True, and NASA is far from a good example of how to build a safe and reliable space vehicle. However, to requalify my previous (admittedly unspecific) statement, I believe that a state of perfect safety is out of our reach at the moment in terms of the amount of time and money it would require to apply that to the industry in general. XCOR is a very good example of what can be achieved in a subset of the industry though I can't see the US public shelling out to get NASA to that standard.
As for SE's, I guess they just come with different risks - not really greater or lesser unless you look at it within a long reference frame. [Still prefer the idea myself though - lightning will be interesting...]
They may not blow up all the time but they carry a much higher risk of spontaneous redistribution than most other transports.
I think the general public perception of space travel is far from the reality. People just seem to expect that a vehicle costing Billions in research and material should be just a bit safer than the average car and plane [and are considering the facts]. These devices are, by definition, the best we produce - made by the brightest people on the planet - and are expected to get there intact (The preceeding two statements could be completely wrong).
personally I think there is a definite limit on how safe you can make a big tube of explosives for the little mostly-water creatures trying to ride it into orbit.... roll on space-elevators...
If you have been gagged from reporting on a gag on a story you have intended to run does it naturally follow that you are able to report on being gagged from reporting on the gag on the gag on the report?.[phew].
[repeat until bored] Even if they gagged you again that very gag would be able to be reported on (unless it was also gagged etc)
[end repeat]
I'm not a history major either but I'd imagine that this type of thing happens quite often (though less often than the conspiracy theorists would think). The the power to completely restrict the availability of information must get mighty seductive and would be useful to cover up all sorts of inconvenient items.
Of course, in the current day and age, it is almost impossible to completely restrict this info, even if the only information available is that information has been concealed. People get mighty suspicious if a government seems to be too eager to cover up too many things in the intrests of a supposedly free society (and press I guess).
The thing I'd like to know is when do these gag orders expire. Even classified material becomes declassified after a time. It's not too unreasonable to believe that the information that has been obscured will be made available in time and the reasoning behind the obsfucation will also be available so the decision will be under some measure of public scrutiny eventually. It'd be interesting to know the penalties involved in invoking this kind of power in the personal intrests of the people in power at the time (as opposed to the proper use... errr... for the good of all people I guess...)
Maintenance of safety features != existance of safety features
Yes, apps often lack basic security features that many would consider as essential as brakes on a car. I would have real objections (as it that makes any real difference) to 'paid for' security updates that address functional deficiencies in the product whilst also appreciating that keeping existing security features up to date costs money and time.
Determining which is which is something most people would find quite difficult though...
Spurious comment I know but do you trust a company that claims the safe they're selling is 'secure'?
Computers get hacked and bank vaults get cracked but we still buy them...
In the end I like to think I maintain a general distrust of any company that claims benefits (security being just one) that I cannot objectively prove, at least to my own satisfaction. Microsoft is only one of those...
I think it's more like charging more for seatbelts and crumplezones myself.
And with this model sir, for only a little more, you and your family will enjoy a full 30% increase in their chances of survival in the event of a head on crash...
On the other hand you could look at it like brakes: they keep you alive and need regular fluids and servicing that doesn't come free...
I'm in complete agreement. I thought it was obvious, and does not indicate any insight into the issue.
It does, however, indicate a genuine concern regarding the current trends in regard to what you are 'allowed' to do with something you 'own'. I have made a living as an electronics repair guy and very few of my appliances keep their cases for long as I like to tinker and modify (quite often to the detriment of the hardware involved) and I view it as my right to do whatever I want to them.
I can throw an X-box out of a building and watch it shatter below but MS (and others) don't seem to want to let us play with the functionality inside (or at the very least do not want us to share that info).
I don't like that idea though I apologise for going all orwellian.
Another case where an illegal way to use a technology overrides all legal options for use thereof.
<rant>I have to wonder (seeing increased numbers of this kind of decision) how long it will be before PC's are provided in locked boxes and it is illegal for the user to open or in any way modify the contents. All of a sudden we would be renting an appliance rather than owning a system.</rant>
I'd also love to learn Japanese (have tried at least once... that and several other languages).
What I was wondering was does anybody see a difference in the ethical situation between sharing copyrighted entertainment works and copyrighted educational works?
In my limited experience I would have thought that companies producting educational course material can not really afford to have their work pirated (at least they don't have the massive buffers of cash and revenue the labels have).
On the other hand there are initiatives like MIT OpenCourseware where anyone who wants to access the material is able to without charge (MIT can probably afford to though...)
Should eductaional products be free/subsidised/supported by the industry etc...
It comes down to the ethics of terraforming (ignoring for a moment what we have done to earth). We have no real idea of the likely occurance of life in the universe or even whether we will actually be able to recognise it when we run across it. Terraforming is an inherently violent action and will almost certainly result in the destruction of whatever native life existed there.
Done properly gen-enging people will be much less intrusive to a native ecosystem though I am fully aware that cheap, fast, accurate and reliable genetic rewriting may be much more difficult than just getting there in the first place.
Pretty sure the geek way of dying involves electrocution, or maybe immolation (provided it's an electrical fire I guess).
Now if he'd died at the keyboard that'd be a different matter...
or change their climate to be favorable to our life
Or we could just change ourselves to match the climate. Has to be easier than developing terraforming technology capable of dealing with all the environments we may encounter...
