They have suffered less loses and have also produced less tangible results as a much higher compairative cost to the public. It's silly to justify the loss-of-life-to-mission ratio based on the number of people lost in previous, terrestial explorations.
I'm sure that everytime explorer's in the past grabbed every oportunity to 1) reduce cost and 2) increase the chances of a successful mission by using better, newer hardware. Also consider that the rate of techological innovation in the life-time of the explorers you mention was considerably slower then it is today. Like wise, those explorers didn't use older, more run down vessels to complete their missions.
Even if there *was* an escape pod it would be useless in a reentry situation, at least with the way we do reentries right now. The number and strength of the forces acting on the shuttle during the reentry phase make escape pods high impractical if not impossible. Besides, there probably wouldn't be enough time to get into an escape vehicle.
Glenn compared the situation with the space shuttle to the airline system.
"Airplanes fall out of the sky, and you don't stop flying," Glenn said.
If planes fall out of the sky at a rate of 1 in every 57 you do stop flying. You can take my word on it. In fact, if 1 in 57 cars on the road suffered a mechanical failure that resulted in the death of 7 people you can bet people would stop driving them too.
Simply put, weight. The larger the experiment, the more weight, the more cost to put the shuttle into space, the higher the cost for the people funding the research.
The real question is why are we still using the shuttle? Sure it's one of the better designs for reentry into an atmosphere but there has got to be more efficient and cost effective ways of getting people and objects to space.
If that was entirely true then why did SCO last week send out notices to companies stating that if they use Linux they could posibly face legal action?
I'm loath to reply to this but this has nothing to do with conspiracy. Microsoft has publicly id'ed IBM and Linux as two of it's major concerns. If they were able to get their hands on the property that SCO claims is being infringed on, and if the claim is credible, they would have a legal platform from which to attack both business threats.
To just write it off as so much conspiracy talk is to ignore the obvious potential advantage Microsoft could try to exploit. Heck, I would do the same thing if I was them and I thought it would work.
...that if Microsoft could by a patent for the right bits of the code they could then turn around and take SCO's legal threats to a new level. Lets face it, Microsoft has the monitary clout to seriously impact Linux if it takes critical members to court. How many developers would put projects on hold or be forced to put projects on hold because of legal proceedings?
And don't think this is typical Linux FUD either. Microsoft has already publicly identified Linux as a credible threat in certain market places.
If you are that close to the screen you don't need a 19" monitor. Your straining your eyes too much. The 17" or even a 15" (although I wouldn't go that small) would be easier on you.
Electronic, reuseable paper. I've been mentioning something like this to the people I work with for months. Not that I'm in research and development. But imagine, in you are in a place that absolutely has to have paper records, what better way to keep them then on electronic paper? Ideally the paper would have some type of port so you could dump the info into a word processor of some type. And even if the paper cost 10 times as much as regular paper, over time it would pay for it's self; fiscally and ecologically.
...is that I never seem to get a good a refresh on one as I to with a standard CRT. Any games that I play that have fast moving objects (simulators, FPSers, etc.) aren't handled very well by the flat panels...
At least that has been my experience. Has anyone else experienced something different? Any models you could recommend?
You've made a number of well reasoned and clearly stated points but I still maintain the issue is a social issue and not something that is resolved by hardening security. That just makes it a little less convenient.
Good point, and a valid arguement. And I agree, I don't buy the arguement that if it's available for a reasonable price people will pay for it when it's so easy to get it for free. I don't think that adding an additional layer of security is going to "fix" the "problem" though. For example, I don't buy the arguement that the entertainment industry is loosing millions of dollars due to p2p networks. Every industry, with the posible exclussion of the oil industry, it taking a hit with the economic downturn.
The problem, as I see it, with trying to throw a hardware solution against a social issue is that people are crafty. If they really want to steal the content, they will find a way. No matter what measures you try and implement. The only way entirely stop the sharing of illegal copies of movies and such is to break the file system so that NO files can be copied.
These big companies should be spending their time trying to determine what is the modivating factor that causes these activities and fix that. Unfortunatly that is a harder and more expensive problem to deal with and probably doesn't fit into their bottom line.
That's a good question, but if you look again at the article it seems clear that Billy and Co aren't going to be shipping two versions of the same operating system. It seems that there will be one version that will check to see if the appropriate hardware is there, and if it isn't it will disable the added security features built into the OS. That means you wouldn't be able to generate the proper security certificates to encript or decript a locked down file from a "secure" PC.
The other problem is that a machine with the added security disabled (or not available because the required hardware isn't present) won't be able to access anything online that requires the security feature to unlock digital content, be it music or video or documents.
In part I think it's stupid to bury it so deep into the hardware, the same thing could be accomplished by creating an expansion card that acts as a security dongle.
You've got it exactly, Windows right now and probably the first couple of releases will run just fine on normal hardware but how long will it be before the hardware manufactures stop running two product lines, one secure and one open? And once that happens why would Microsoft continue to provide a version that runs on unsecure hardware?
