I don't have it anymore, but I used to have a car with a tape deck. It had a single tape in it all the time, because I patched in a line-level audio jack for my mp3 player that only worked when the deck was "playing".
I have a love-hate memory of tapes. Subjectively, I have fond memories of them. Objectively, they were horrendous and only used because LPs were not portable and portable CD players were bulky, prone to skip, and were too expensive until late in the game. The hoops that had to be jumped through to get decent sound...
They'll make the commission running the satellites into a political show and ruin the whole thing. It'll be like the blinding success of the UN Commission on Civil Rights.
They have data - plenty of data. There are 3 US satellites taking redundant data. If all 3 fail, there are other countries taking redundant data. This is such a false emergency - no wonder people tune out.
The summary references the salvaged sensor off of the "destroyed" satellite. So, no, at least some of the parts still exist. They are in the process of designing and launching replacement satellites - my guess is they will move up the launch date of the one with a microwave sensor if the 3 in orbit all were to fail.
I'm betting the Chinese version they are talking about using the data from is cheaper than the destroyed US version. So right there is an existent lower-cost alternative.
Yeah of course you are right they were under tremendous time pressure. But if you don't care about the fate of the dog, the flight still made logical sense... In what we used to call "concurrent engineering" teams work in parallel rather than waiting on one another to pass gates before proceeding. In this case, there's no reason for the life support team to wait on the reentry team.
a patent is something that encourages the sharing of innovations
In a perfect world, patents would only apply to things where the alternative was a trade secret. In the case of a giant bridge, it's a bit hard to hide how it works!:)
We regularly use printed "lost wax" plugs for making investment castings, and we've done so for about 20 years. Removing the casting step would be fantastic.
Yeah, but not for long. And you set off a furious race to find workarounds, which itself often advances the state of the art.
There are exceptions... my hometown has a historically protected bridge. The reason it is historically protected is that it is a unique draw bridge design and I don't think there are any other surviving examples. The reason there are no other surviving examples is it is needlessly complex and thus prone to breakdown and relatively expensive to maintain. The reason it is needlessly complex is it had to work around a draw-bridge (Strauss and Scherzer bascule) patent and so used a Rall bascule design. This design was abandoned after the patent ran out. Because it sucked. Pretty soon the bridge will be 90 years old, and they are stuck with 90 years of extra maintenance and downtime because of the patent situation in 1930.
Trump's inane tweets aside, Twitter seems very popular with the media elite (some would say compulsory). If you believe that the media is influential (and I do), then it follows that Twitter is also influential.
Also, KFC did that really cool thing where they followed 11 guys named Herb and the Spice Girls.
I won't play a semantics game. If you want to say that only governments can censor, then what word would you like me to use when Twitter chooses what is and is not acceptable on their site? I will happily use that word or phrase to keep the discussion going.
As to them being "private" - they are indeed privately owned, but they only exist because the government granted them a charter and because of that they enjoy government benefits such as tax advantages and - most importantly - limited liability. If they want to trade back some of those special governmental perks, I'll happily call them "private" and let them do as they wish. But as long as they enjoy a special government advantage, we the people should be able to decide what a corporation is or isn't.
We're both speculating, but my speculation is that they only caught it so fast because it was the President. I'm think you are probably right that they have a review process in place, but I suspect it is not triggered automatically because that would cost them money. You are thinking like an engineer looking to make a robust system, but that is not necessarily who is calling the shots.
It's not even close to a monopoly, but it is hugely influential and I think you are 100% correct that they need to be forced to choose between being an editor or taking advantage of common-carrier types of protections of content. Most of these companies want it both ways, and I don't think they should be allowed to succeed.
I'm glad you see things so black and white. I completely agree that some random religion's website is completely theirs to screw with. Twitter is not a religion, it is a company with a corporate charter. They get economic perks like tax incentives and limited liability. They are hugely influential in our national discussion. I think the public/private line is sufficiently blurred that the analogy begins to fail. If Twitter decides to tilt the decision a certain direction, it has a large impact on society. I think they probably should be able to pick and choose the kind of information that appears on their site, but then they cannot run and hide behind "common carrier" type arguments when it is convenient for them. Short of illegal posts, they become editors when they pick and choose what appears on their site.
That is hands-down a better deal than I have. I also pay for Amazon Prime (though we rarely use the video service), Netflix, and Broadband Internet. Recently we also got a basic cable package because... not sure. I think my mother-in-law got bent out of shape that there was no CNN or something. Our internet is quite good - fiber to the house for about $80/month (bundled with unlimited phone... which sits largely unused hooked to the burglar alarm as we use our mobile phones) at 150/150 Mbps and is very reliable. But I understand it is probably expensive compared to Europe. I could get a cheaper 50/50 Mbps plan for something like $30/month, which is actually a really fair price IMHO. But I'm near an urban center and we have two competing telecom companies. I feel bad for people without any competition.
It means that some arbitrary process is in place to censor any point of view. Get the wrong censor, and your own pet cause could be next. It's all fun and games until a Scientologist is the censor.
That's because corporations get their charter from the government - they are fictitious entities of law which derive all of their power directly from the government. We call them "private", but really they act at the behest of government - which can make arbitrary regulations and interfere in any way they choose.
Slashdot Mirror
I get that. I also get that they have until 2023 to figure out how to take an already-qualified sensor and strap it to an already-qualified satellite.
The sound is so warm, though.
Did you feel like a real man?
Only when I stuck my dick in it.