Slashdot Mirror
There's no law of physics that says that
True, and NASA is far from a good example of how to build a safe and reliable space vehicle. However, to requalify my previous (admittedly unspecific) statement, I believe that a state of perfect safety is out of our reach at the moment in terms of the amount of time and money it would require to apply that to the industry in general. XCOR is a very good example of what can be achieved in a subset of the industry though I can't see the US public shelling out to get NASA to that standard.
As for SE's, I guess they just come with different risks - not really greater or lesser unless you look at it within a long reference frame. [Still prefer the idea myself though - lightning will be interesting...]
They may not blow up all the time but they carry a much higher risk of spontaneous redistribution than most other transports.
I think the general public perception of space travel is far from the reality. People just seem to expect that a vehicle costing Billions in research and material should be just a bit safer than the average car and plane [and are considering the facts]. These devices are, by definition, the best we produce - made by the brightest people on the planet - and are expected to get there intact (The preceeding two statements could be completely wrong).
personally I think there is a definite limit on how safe you can make a big tube of explosives for the little mostly-water creatures trying to ride it into orbit.... roll on space-elevators...
If you have been gagged from reporting on a gag on a story you have intended to run does it naturally follow that you are able to report on being gagged from reporting on the gag on the gag on the report?.[phew].
[repeat until bored]
Even if they gagged you again that very gag would be able to be reported on (unless it was also gagged etc)
[end repeat]
I'm not a history major either but I'd imagine that this type of thing happens quite often (though less often than the conspiracy theorists would think).
The the power to completely restrict the availability of information must get mighty seductive and would be useful to cover up all sorts of inconvenient items.
Of course, in the current day and age, it is almost impossible to completely restrict this info, even if the only information available is that information has been concealed. People get mighty suspicious if a government seems to be too eager to cover up too many things in the intrests of a supposedly free society (and press I guess).
The thing I'd like to know is when do these gag orders expire. Even classified material becomes declassified after a time. It's not too unreasonable to believe that the information that has been obscured will be made available in time and the reasoning behind the obsfucation will also be available so the decision will be under some measure of public scrutiny eventually.
It'd be interesting to know the penalties involved in invoking this kind of power in the personal intrests of the people in power at the time (as opposed to the proper use... errr... for the good of all people I guess...)
Maintenance of safety features != existance of safety features
Yes, apps often lack basic security features that many would consider as essential as brakes on a car.
I would have real objections (as it that makes any real difference) to 'paid for' security updates that address functional deficiencies in the product whilst also appreciating that keeping existing security features up to date costs money and time.
Determining which is which is something most people would find quite difficult though...
Spurious comment I know but do you trust a company that claims the safe they're selling is 'secure'?
Computers get hacked and bank vaults get cracked but we still buy them...
In the end I like to think I maintain a general distrust of any company that claims benefits (security being just one) that I cannot objectively prove, at least to my own satisfaction. Microsoft is only one of those...
I think it's more like charging more for seatbelts and crumplezones myself.
And with this model sir, for only a little more, you and your family will enjoy a full 30% increase in their chances of survival in the event of a head on crash...
On the other hand you could look at it like brakes: they keep you alive and need regular fluids and servicing that doesn't come free...
I'm in complete agreement. I thought it was obvious, and does not indicate any insight into the issue.
It does, however, indicate a genuine concern regarding the current trends in regard to what you are 'allowed' to do with something you 'own'.
I have made a living as an electronics repair guy and very few of my appliances keep their cases for long as I like to tinker and modify (quite often to the detriment of the hardware involved) and I view it as my right to do whatever I want to them.
I can throw an X-box out of a building and watch it shatter below but MS (and others) don't seem to want to let us play with the functionality inside (or at the very least do not want us to share that info).
I don't like that idea though I apologise for going all orwellian.
Another case where an illegal way to use a technology overrides all legal options for use thereof.
<rant>I have to wonder (seeing increased numbers of this kind of decision) how long it will be before PC's are provided in locked boxes and it is illegal for the user to open or in any way modify the contents. All of a sudden we would be renting an appliance rather than owning a system.</rant>
I'd also love to learn Japanese (have tried at least once... that and several other languages).
What I was wondering was does anybody see a difference in the ethical situation between sharing copyrighted entertainment works and copyrighted educational works?
In my limited experience I would have thought that companies producting educational course material can not really afford to have their work pirated (at least they don't have the massive buffers of cash and revenue the labels have).
On the other hand there are initiatives like MIT OpenCourseware where anyone who wants to access the material is able to without charge (MIT can probably afford to though...)
Should eductaional products be free/subsidised/supported by the industry etc...
It comes down to the ethics of terraforming (ignoring for a moment what we have done to earth). We have no real idea of the likely occurance of life in the universe or even whether we will actually be able to recognise it when we run across it. Terraforming is an inherently violent action and will almost certainly result in the destruction of whatever native life existed there.
Done properly gen-enging people will be much less intrusive to a native ecosystem though I am fully aware that cheap, fast, accurate and reliable genetic rewriting may be much more difficult than just getting there in the first place.
Pretty sure the geek way of dying involves electrocution, or maybe immolation (provided it's an electrical fire I guess).
Now if he'd died at the keyboard that'd be a different matter...
or change their climate to be favorable to our life
Or we could just change ourselves to match the climate. Has to be easier than developing terraforming technology capable of dealing with all the environments we may encounter...
I wonder if they have /. too...