Ok, first of all, I'm registered Democrat and voted for Hillary in the last primary. I then voted third party in the General as a protest vote because I couldn't in good conscience vote for either of the big party clowns. Ok?
It's true that in the wake of the 9/11 hysteria the TSA had an entirely unearned amount of support, but it didn't take more than a couple years for that to dissipate. Towards the end of Bush's second term the TSA had grown to be generally despised by people of all political stripes. What's even more concerning is that with a liberal administration in charge, the TSA continues to grow in power and intrusiveness. This is not a conservative/liberal issue. This is an issue about government overstepping their boundaries. I have an idea -- let's stop yelling at each other and work together to fix this. If you could just get over your party polarity for a minute, you'd see that you had allies in what might be unexpected places. Or we could keep on blaming each other, but that's just what they want us to do.
That's an interesting theory. If the Republicans are trying to lose, they're doing all the right things. The Republicans went in with several advantages, but it looking more and more like they're going to mismanage it into a second Obama term.
I think the Republicans really do want the office but are so dysfunctional that they end up maneuvering the limpest, most wishy-washy candidate into position thinking that someone who stands for nothing will somehow appeal to all. And it only worked for them two terms in recent decades, and that was because against all reason, the Democrats had fielded candidates who were even limper.
What makes you think that's Americans would think that a bad thing? Electric cars are (or can be made to be) very fast, with neck-snapping acceleration. It's finally a way to make killer performance cars without having to fight the EPA. What's not to love?
The problem has been, they're too expensive, take too long to charge, there's no place between here and grandma's house to charge it, and if there was you'd have to wait 6 hours before getting back on the road, poor performance (except for the Tesla) and most importantly, in most cases all you're really doing in "greenness" is trading point-source pollution for pollution that's conveniently out of sight.
Large amounts of cheap, plentiful, local electricity changes the equation. Assuming it works. Not holding my breath. But if it does work, this could be the Shipstone that changes everything.
I realize I'm in danger of sounding like Dr. Sheldon Cooper, but since this is Slashdot, I'll assume you meant that as humor. I've had so many science arguments in the movies newsgroups, that I despair of ever having an intelligent conversation again. My last argument was with someone who insisted that a hole in a spacecraft would logically result in all the air exiting the spacecraft at the speed of sound. "Why the speed of sound? I mean, why that particular speed?" "Because, you know, that's the speed that air travels." "Like, what?? So ok, if it's explosive decompression, the *impulse* caused by the air starting to escape may travel into the chamber at the speed of sound, but the rate of air escaping is defined by fluid... oh never mind. You're a moron."
> Which is it? Do they know we got more than TANG from the space program and want to fund it properly and continue it or do they support pushing "private alternatives" which basically just means cutting funding.
Which is what? That's a false choice. Being familiar with the benefits of, say, the run-up to the moon shot, is differenting from "want to fund it properly", and "properly" is a whole 'nother discussion. There is a school of thought that the government funded process of deploying a spacecraft has become (for now at least) buried in bureaucracy and fundamentally broken. It used to be it took a big country like the US to put a man on the moon. These days, with the way the process works now, no government on earth could put a man on the moon. The program would inevitably be swamped in cost overruns and eventually canceled. Until that part is fixed, you may still expect smaller projects to get off the launchpad, but government funded manned exploration is dead. Hint: It's not a matter of throwing more money at it. Unless you fix the process, no amount of money will be enough. Bureaucracy and corruption expand in proportion.
As to the rest, I didn't say any of those other things and I don't know anyone who has. The free market would most definitely not have surpassed NASA's efforts during the moon missions, unless some incredibly efficient, incredible cheap, SciFi McGuffin had been discovered. (If only all those decades of controlled fusion research had paid off. Oh wait... it's the SAME ISSUE.) But it's looking more and more like the moon shot was a one time deal; a time when cultural resolve came together in a relatively young and vibrant country, and the art of sponging off high profile projects wasn't yet perfected. Now, I don't see it happening. So whatever private enterprise is doing, which certainly will not be anything like the Apollo stack, it's probably all we're going to see for now.
And you know, if private space travel starts as a tourist thing, at least it advances the art. Besides, whom of us wouldn't jump at the chance? The Skyway Soap sweepstakes (geek reference alert) or something like it may be coming to your tv sooner than we realize.
I'm sorry. I know that's not the answer you want to hear, and truthfully, it doesn't work for me either. But we need to be realistic.
(I was in the business in the seventies and eighties, and have kept in touch with cohorts since then.)
> It should be pointed out that the temperature and thermal conductivity are quite different. It is of course harder to heat up an object with poor thermal conductivity, but if you wait long enough both the highly conductive objects (like metal) and poorly conductive objects (like a near vacuum) will indeed reach equilibrium at the same temperature.