I don't have it anymore, but I used to have a car with a tape deck. It had a single tape in it all the time, because I patched in a line-level audio jack for my mp3 player that only worked when the deck was "playing".
I have a love-hate memory of tapes. Subjectively, I have fond memories of them. Objectively, they were horrendous and only used because LPs were not portable and portable CD players were bulky, prone to skip, and were too expensive until late in the game. The hoops that had to be jumped through to get decent sound...
I don't think that is argument being put forward.
They'll make the commission running the satellites into a political show and ruin the whole thing. It'll be like the blinding success of the UN Commission on Civil Rights.
They have data - plenty of data. There are 3 US satellites taking redundant data. If all 3 fail, there are other countries taking redundant data. This is such a false emergency - no wonder people tune out.
This other nonsense
...has nothing to do with satellites.
The summary references the salvaged sensor off of the "destroyed" satellite. So, no, at least some of the parts still exist. They are in the process of designing and launching replacement satellites - my guess is they will move up the launch date of the one with a microwave sensor if the 3 in orbit all were to fail.
I'm betting the Chinese version they are talking about using the data from is cheaper than the destroyed US version. So right there is an existent lower-cost alternative.
Yeah of course you are right they were under tremendous time pressure. But if you don't care about the fate of the dog, the flight still made logical sense... In what we used to call "concurrent engineering" teams work in parallel rather than waiting on one another to pass gates before proceeding. In this case, there's no reason for the life support team to wait on the reentry team.
a patent is something that encourages the sharing of innovations
In a perfect world, patents would only apply to things where the alternative was a trade secret. In the case of a giant bridge, it's a bit hard to hide how it works! :)
We regularly use printed "lost wax" plugs for making investment castings, and we've done so for about 20 years. Removing the casting step would be fantastic.
you can hold the whole human race back
Yeah, but not for long. And you set off a furious race to find workarounds, which itself often advances the state of the art.
There are exceptions... my hometown has a historically protected bridge. The reason it is historically protected is that it is a unique draw bridge design and I don't think there are any other surviving examples. The reason there are no other surviving examples is it is needlessly complex and thus prone to breakdown and relatively expensive to maintain. The reason it is needlessly complex is it had to work around a draw-bridge (Strauss and Scherzer bascule) patent and so used a Rall bascule design. This design was abandoned after the patent ran out. Because it sucked. Pretty soon the bridge will be 90 years old, and they are stuck with 90 years of extra maintenance and downtime because of the patent situation in 1930.
They didn't have the technological ability to bring her back, and they wanted to see if mammals could survive in space.
She was a stray, selected because she was more well-behaved than the others.
That is fantastic. I don't need to read anymore Slashdot today.
Trump's inane tweets aside, Twitter seems very popular with the media elite (some would say compulsory). If you believe that the media is influential (and I do), then it follows that Twitter is also influential.
Also, KFC did that really cool thing where they followed 11 guys named Herb and the Spice Girls.
I won't play a semantics game. If you want to say that only governments can censor, then what word would you like me to use when Twitter chooses what is and is not acceptable on their site? I will happily use that word or phrase to keep the discussion going.
As to them being "private" - they are indeed privately owned, but they only exist because the government granted them a charter and because of that they enjoy government benefits such as tax advantages and - most importantly - limited liability. If they want to trade back some of those special governmental perks, I'll happily call them "private" and let them do as they wish. But as long as they enjoy a special government advantage, we the people should be able to decide what a corporation is or isn't.
We're both speculating, but my speculation is that they only caught it so fast because it was the President. I'm think you are probably right that they have a review process in place, but I suspect it is not triggered automatically because that would cost them money. You are thinking like an engineer looking to make a robust system, but that is not necessarily who is calling the shots.
It's not even close to a monopoly, but it is hugely influential and I think you are 100% correct that they need to be forced to choose between being an editor or taking advantage of common-carrier types of protections of content. Most of these companies want it both ways, and I don't think they should be allowed to succeed.
I'm glad you see things so black and white. I completely agree that some random religion's website is completely theirs to screw with. Twitter is not a religion, it is a company with a corporate charter. They get economic perks like tax incentives and limited liability. They are hugely influential in our national discussion. I think the public/private line is sufficiently blurred that the analogy begins to fail. If Twitter decides to tilt the decision a certain direction, it has a large impact on society. I think they probably should be able to pick and choose the kind of information that appears on their site, but then they cannot run and hide behind "common carrier" type arguments when it is convenient for them. Short of illegal posts, they become editors when they pick and choose what appears on their site.
That is hands-down a better deal than I have. I also pay for Amazon Prime (though we rarely use the video service), Netflix, and Broadband Internet. Recently we also got a basic cable package because... not sure. I think my mother-in-law got bent out of shape that there was no CNN or something. Our internet is quite good - fiber to the house for about $80/month (bundled with unlimited phone... which sits largely unused hooked to the burglar alarm as we use our mobile phones) at 150/150 Mbps and is very reliable. But I understand it is probably expensive compared to Europe. I could get a cheaper 50/50 Mbps plan for something like $30/month, which is actually a really fair price IMHO. But I'm near an urban center and we have two competing telecom companies. I feel bad for people without any competition.
It means that some arbitrary process is in place to censor any point of view. Get the wrong censor, and your own pet cause could be next. It's all fun and games until a Scientologist is the censor.
That's because corporations get their charter from the government - they are fictitious entities of law which derive all of their power directly from the government. We call them "private", but really they act at the behest of government - which can make arbitrary regulations and interfere in any way they choose.