While the terrestrial broadcasters will scream "you're theifing our signal, you bastards," and DirecTV won't give you local channels for the same arguement, that's not the root cause.
It threatens advertising revenue.
Advertising is regional, and there's a strangle-hold on the broadcasters to keep it that way. The advertisers want to squeeze every last schekel out of the consumers, and they adjust market prices per the tolerance of each individual market. When the folks in LA (either one) can see the prices advertised in NYC or DC or anywhere else, the ability to maintain regional pricing structures is eroded. Product revenue will decline as pricing awareness will drive the prices down (or at least to some median level.)
In order to prevent this, the regional broadcasters will provide a "national content" feed that has different "national level" adverts instead of the regional ones. But they'll squeal like a stuck pig if you re-show the DC ads in Chicago. If you're outside of a major metro area, you can get CBSE or CBSW channels on DirecTV. They're the East and West "national" channels for the major network. It's the same programming, only with different adverts. And no, I don't get to watch those channels because I'm too close to DC.
The problem isn't just that you need more fuel, but that you need to haul that extra fuel up out of Earth's gravity well. So if you need even more fuel to haul the extra fuel to LEO so you can use it to get to the trans-lunar injection orbit.
Example - lets assume a linear relationship between fuel mass and imparted velocity (delta-v.) LEO velocity is about 7000m/s. You need to get to about 11000m/s to escape earth's gravity, so let's assume you need about an additional 40% fuel to do the job. That fuel doesn't just magically appear in LEO ready to be used. You had to increase the launch vehicle's initial fuel mass by that amount. Now the beast it heavier, and you need even more fuel/thrust to compensate for it.
I believe that it's approximately a square-law relationship between delta-v and fuel - i.e. 2x faster requires 4x fuel. (Bear with me, this is Slashdot napkin math, and I'm feeling too lazy to actually do the calcs right now.) So to get the 1.5x delta-v required for trans-lunar injection, you'll need to roughly double the initial fuel mass.
The Shuttle's engines are impressive. Unfortunately, they're shackled to a crapload of multi-mission deadweight that seriously impairs the system performance. The Shuttle is the wrong vehicle to try to send to the moon. Even if it could stop at the ISS and re-fuel the main tank, it'd never get back.
The US Space Shuttle has significant capabilities - like returning heavy payloads back from orbit - that even *we* don't use. The primary return-mission for the Shuttle is to return the Leonardo module from the ISS. Leonardo, if you don't know, is a glorified trash can. Hell, if you compare the Saturn V launch capability to the Shuttle, the US space program took a giant step backwards because of the Shuttle (and associated politics.)
The Shuttle is the equivalent of a pickup truck that's been tasked with replacing tractor-trailers, Greyhound busses, garbage trucks, and NASCAR race cars. Sure, it's capable of performing all those funcitons, just don't expect it to perform any of them well.
Consider what space exploration would be like today if the Saturn V (or VI or VII) were in service today, in concert with a crew-only vehicle to transport the sentient meat. Use the Saturn booster to take the large, heavy ISS sections into (a useful) orbit, and haul the people up and down on a vehicle designed just for that. And while we're at it, just how do any future missions plan to escape earth orbit (to go places like, say, the Moon?) The Shuttle is incapable of getting out of LEO, so you ain't gonna use that. The Saturn series were the only ones that could get useful[*] payloads into a lunar insertion orbit. The Delta IV Heavy might be able to do it, but it'll be a smaller payload than a Saturn, and it'll be sans meat.
[*] I use the term "useful" here because it's obvious we can get 1000kg to Mars or to the Moon or to interesting comets. But in terms of establishing a manned presence on another planet/moon, we need to send lots more than that... and not in 1000kg chunks.
Play-Doh (now owned by Hasbro) has a toy called the Fun Factory. It's all about extrusions, and even comes with multiple extrusion dice. I'd expect this to be more familiar to the young'uns than a pastry/piping bag. Hasbro even uses the term "extruder" on the website.
