancestry but not within 50 years. Don't be obtuse.
Pelosi and Reid have much more control over votes than Barack does. He can try and bring publicity to issues, but that's his only real power. The issue is less real power and more interpersonal power. I'm not calling on people to call BHO in order to have him make some Mr. Smith kinda stand in the Senate over this. I'm pushing people to call him to personally intervene. This compromise doesn't go to the floor without the express approval of Pelosi and Hoyer. Obama can make that approval disappear.
It might be a little short notice for Obama to be notified and react. It isn't short notice to tell Steny Hoyer that your giving money to his opponent next time. Or to call your own representative. Absolutely. I just suggested calling Obama because he needs to know that just being "against" this bill isn't enough. And my rep is a die-hard bush republican, so I can't get much traction there.
Why would I call someone I am not ever voting for?
I faxed my California Senators Boxer and Feinstein and told them I am against immunity. They can actually do something about this. Because pressure on him may result in pressure on house leaders. The idea isn't to call every house dem (because they will just ignore calls from outside their districts), but to call someone who can pressure house dems.
Once this gets out of the House we lost it, because the final bill will be reconciled in a conference committee between the house and the senate.
right, but the 14th ammd. is basically old enough now to presume that it may be treated as a point for departure for our discussion. A suit to challenge that amendment would fail on its face, as the basis for judging the constitutionality would be the text of the amendment itself.
Also, at the time of the 14th amendment we still had only 2 senators per state and one executive voted by a majority of electors.
I just called and reached an live person. I had to try 4 times before I got through. She says they are getting hundreds of calls and that Obama is officially against it.
Please make sure to keep calling.
Find your congressperson here: http://www.stopthespying.org/ thanks for your help. Hopefully enough calls and he will help put a stop to this. The issue is that democrats need to show their strength on the issues by STOPPING republicans, not caving to them.
Barack Obama announced today that he would not accept public donations, in favor of receiving private donations. A chandidate cannot receive both and must choose between one or the other. Thusly, it doesn't matter whether or not you retract your donation (public of which there are ~$80million) sigh. That's public financing (from the FEC), not donations from the public.
Look. If you want you vote to reflect your personal preference, then vote for whomever you feel like. What I'm saying is that the election system in the US, which awards a seat in a representative body (or executive body) on a winner take all basis.
In those kinds of elections (first past the post), a third party doesn't have a chance to impact major policy unless they represent >30% of the electorate.
It is just a fact of the political system. A proportional representation system would reward third parties but we don't have one of those.
I don't presume to know anything except that phone calls and public pressure impact politicians.
My SUSPICION is that this compromise allows him sufficient political coverage to vote against the final bill without impacting its passage. That is unacceptable.
Leahy is against the capitulation"compromise" (per an email on Kos) and he's chair of the Senate Judiciary committee. This has to get on the floor, and I believe it would be through his committee. Senate/house bills can be reconciled by a conference committee between the two sides. Once a reconciled bill is agreed upon, it will not be referred to what would have been the originating committee were it a new bill.
So unless a senate vote forces the conference bill into committee (Which I THINK requires 60 votes), this bill can go from the house to the full senate without having to pass by Leahy's desk.
Progressive is my term. It doesn't have to be progressive. It just has to reflect a respect for the rule of law. Either way, call them. they say they have been innundated with calls.
This isn't really about "progressive" (left) or conservative (right) politics.
This is about freedom (liberty). Progressives tend to take from people when it is expedient, as does conservatives. Which is why people ought to vote libertarian where governmental taking is just plain frowned upon. sure, but you pick your pressure point. voting for a third party candidate in a first past the post election system is pointless. That isn't a crack on the libertarians, but the political system doesn't provide power to third parties (in the US). there is a REASON why the French have dozens of parties and the US has only two major parties, it isn't because the french dig pluralism more.
Also, if this bill gets to the Senate, keep your eye on how Obama and McCain decide to vote on it. I know I will. If it makes it to the senate, it won't matter. Obama will vote against, McCain for. Unless someone filibusters it, it will pass.
I thought Howard Dean was the head of the Democratic party. head of the DNC. the presidential nominee is basically the head of the party in notion and title.
866-675-2008 option 6, if you don't get a person then, press 0. If you get a voicemail, leave a message, then call back and dial 0 during the voicemail prompt to get a human.
Let them know: -You are a progressive. -Civil lawsuits are the ONLY remaining route to disclosure for the spying the bush administration perpetrated on americans. -What the telecommunications companies did was ILLEGAL. -He should call Hoyer and Pelosi to stop this RIGHT NOW. One phone call from the head of the democratic party should kill this nonsense.