That is kind-of what I'm getting at. Vacuum is a poorly conductive object and a heat source, like active electronics in a satellite, release heat poorly in a vacuum. With the electronics shut off, in the shade, with no other energy sources present, no doubt the electronics will eventually get very cold. But while active, dumping the heat can be a problem, looking at the issue from an engineering perspective. This is an issue with an occupied space suit containing a large heat source (IE a human body), which is what Heinlein was addressing. But it's equally an issue for any heat source in a vacuum that must somehow be cooled.
And so, although intergalactic space may be a fraction of a degree above absolute zero, and space close to the Earth may be about 4 Kelvin, that doesn't help you as much as one might think in cooling things down.
I thought Perl *was* a randomly generated programming language. I think Perl users tend to fall into two groups -- the ones who thrive on it, and the ones who get violent headaches from too extended a contact with the language. (I'm in the latter group.)
Assume best Robert A. Heinlein voice: Even today people talk about "the bitter cold of outer space" -- but space is a vacuum, and if vacuum were cold, how could a Thermos jug keep hot coffee hot? Vacuum is nothing -- it has no temperature, it just insulates.
In other words, you lose some heat from radiation, but for substantial cooling you need something, like air for instance, to conduct the heat away.
Not that I've ever heard. The Tea Partiers I know of understand that we got more than TANG from the space program, and are really excited about private space exploration.
There is truth to this. Daughter bought the Samsung Galaxy S because it's a sharp little device and we thought Samsung would eventually fix the GPS problem (they never did) and get Android 2.2 pushed out to it (which they finally did, a year after everyone else). Apparently what you were supposed to do instead of relying on some future software fix was just to throw away the S when the S2 came out and buy that one. Which must be nice for them. Daughter bought a Bionic instead.
So, yeah, don't buy "fixer-uppers" either in phones or spouses. (Did I say that out loud?)
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, first of all, I'm registered Democrat and voted for Hillary in the last primary. I then voted third party in the General as a protest vote because I couldn't in good conscience vote for either of the big party clowns. Ok?
It's true that in the wake of the 9/11 hysteria the TSA had an entirely unearned amount of support, but it didn't take more than a couple years for that to dissipate. Towards the end of Bush's second term the TSA had grown to be generally despised by people of all political stripes. What's even more concerning is that with a liberal administration in charge, the TSA continues to grow in power and intrusiveness. This is not a conservative/liberal issue. This is an issue about government overstepping their boundaries. I have an idea -- let's stop yelling at each other and work together to fix this. If you could just get over your party polarity for a minute, you'd see that you had allies in what might be unexpected places. Or we could keep on blaming each other, but that's just what they want us to do.
I blame public education.
That's an interesting theory. If the Republicans are trying to lose, they're doing all the right things. The Republicans went in with several advantages, but it looking more and more like they're going to mismanage it into a second Obama term.
I think the Republicans really do want the office but are so dysfunctional that they end up maneuvering the limpest, most wishy-washy candidate into position thinking that someone who stands for nothing will somehow appeal to all. And it only worked for them two terms in recent decades, and that was because against all reason, the Democrats had fielded candidates who were even limper.
I was thinking more like, how does that work when they're out together, in a crowd?
Read others in this thread for an opposing view.
So.... she was ok with getting groped by strangers? That must have made for a fun relationship.
I disagree. There were reasons why Bush's approval rating was low even amongst conservatives in his second term. That was a big one.
> "Take the train you unpatriotic, small-dicked paranoid liberal!"
Opposition to TSA isn't just a liberal thing.
What makes you think that's Americans would think that a bad thing? Electric cars are (or can be made to be) very fast, with neck-snapping acceleration. It's finally a way to make killer performance cars without having to fight the EPA. What's not to love?
The problem has been, they're too expensive, take too long to charge, there's no place between here and grandma's house to charge it, and if there was you'd have to wait 6 hours before getting back on the road, poor performance (except for the Tesla) and most importantly, in most cases all you're really doing in "greenness" is trading point-source pollution for pollution that's conveniently out of sight.
Large amounts of cheap, plentiful, local electricity changes the equation. Assuming it works. Not holding my breath. But if it does work, this could be the Shipstone that changes everything.
Not betting you.
Get one for my garage, of course.
The problem is, whether it's satire and parody is in the best judgement of the TSA, a group not known for their sense of humor.