Also relevant - you don't need a piping bad to make Ramens, but I'll bet the Slashdot audience has used Play-Doh.
The other day I was channel surfing, and I bumped into Deep Core. At first I thought it was a Star Trek episode, because Terry Farrell was in it too. Do you find that directors/producers want to team you up with other ST:TNG cast members when you go looking for work?
(Incidentally, it was pretty clear that your character was going to die when the mission commander was looking for someone to "help" fix the cheesy exposed u-joint. I was kinda hoping for rubber-suited lava monsters, but no dice...)
I disagree. There are certainly motovations for altering the vehicle's track. If I can squeeze my vehicle through a gap where the op-for vehicle can't, I've gained a tactical advantage. Example: The Humvee has a high-ground-clearance powertrain that requires a ring/pinion structure on each wheel hub. That's extra weight and complexity, and should have already been removed (by your arguement) in exchange for something that's easier to maintain. The military is willing to pay for tactical advantage in the form of both dollars and effort.
Also, this new vehicle doesn't have a conventional hard driveline, so the interaction between the suspension and powertrain is going to be fundamentally different from a more conventional structure. Comparing to the complexities of a shaft-driven tank suspension isn't going to give you useful information.
On a similar note, I was watching the Discovery Channel the other night, and they had a show on about demolition equipment. One wrecker was based on a Cat tracked chassis that could *gasp* alter it's track width. So there's commercial value in such a concept (in spite of the increased complexity and maintenance cost.) Like I said, I disagree with you.
First, the $5000 hospital bill should have been submitted to your auto insurance company. Most states require insurance (or they pull your license.) I won't pursue the "driving without a license is bad" rant, as it's not pretinent.
Second, how much did you pay for said vehicle that your placed on it's lid? Did you pay... oh, I don't know... $5k or more? Probably. Did that sudden >$5000 debt plunge you into bankruptcy? No, there's a magical financial instrument to help you out of your situation... it's called "a loan." Yes, it might take a while to pay off, but you can certainly shoulder the burden (especially if you can afford to putter around in a vehicle in the first place.) Hell, I've been carrying around over $100k in debt since 1991... it's called "a mortgage." I'm 10 years into the 30-year loan (refinanced in '94), and I haven't become bankrupt yet. Imagine that!
The "new Hummer" is driven by wheel-mounted motors, and that provides some extra capabilities you won't find in a conventional mechanical drivetrain. Most noticably, the track (left-to-right spacing between wheels) can be adjusted. That's a huge capability when you have to pack these things into aircraft or ships.
This vehicle isn't going to completely replace the Humvee, but it will perform certain tasks (like fast recon) much better. The 138hp engine indicates it's not being built as a "do everything" vehicle like the Humvee's supposed to be.
My Dad's company bought a bunch of Sony Watchman monitors for use with luggable video cameras in the 80's. It was quite useful for in-vehicle use (as opposed to sitting with a Panasonic 9" B/W monitor on your lap.)
The electron gun pokes out the side instead of out the back, and there's a parabolic-ish deflector inside the tube to turn the electrons 90 degrees to hit the phosphors. I suspect the technology doesn't scale well. Scan compensation must've been difficult, as each scan line is a different distance from the emitter.
Re:And just who decided he was King?
on
The Music Man
·
· Score: 1
I've had AOL DSL for almost 3 years now. It was originally offered in my area before Verizon got their act together. When Verizon finally did roll out service, it was 2x as expensive as the AOL one I already had. I thought it was ironic that Verizon was providing the PHY services for AOL anyway...
Verizon's prices have dropped, but AOL's rates have stayed pretty rock solid. It doesn't take a genius to recognize that AOL isn't moving with the market. It's possible that the co-lo contractual requirements are financially prohibitive, too.
I believe Verizon is rolling out their FTTH serice in my area now, so I think it's time to check out the cost for a big pipe (bypassing the assmunch local cable company every opportunity I get.)