If you have donated in the past, let them know that you will seek to have your donations returned if he does not speak out on this issue. If you haven't, let them know that you will refuse to donate or organize in the future if he refuses to take the lead on this issue.
The first step to making democrats strong on national security is standing up to republicans.
As an option, this still sucks - I can't wait to be in Alterac Valley and have my game suddenly minimize due to their "phone home" program crashing. Or better yet it makes me much happier I picked up an Xbox360 a year or so ago. It's still probably more fun than being in AV. although aren't you already online?:)
Guess what war does? It kills people and breaks things. The ability to fight is hampered by the assclowns that think war should be fought nicely, with more risk to our soldiers but none to them. As to the civilians it killed; try a MOAB, cluster bombs or fire bombing. Yep the alternatives suck but then so does war. Be thankful any day we can avoid both. I am thankful any day we can avoid both. The issue isn't that war kills people, of course it does. they are dead if they are killed by bombs or bullets or knives. The issue is that in the 1990's and through 2000's we had a fantasy that war would be bloodless. We would use bombs that only killed the bad guys and they would be delivered by the touch of a button. We would not put any of our soldiers in harms way (a laudable goal) but presumably we would not hurt any of their civilians. We excise the bloodshed from war in an attempt to make people more willing to go to war over more trivial issues. It didn't result in less war, it resulted in more.
It turns out that aerial bombardment is not as bloodless as we lead ourself to believe and it actually isn't a substitute for a real army on the ground. So instead of putting an army on the ground first, you put an army on the ground after you have bombed a civilian populace.
My post wasn't anti-war or anti-air power. It was an acknowledgment that the war we envisioned in the 1990's in policy briefs and on CNN never materialized. It didn't exist. We had magicked into existence from faulty memories of WWII and a sense of our own superiority. Our military and the countries we targeted were worse off for the delusion. This is coming from someone helping to push the button on our end, not a freaky beatnik.
Slashdot Mirror
They make me feel better about the level of discourse here at /.
At the administrator level, we only have the ability to block IPs as editors, not as readers. So it wouldn't benefit us at all to do so.
No, it doesn't. It raises questions about SpaceX and their ability to produce a launch vehicle with an acceptable flight record. It raises questions about private willingness to accept failure on a design they think is fundamentally sound. It doesn't raise any more questions about the "future" of private spaceflight than when an Pegasus blows up or when SeaLaunch has a failure. The ENTIRE spaceflight communit owes a debt to and exists on a continuum of government influence. That doesn't make government the only entity that can test those waters. It just means that in the 20th century spaceflight was subsidized heavily, by and large. Since the entire industry was basically created by government action and most products either had only a government use or were dual use, even corporations who were ostensibly private relied on these pioneering steps made by governments. Even with that in mind, plenty of companies out there operate without government subsidy--and if you consider a government contract earned (and not a subsidy....but I don't), many do so. There are THOUSANDS of companies supporting private aerospace and private spaceflight, just not exclusively.
We need to get out of the mindset of "only government can do X". Sometimes that is true. Sometimes governments are the only ones who can provide certain services (or more accurately, they are the only ones willing to). But in the case of spaceflight, this is not always true. In the 1960's, only government was willing to go to space because the cost was large and the payoff in dollar terms was small (and highly uncertain). By the 1970's cable companies and phone companies were paying to go into space. IF the space race had never happened, we would probably have built launch vehicles to enter low earth orbit anyway. It would have come later (maybe much later), but it would have happened.
Failures don't represent a fundamental flaw in an industry. SpaceX had insurance, so this failure is not financially fatal for them--insurance is a good counter to the argument of "too much risk" in private spaceflight. If they fail, someone else will take up the mantle.
Not to diminish the idea, but this is already done with wine. I suspect it is much EASIER to do it with wine rather than with paintings, as you are relying on deposition rather than absorption through soil, but the technique has been around for a bit.
Old people are old.
And Longcat is long.
DPI? encrypt. Throttle anything encrypted? Piss off lots of banking and e-mail customers. throttle based on header info? Spoof the headers.
An ISP throttles any home user that connects directly to several other home users. How would you get around that?
How do you tell the other end is a home user if it is outside the ISP? I mean, it seems easy to ban/throttle traffic that is entirely internal to the ISP (the rationale is less because the cost/gigabyte is lower) but how do you enforce that across ISP's? Do we keep a whitelist of domains to allow SSL to?
Throttling intra-isp traffic is like the usenet debate. It's kind of a dick move but seems technically easy. Doing this on a broader front seems prohibitively difficult. Once an update to azueruousuosusosus (or whatever) goes out, that 250,000 dollar DPI machine needs to be updated.