I realize I'm in danger of sounding like Dr. Sheldon Cooper, but since this is Slashdot, I'll assume you meant that as humor. I've had so many science arguments in the movies newsgroups, that I despair of ever having an intelligent conversation again. My last argument was with someone who insisted that a hole in a spacecraft would logically result in all the air exiting the spacecraft at the speed of sound. "Why the speed of sound? I mean, why that particular speed?" "Because, you know, that's the speed that air travels." "Like, what?? So ok, if it's explosive decompression, the *impulse* caused by the air starting to escape may travel into the chamber at the speed of sound, but the rate of air escaping is defined by fluid... oh never mind. You're a moron."
> Which is it? Do they know we got more than TANG from the space program and want to fund it properly and continue it or do they support pushing "private alternatives" which basically just means cutting funding.
Which is what? That's a false choice. Being familiar with the benefits of, say, the run-up to the moon shot, is differenting from "want to fund it properly", and "properly" is a whole 'nother discussion. There is a school of thought that the government funded process of deploying a spacecraft has become (for now at least) buried in bureaucracy and fundamentally broken. It used to be it took a big country like the US to put a man on the moon. These days, with the way the process works now, no government on earth could put a man on the moon. The program would inevitably be swamped in cost overruns and eventually canceled. Until that part is fixed, you may still expect smaller projects to get off the launchpad, but government funded manned exploration is dead. Hint: It's not a matter of throwing more money at it. Unless you fix the process, no amount of money will be enough. Bureaucracy and corruption expand in proportion.
As to the rest, I didn't say any of those other things and I don't know anyone who has. The free market would most definitely not have surpassed NASA's efforts during the moon missions, unless some incredibly efficient, incredible cheap, SciFi McGuffin had been discovered. (If only all those decades of controlled fusion research had paid off. Oh wait... it's the SAME ISSUE.) But it's looking more and more like the moon shot was a one time deal; a time when cultural resolve came together in a relatively young and vibrant country, and the art of sponging off high profile projects wasn't yet perfected. Now, I don't see it happening. So whatever private enterprise is doing, which certainly will not be anything like the Apollo stack, it's probably all we're going to see for now.
And you know, if private space travel starts as a tourist thing, at least it advances the art. Besides, whom of us wouldn't jump at the chance? The Skyway Soap sweepstakes (geek reference alert) or something like it may be coming to your tv sooner than we realize.
I'm sorry. I know that's not the answer you want to hear, and truthfully, it doesn't work for me either. But we need to be realistic.
(I was in the business in the seventies and eighties, and have kept in touch with cohorts since then.)
> It should be pointed out that the temperature and thermal conductivity are quite different. It is of course harder to heat up an object with poor thermal conductivity, but if you wait long enough both the highly conductive objects (like metal) and poorly conductive objects (like a near vacuum) will indeed reach equilibrium at the same temperature.
That is kind-of what I'm getting at. Vacuum is a poorly conductive object and a heat source, like active electronics in a satellite, release heat poorly in a vacuum. With the electronics shut off, in the shade, with no other energy sources present, no doubt the electronics will eventually get very cold. But while active, dumping the heat can be a problem, looking at the issue from an engineering perspective. This is an issue with an occupied space suit containing a large heat source (IE a human body), which is what Heinlein was addressing. But it's equally an issue for any heat source in a vacuum that must somehow be cooled.
And so, although intergalactic space may be a fraction of a degree above absolute zero, and space close to the Earth may be about 4 Kelvin, that doesn't help you as much as one might think in cooling things down.
You are correct. In my hair trigger indignation, I missed that.
I thought Perl *was* a randomly generated programming language. I think Perl users tend to fall into two groups -- the ones who thrive on it, and the ones who get violent headaches from too extended a contact with the language. (I'm in the latter group.)
Wow, you're following Slashdot from Zuccotti Park?
Assume best Robert A. Heinlein voice: Even today people talk about "the bitter cold of outer space" -- but space is a vacuum, and if vacuum were cold, how could a Thermos jug keep hot coffee hot? Vacuum is nothing -- it has no temperature, it just insulates.
In other words, you lose some heat from radiation, but for substantial cooling you need something, like air for instance, to conduct the heat away.
Not that I've ever heard. The Tea Partiers I know of understand that we got more than TANG from the space program, and are really excited about private space exploration.
Nothing but the very best for slashdot.
Especially these days.
That was me being skeptical, which if there was truth in it, the originator would follow up with a link or something. Nothing so far.
There is truth to this. Daughter bought the Samsung Galaxy S because it's a sharp little device and we thought Samsung would eventually fix the GPS problem (they never did) and get Android 2.2 pushed out to it (which they finally did, a year after everyone else). Apparently what you were supposed to do instead of relying on some future software fix was just to throw away the S when the S2 came out and buy that one. Which must be nice for them. Daughter bought a Bionic instead.
So, yeah, don't buy "fixer-uppers" either in phones or spouses. (Did I say that out loud?)