I agree, but I think the situation is even worse. Some doofus (call him "Bob") with a limited advertising budget is looking to get the most bang for his advertising buck. Most advertising channels have restrictions - either legal or imposed by the BoD (i.e. a magazine for pregnant moms won't carry penis enlargement ads.) Email, however, has little restriction. The spam solution is appealing to Doofus Bob because he gets a gazillion "eyeballs" for the product he's pimping, and he can report to his boss that the "direct marketing campaign is reaching out to X-million potential customers, much more that we could ever achieve through mainstream advertising channels." As long as he maintains the appearance of propriety to *his* boss, then the spamming shall continue. Note that we haven't mentioned anyone actually purchasing said product.
Advertising is something that's pushed at you. It's going to continue to exist as long as it offers orders of magnitude cost benefits over mainstream channels. If spamming in Country X becomes illegal, that raises the cost of spamming through litigation. It'll just move to a different country where the cost comes back down. Adding spam filters increases the cost through technical means, but not by much - the spammers have the same technology available to them.
Standards creation has become part of the modern business model. Invent a "new" standard, patent/copyright/trademark the hell out of it, and use legal means to defend your market turf. Screw building useful products. One you've secured the "market" you can cram whatever crap you build down your customers' throats (assuming you have any.)
This is what we get for letting the MBAs and VCs run the show without smacking them with the engineering stick often enough.
You went to the library seeking information. That's what a library is all about. It's irrelevant as to how the information is packaged - magazine, newspaper, hardcover book... that's just the transport mechanism. You went seeking information. Internet access is a logical extension of the library's charter, so it makes a ton of sense. If you don't want to read some grungy old book that's been thumbed through by countless "unfortunate souls," that's your prerogative; you can purchase a shiny new one at a bookstore. Same goes for your internet access.
All countries run "social programs." Roads are built with tax money or under charter from the gub'ment. Same goes for providing potable water, electricity, sewer... In order to truely prosper, you (we) need to provide infrastructure to all areas, not just the ones that are economically feasible. And yes, you (we) get to foot the bill.
Hyu-mons have a tendency to trend toward the "instant gratification" solution. TiVo and NetFlix will eliminate the technical hurdles - mostly because it's in their best interest to do so. The'll provide a nifty way to catalog the currently stored movies, to display status of the TiVo, etc. If you can get the TiVo working in the first place, the rest will be pretty effortless.
BTW, your grandmother isn't in the target audience, so using her as support for your arguement is irrelevant. The entertainment industry has already abandoned her, and doesn't really expect any revenue potential out of her. She can go rent DVDs if she chooses, and that option will be around until broadband to the home is truely ubiquitous. It'll take another two or three generations to purge the "tangible goods" mentality from the mainstream... but it will happen.
The physical media will always be present, however. Portable devices like camcorders will see to that. It's the distribution medium that's changing. Up until recently, there hasn't been a viable alternative. To say that "poeple will always do this because that's what we do today" is terribly shortsighted. I personally despise going to the video rental store. It's a PiMA, and I have better things to do with my time. In fact, that's the crux of my arguement - I can't replace time, so anything that makes my time usage more efficient is desirable.
The assualt rifle ban was one of those "feel good" pieces of legislation. High-power rifles were never the focus. Lawmakers were aiming to restrict rapid-fire short-barrel weapons that were predominantly used in urban combat evnironments. The final compromises made and the grandfather clauses created a "pre-ban" marketplace that very effectively bypassed the legislation. In summary, it was a complete waste of time.
Banning "dangerous things" is always a bad idea. I have a hammer. It can be used as a weapon. Should it be banned? The distinction between "tool" and "weapon" has nothing to do with the item.
Unfortunately, this position requires that we allow crimes to happen, and forces the police to be reactionary instead of preemptive. It's the only way to allow me, Joe LawAbidingCitizen, to have my freedom.
The only way I see NASA TV carrying coverage of the X-Prize competition is if there is a horrendous failure. Then they'll replay the disaster over and over, with the reminder that "we told you so."