Old people are old. Whether they helped create the system we work with today or not. First, p2p isn't the ridiculous bandwidth hog we all though it was (compared to legit streaming video). Second, p2p was designed as a means around previous circumvention measures. Future circumvention measures will have to change things pretty radically before they will be able to effectively throttle only p2p traffic.
DPI? encrypt. Throttle anything encrypted? Piss off lots of banking and e-mail customers. throttle based on header info? Spoof the headers.
I'm not arguing that it is pointless. just very hard and liable to have a greater negative net effect for non-infringing users than we would anticipate. Nevertheless that does not stop companies from doing things that will eventually be deemed not in their self interest.
Most of those happened a long time ago. You can't hold that against the people who are in charge today. I'm sure everyone on /. has at least a dozen murderers among their ancestors, but I don't see you complaining about that.
A long time ago, like...less than 50 years? I'm sure I've got murderers in my ancestry but not within 50 years. Don't be obtuse.
I faxed my California Senators Boxer and Feinstein and told them I am against immunity. They can actually do something about this. Because pressure on him may result in pressure on house leaders. The idea isn't to call every house dem (because they will just ignore calls from outside their districts), but to call someone who can pressure house dems.
Once this gets out of the House we lost it, because the final bill will be reconciled in a conference committee between the house and the senate.
right, but the 14th ammd. is basically old enough now to presume that it may be treated as a point for departure for our discussion. A suit to challenge that amendment would fail on its face, as the basis for judging the constitutionality would be the text of the amendment itself.
Also, at the time of the 14th amendment we still had only 2 senators per state and one executive voted by a majority of electors.
Please make sure to keep calling.
Find your congressperson here:
http://www.stopthespying.org/ thanks for your help. Hopefully enough calls and he will help put a stop to this. The issue is that democrats need to show their strength on the issues by STOPPING republicans, not caving to them.
42 months is a fucking lot. Wow.
Look. If you want you vote to reflect your personal preference, then vote for whomever you feel like. What I'm saying is that the election system in the US, which awards a seat in a representative body (or executive body) on a winner take all basis.
In those kinds of elections (first past the post), a third party doesn't have a chance to impact major policy unless they represent >30% of the electorate.
It is just a fact of the political system. A proportional representation system would reward third parties but we don't have one of those.
I don't presume to know anything except that phone calls and public pressure impact politicians.
My SUSPICION is that this compromise allows him sufficient political coverage to vote against the final bill without impacting its passage. That is unacceptable.
So unless a senate vote forces the conference bill into committee (Which I THINK requires 60 votes), this bill can go from the house to the full senate without having to pass by Leahy's desk.
Progressive is my term. It doesn't have to be progressive. It just has to reflect a respect for the rule of law. Either way, call them. they say they have been innundated with calls.
This is about freedom (liberty). Progressives tend to take from people when it is expedient, as does conservatives. Which is why people ought to vote libertarian where governmental taking is just plain frowned upon. sure, but you pick your pressure point. voting for a third party candidate in a first past the post election system is pointless. That isn't a crack on the libertarians, but the political system doesn't provide power to third parties (in the US). there is a REASON why the French have dozens of parties and the US has only two major parties, it isn't because the french dig pluralism more.
Call Barack Obama's office tonight.
He can put a stop to this.
866-675-2008 option 6, if you don't get a person then, press 0. If you get a voicemail, leave a message, then call back and dial 0 during the voicemail prompt to get a human.
Let them know:
-You are a progressive.
-Civil lawsuits are the ONLY remaining route to disclosure for the spying the bush administration perpetrated on americans.
-What the telecommunications companies did was ILLEGAL.
-He should call Hoyer and Pelosi to stop this RIGHT NOW. One phone call from the head of the democratic party should kill this nonsense.
If you have donated in the past, let them know that you will seek to have your donations returned if he does not speak out on this issue. If you haven't, let them know that you will refuse to donate or organize in the future if he refuses to take the lead on this issue.
The first step to making democrats strong on national security is standing up to republicans.
Nothing wrong with mine....
It turns out that aerial bombardment is not as bloodless as we lead ourself to believe and it actually isn't a substitute for a real army on the ground. So instead of putting an army on the ground first, you put an army on the ground after you have bombed a civilian populace.
My post wasn't anti-war or anti-air power. It was an acknowledgment that the war we envisioned in the 1990's in policy briefs and on CNN never materialized. It didn't exist. We had magicked into existence from faulty memories of WWII and a sense of our own superiority. Our military and the countries we targeted were worse off for the delusion. This is coming from someone helping to push the button on our end, not a freaky beatnik.