Rutan's already made many public statements about the liability that the NASA culture has become. NASA used to be the premiere space program, but degenerated into a self-serving bureaucracy.
We can't expect substantial innovation out of NASA until something changes. Rutan's thrown down the gauntlet, and given them the big "you're Number One!" If he's successful, the budget-minded politicians are going to start asking "why are we funding NASA when the commercial entities are doing a better job?" As soon as the budget's on the line, NASA will be forced to change. But until then, expect the same lackluster performance out of NASA.
Go Burt!
btw, I checked the NASA TV Event Schedule, and there's a conspicuous gap between 27 September and 1 October. On the 29th, you'll be able to watch regurgitated videos of the ISS and other NASA programs.
The payload is 1.4 kilotons. That's 1400 tons. The CH-54 Sky Crane has a payload capacity of 10 tons. The CH-53E Super Stallion can haul about 16 tons. You'd need more like 200 helicopters to pick up the boat's payload, and more if you want to sling the boat itself around.
The payload is heavy. It was probably sent by boat for a reason.
Mir had been called that at one point, but I think Mir had much more value (and economy) than the ISS. Perhaps we could call the ISS the "Orbiting Space Boondoggle of Death." Barges have a use, after all. The ISS could have been useful, but the reality is that it doesn't *do* anything. I take that back... it does one thing - it provides a function for the Space Shuttles. So the Shuttles and the ISS are locked in a perpetual self-sustenance loop, one supporting the other, for the sole purpose of maintaining the other's existence. Not a good thing.
While folks may note like ELVs, they're the most economical method for putting payloads into orbit. You aren't carrying around all the Shuttle mass just for the purpose of being able to fly it back.
If we expect to maintain any kind of space presence, our launch structure needs to split the hyu-mohn function apart from the cargo function. Haul the ugly bags of mostly water up in a vehicle designed specifically for that purpose, and only on missions requiring the hyu-mohn presence. Everything else goes up in unmanned vehicles. Screw the "reusable" cargo transport. It's less expensive to build the base vehicle for each launch. The crew transport could be reusable, maybe, but should be optimized for crew functions.
Unfortunately, there's a huge industry that's built up around supporting the Shuttle infrastructure. They're not going to let go of the cash cow without a fight.
"FTTP" used to mean Fiber To The Pedestal - the local distribution point for a community or apartment building. That was an architectural offshoot from things like SLC huts and buried distribution vaults. The "pedestal" architecture ties in to the Hybrid Fiber Coax (HFC) cost optimization. They run the expensive fiber to a distribution pedestal, then coax or twisted pair for the customer connection.
Granted, "premesis" makes it sound like it's coming right up to your doorstep. I'll bet there's a greasy marketing weasel behind the terminology selection.
My daughter didn't sleep through the night for the first three years of her life. She has food allergies, mostly related to cow squeezings. The first year of sleeplessness was spent identifying the allergens. The next two years were spent undoing the sleep-cycle conditioning, as well as discovering the sneaky ways food vendors add cow byproducts into all manner of foods.
As someone who has experience with long-duration sleep-deprivation experiments, I can say that you have my sympathies. I strongly recommend that you start teaching your daughter baby sign language. We started at about 6 months, and by 10-11 months we could communicate with our daughter. Made things much better once that happened. Simple things like "more" and "done" and "eat" eliminate a ton of guesswork.
The decomissioned Minuteman II missles are being used as small payload launchers. The bottom section is the Minuteman II, and the upper stages are from Orbital Sciences Pegasus vehicle - the Orion 50 XL and Orion 38. The official vehicle name is "Orbital Suborbital Program Space Launch Vehicle".
Stanford University is using this vehicle to launch small satellites into LEO.
Slashdot Mirror
While the terrestrial broadcasters will scream "you're theifing our signal, you bastards," and DirecTV won't give you local channels for the same arguement, that's not the root cause.
It threatens advertising revenue.
Advertising is regional, and there's a strangle-hold on the broadcasters to keep it that way. The advertisers want to squeeze every last schekel out of the consumers, and they adjust market prices per the tolerance of each individual market. When the folks in LA (either one) can see the prices advertised in NYC or DC or anywhere else, the ability to maintain regional pricing structures is eroded. Product revenue will decline as pricing awareness will drive the prices down (or at least to some median level.)
In order to prevent this, the regional broadcasters will provide a "national content" feed that has different "national level" adverts instead of the regional ones. But they'll squeal like a stuck pig if you re-show the DC ads in Chicago. If you're outside of a major metro area, you can get CBSE or CBSW channels on DirecTV. They're the East and West "national" channels for the major network. It's the same programming, only with different adverts. And no, I don't get to watch those channels because I'm too close to DC.
The problem isn't just that you need more fuel, but that you need to haul that extra fuel up out of Earth's gravity well. So if you need even more fuel to haul the extra fuel to LEO so you can use it to get to the trans-lunar injection orbit.
Example - lets assume a linear relationship between fuel mass and imparted velocity (delta-v.) LEO velocity is about 7000m/s. You need to get to about 11000m/s to escape earth's gravity, so let's assume you need about an additional 40% fuel to do the job. That fuel doesn't just magically appear in LEO ready to be used. You had to increase the launch vehicle's initial fuel mass by that amount. Now the beast it heavier, and you need even more fuel/thrust to compensate for it.
I believe that it's approximately a square-law relationship between delta-v and fuel - i.e. 2x faster requires 4x fuel. (Bear with me, this is Slashdot napkin math, and I'm feeling too lazy to actually do the calcs right now.) So to get the 1.5x delta-v required for trans-lunar injection, you'll need to roughly double the initial fuel mass.
The Shuttle's engines are impressive. Unfortunately, they're shackled to a crapload of multi-mission deadweight that seriously impairs the system performance. The Shuttle is the wrong vehicle to try to send to the moon. Even if it could stop at the ISS and re-fuel the main tank, it'd never get back.
The US Space Shuttle has significant capabilities - like returning heavy payloads back from orbit - that even *we* don't use. The primary return-mission for the Shuttle is to return the Leonardo module from the ISS. Leonardo, if you don't know, is a glorified trash can. Hell, if you compare the Saturn V launch capability to the Shuttle, the US space program took a giant step backwards because of the Shuttle (and associated politics.)
... and not in 1000kg chunks.
The Shuttle is the equivalent of a pickup truck that's been tasked with replacing tractor-trailers, Greyhound busses, garbage trucks, and NASCAR race cars. Sure, it's capable of performing all those funcitons, just don't expect it to perform any of them well.
Consider what space exploration would be like today if the Saturn V (or VI or VII) were in service today, in concert with a crew-only vehicle to transport the sentient meat. Use the Saturn booster to take the large, heavy ISS sections into (a useful) orbit, and haul the people up and down on a vehicle designed just for that. And while we're at it, just how do any future missions plan to escape earth orbit (to go places like, say, the Moon?) The Shuttle is incapable of getting out of LEO, so you ain't gonna use that. The Saturn series were the only ones that could get useful[*] payloads into a lunar insertion orbit. The Delta IV Heavy might be able to do it, but it'll be a smaller payload than a Saturn, and it'll be sans meat.
[*] I use the term "useful" here because it's obvious we can get 1000kg to Mars or to the Moon or to interesting comets. But in terms of establishing a manned presence on another planet/moon, we need to send lots more than that
Play-Doh (now owned by Hasbro) has a toy called the Fun Factory. It's all about extrusions, and even comes with multiple extrusion dice. I'd expect this to be more familiar to the young'uns than a pastry/piping bag. Hasbro even uses the term "extruder" on the website.
Also relevant - you don't need a piping bad to make Ramens, but I'll bet the Slashdot audience has used Play-Doh.
The other day I was channel surfing, and I bumped into Deep Core. At first I thought it was a Star Trek episode, because Terry Farrell was in it too. Do you find that directors/producers want to team you up with other ST:TNG cast members when you go looking for work?
...)
(Incidentally, it was pretty clear that your character was going to die when the mission commander was looking for someone to "help" fix the cheesy exposed u-joint. I was kinda hoping for rubber-suited lava monsters, but no dice
I disagree. There are certainly motovations for altering the vehicle's track. If I can squeeze my vehicle through a gap where the op-for vehicle can't, I've gained a tactical advantage. Example: The Humvee has a high-ground-clearance powertrain that requires a ring/pinion structure on each wheel hub. That's extra weight and complexity, and should have already been removed (by your arguement) in exchange for something that's easier to maintain. The military is willing to pay for tactical advantage in the form of both dollars and effort.
Also, this new vehicle doesn't have a conventional hard driveline, so the interaction between the suspension and powertrain is going to be fundamentally different from a more conventional structure. Comparing to the complexities of a shaft-driven tank suspension isn't going to give you useful information.
On a similar note, I was watching the Discovery Channel the other night, and they had a show on about demolition equipment. One wrecker was based on a Cat tracked chassis that could *gasp* alter it's track width. So there's commercial value in such a concept (in spite of the increased complexity and maintenance cost.) Like I said, I disagree with you.
First, the $5000 hospital bill should have been submitted to your auto insurance company. Most states require insurance (or they pull your license.) I won't pursue the "driving without a license is bad" rant, as it's not pretinent.
... oh, I don't know ... $5k or more? Probably. Did that sudden >$5000 debt plunge you into bankruptcy? No, there's a magical financial instrument to help you out of your situation ... it's called "a loan." Yes, it might take a while to pay off, but you can certainly shoulder the burden (especially if you can afford to putter around in a vehicle in the first place.) Hell, I've been carrying around over $100k in debt since 1991 ... it's called "a mortgage." I'm 10 years into the 30-year loan (refinanced in '94), and I haven't become bankrupt yet. Imagine that!
Second, how much did you pay for said vehicle that your placed on it's lid? Did you pay
The "new Hummer" is driven by wheel-mounted motors, and that provides some extra capabilities you won't find in a conventional mechanical drivetrain. Most noticably, the track (left-to-right spacing between wheels) can be adjusted. That's a huge capability when you have to pack these things into aircraft or ships.
This vehicle isn't going to completely replace the Humvee, but it will perform certain tasks (like fast recon) much better. The 138hp engine indicates it's not being built as a "do everything" vehicle like the Humvee's supposed to be.
My Dad's company bought a bunch of Sony Watchman monitors for use with luggable video cameras in the 80's. It was quite useful for in-vehicle use (as opposed to sitting with a Panasonic 9" B/W monitor on your lap.)
The electron gun pokes out the side instead of out the back, and there's a parabolic-ish deflector inside the tube to turn the electrons 90 degrees to hit the phosphors. I suspect the technology doesn't scale well. Scan compensation must've been difficult, as each scan line is a different distance from the emitter.
I believe the watery-tart threw the sword at him.
I've had AOL DSL for almost 3 years now. It was originally offered in my area before Verizon got their act together. When Verizon finally did roll out service, it was 2x as expensive as the AOL one I already had. I thought it was ironic that Verizon was providing the PHY services for AOL anyway ...
Verizon's prices have dropped, but AOL's rates have stayed pretty rock solid. It doesn't take a genius to recognize that AOL isn't moving with the market. It's possible that the co-lo contractual requirements are financially prohibitive, too.
I believe Verizon is rolling out their FTTH serice in my area now, so I think it's time to check out the cost for a big pipe (bypassing the assmunch local cable company every opportunity I get.)
The folks who think "Turd Sandwich" and "Giant Douche" are off-topic clearly weren't watching SouthPark this week.
Yes, they're both very on-topic.
I agree, but I think the situation is even worse. Some doofus (call him "Bob") with a limited advertising budget is looking to get the most bang for his advertising buck. Most advertising channels have restrictions - either legal or imposed by the BoD (i.e. a magazine for pregnant moms won't carry penis enlargement ads.) Email, however, has little restriction. The spam solution is appealing to Doofus Bob because he gets a gazillion "eyeballs" for the product he's pimping, and he can report to his boss that the "direct marketing campaign is reaching out to X-million potential customers, much more that we could ever achieve through mainstream advertising channels." As long as he maintains the appearance of propriety to *his* boss, then the spamming shall continue. Note that we haven't mentioned anyone actually purchasing said product.
Advertising is something that's pushed at you. It's going to continue to exist as long as it offers orders of magnitude cost benefits over mainstream channels. If spamming in Country X becomes illegal, that raises the cost of spamming through litigation. It'll just move to a different country where the cost comes back down. Adding spam filters increases the cost through technical means, but not by much - the spammers have the same technology available to them.
Standards creation has become part of the modern business model. Invent a "new" standard, patent/copyright/trademark the hell out of it, and use legal means to defend your market turf. Screw building useful products. One you've secured the "market" you can cram whatever crap you build down your customers' throats (assuming you have any.)
This is what we get for letting the MBAs and VCs run the show without smacking them with the engineering stick often enough.
You went to the library seeking information. That's what a library is all about. It's irrelevant as to how the information is packaged - magazine, newspaper, hardcover book ... that's just the transport mechanism. You went seeking information. Internet access is a logical extension of the library's charter, so it makes a ton of sense. If you don't want to read some grungy old book that's been thumbed through by countless "unfortunate souls," that's your prerogative; you can purchase a shiny new one at a bookstore. Same goes for your internet access.
... In order to truely prosper, you (we) need to provide infrastructure to all areas, not just the ones that are economically feasible. And yes, you (we) get to foot the bill.
All countries run "social programs." Roads are built with tax money or under charter from the gub'ment. Same goes for providing potable water, electricity, sewer
Hyu-mons have a tendency to trend toward the "instant gratification" solution. TiVo and NetFlix will eliminate the technical hurdles - mostly because it's in their best interest to do so. The'll provide a nifty way to catalog the currently stored movies, to display status of the TiVo, etc. If you can get the TiVo working in the first place, the rest will be pretty effortless.
... but it will happen.
BTW, your grandmother isn't in the target audience, so using her as support for your arguement is irrelevant. The entertainment industry has already abandoned her, and doesn't really expect any revenue potential out of her. She can go rent DVDs if she chooses, and that option will be around until broadband to the home is truely ubiquitous. It'll take another two or three generations to purge the "tangible goods" mentality from the mainstream
The physical media will always be present, however. Portable devices like camcorders will see to that. It's the distribution medium that's changing. Up until recently, there hasn't been a viable alternative. To say that "poeple will always do this because that's what we do today" is terribly shortsighted. I personally despise going to the video rental store. It's a PiMA, and I have better things to do with my time. In fact, that's the crux of my arguement - I can't replace time, so anything that makes my time usage more efficient is desirable.
The assualt rifle ban was one of those "feel good" pieces of legislation. High-power rifles were never the focus. Lawmakers were aiming to restrict rapid-fire short-barrel weapons that were predominantly used in urban combat evnironments. The final compromises made and the grandfather clauses created a "pre-ban" marketplace that very effectively bypassed the legislation. In summary, it was a complete waste of time.
Banning "dangerous things" is always a bad idea. I have a hammer. It can be used as a weapon. Should it be banned? The distinction between "tool" and "weapon" has nothing to do with the item.
Unfortunately, this position requires that we allow crimes to happen, and forces the police to be reactionary instead of preemptive. It's the only way to allow me, Joe LawAbidingCitizen, to have my freedom.
The only way I see NASA TV carrying coverage of the X-Prize competition is if there is a horrendous failure. Then they'll replay the disaster over and over, with the reminder that "we told you so."
Rutan's already made many public statements about the liability that the NASA culture has become. NASA used to be the premiere space program, but degenerated into a self-serving bureaucracy.
We can't expect substantial innovation out of NASA until something changes. Rutan's thrown down the gauntlet, and given them the big "you're Number One!" If he's successful, the budget-minded politicians are going to start asking "why are we funding NASA when the commercial entities are doing a better job?" As soon as the budget's on the line, NASA will be forced to change. But until then, expect the same lackluster performance out of NASA.
Go Burt!
btw, I checked the NASA TV Event Schedule, and there's a conspicuous gap between 27 September and 1 October. On the 29th, you'll be able to watch regurgitated videos of the ISS and other NASA programs.
I, for one, welcome our new politicial overlords
oh damn
There are alternatives, like FrangiBolts, but nothing is as small and reliable as the explosive kind.
The payload is 1.4 kilotons. That's 1400 tons. The CH-54 Sky Crane has a payload capacity of 10 tons. The CH-53E Super Stallion can haul about 16 tons. You'd need more like 200 helicopters to pick up the boat's payload, and more if you want to sling the boat itself around.
The payload is heavy. It was probably sent by boat for a reason.
Mir had been called that at one point, but I think Mir had much more value (and economy) than the ISS. Perhaps we could call the ISS the "Orbiting Space Boondoggle of Death." Barges have a use, after all. The ISS could have been useful, but the reality is that it doesn't *do* anything. I take that back ... it does one thing - it provides a function for the Space Shuttles. So the Shuttles and the ISS are locked in a perpetual self-sustenance loop, one supporting the other, for the sole purpose of maintaining the other's existence. Not a good thing.
While folks may note like ELVs, they're the most economical method for putting payloads into orbit. You aren't carrying around all the Shuttle mass just for the purpose of being able to fly it back.
If we expect to maintain any kind of space presence, our launch structure needs to split the hyu-mohn function apart from the cargo function. Haul the ugly bags of mostly water up in a vehicle designed specifically for that purpose, and only on missions requiring the hyu-mohn presence. Everything else goes up in unmanned vehicles. Screw the "reusable" cargo transport. It's less expensive to build the base vehicle for each launch. The crew transport could be reusable, maybe, but should be optimized for crew functions.
Unfortunately, there's a huge industry that's built up around supporting the Shuttle infrastructure. They're not going to let go of the cash cow without a fight.
"FTTP" used to mean Fiber To The Pedestal - the local distribution point for a community or apartment building. That was an architectural offshoot from things like SLC huts and buried distribution vaults. The "pedestal" architecture ties in to the Hybrid Fiber Coax (HFC) cost optimization. They run the expensive fiber to a distribution pedestal, then coax or twisted pair for the customer connection.
Granted, "premesis" makes it sound like it's coming right up to your doorstep. I'll bet there's a greasy marketing weasel behind the terminology selection.
My daughter didn't sleep through the night for the first three years of her life. She has food allergies, mostly related to cow squeezings. The first year of sleeplessness was spent identifying the allergens. The next two years were spent undoing the sleep-cycle conditioning, as well as discovering the sneaky ways food vendors add cow byproducts into all manner of foods.
As someone who has experience with long-duration sleep-deprivation experiments, I can say that you have my sympathies. I strongly recommend that you start teaching your daughter baby sign language. We started at about 6 months, and by 10-11 months we could communicate with our daughter. Made things much better once that happened. Simple things like "more" and "done" and "eat" eliminate a ton of guesswork.
The decomissioned Minuteman II missles are being used as small payload launchers. The bottom section is the Minuteman II, and the upper stages are from Orbital Sciences Pegasus vehicle - the Orion 50 XL and Orion 38. The official vehicle name is "Orbital Suborbital Program Space Launch Vehicle".
Stanford University is using this vehicle to launch small satellites into LEO.