I think a big problem with this is the companies are trying to use hardware restrictions on a primarily social problem. It's not the big companies that are providing their movies and music on a digital format that is being distributed. It's regular people who are taking camcorders into theatres and recording the movie, then downloading it onto their computer and sharing it. How can a hardware restriction effect a user created file if the user doesn't apply rights to it? You would have to disable all file mobility.
Trying to lock down the movie and sound formats won't work either because people will either (a) use older formats or (b) create their own players to be shared with the movies and music.
The great thing about this game is it's got a built in time limit. It will only work so long as you provide the ammo! I do have a couple of questions though...
Does it have a boss key?
Does it keep a top score?
What happens if you've got the top score and no more juice left to select the initials?
How do you tell the difference between someone who's looking over your shoulder to see your top score and someone who's looking over your shoulder just to get their kicks?
Is there a better score for a lower calibre weapon?
Even though it is illegal to intercept a communication without a warrant the only why you would even know about it is if the intercepted communication was used against you some how.
The tough question is how much of civial liberty is appropriate to give away in the interest of national security? Especially considering that what is reasonable in one persons view is unreasonable in someone elses.
When your entire monitary and social structure is based on greed you can only expect things to get more expensive with time.
And you can expect companies to screw their employees by going to cheaper and cheaper labour. After all, the effect in the short term is hardly noticeable even though over time it will completely shift the ecconomic base from the richest countries to the poorer countries.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure that everytime explorer's in the past grabbed every oportunity to 1) reduce cost and 2) increase the chances of a successful mission by using better, newer hardware. Also consider that the rate of techological innovation in the life-time of the explorers you mention was considerably slower then it is today. Like wise, those explorers didn't use older, more run down vessels to complete their missions.
Even if there *was* an escape pod it would be useless in a reentry situation, at least with the way we do reentries right now. The number and strength of the forces acting on the shuttle during the reentry phase make escape pods high impractical if not impossible. Besides, there probably wouldn't be enough time to get into an escape vehicle.
"Airplanes fall out of the sky, and you don't stop flying," Glenn said.
If planes fall out of the sky at a rate of 1 in every 57 you do stop flying. You can take my word on it. In fact, if 1 in 57 cars on the road suffered a mechanical failure that resulted in the death of 7 people you can bet people would stop driving them too.
The real question is why are we still using the shuttle? Sure it's one of the better designs for reentry into an atmosphere but there has got to be more efficient and cost effective ways of getting people and objects to space.
lol, I haven't read the article but when I read your post I thought it WAS a joke!! lol.
If that was entirely true then why did SCO last week send out notices to companies stating that if they use Linux they could posibly face legal action?
To just write it off as so much conspiracy talk is to ignore the obvious potential advantage Microsoft could try to exploit. Heck, I would do the same thing if I was them and I thought it would work.
And don't think this is typical Linux FUD either. Microsoft has already publicly identified Linux as a credible threat in certain market places.
How big is the page? How big are the letters? How many words per page?
If you are that close to the screen you don't need a 19" monitor. Your straining your eyes too much. The 17" or even a 15" (although I wouldn't go that small) would be easier on you.
Besides that I think the point was to have the ability to turn the "wall-less" appearance on and off at will.
Electronic, reuseable paper. I've been mentioning something like this to the people I work with for months. Not that I'm in research and development. But imagine, in you are in a place that absolutely has to have paper records, what better way to keep them then on electronic paper? Ideally the paper would have some type of port so you could dump the info into a word processor of some type. And even if the paper cost 10 times as much as regular paper, over time it would pay for it's self; fiscally and ecologically.
At least that has been my experience. Has anyone else experienced something different? Any models you could recommend?
There is a simple solution to that, mount a keyboard tray under your desk. One of the ones that is easy to recess.
I was not aware of that. Thank you.
Why pay someone else to do what you can quickly do yourself? Just say no to pop-up blockers.
You've made a number of well reasoned and clearly stated points but I still maintain the issue is a social issue and not something that is resolved by hardening security. That just makes it a little less convenient.
The problem, as I see it, with trying to throw a hardware solution against a social issue is that people are crafty. If they really want to steal the content, they will find a way. No matter what measures you try and implement. The only way entirely stop the sharing of illegal copies of movies and such is to break the file system so that NO files can be copied.
These big companies should be spending their time trying to determine what is the modivating factor that causes these activities and fix that. Unfortunatly that is a harder and more expensive problem to deal with and probably doesn't fit into their bottom line.
The other problem is that a machine with the added security disabled (or not available because the required hardware isn't present) won't be able to access anything online that requires the security feature to unlock digital content, be it music or video or documents.
In part I think it's stupid to bury it so deep into the hardware, the same thing could be accomplished by creating an expansion card that acts as a security dongle.
Oh look, the encription key is "I love being sodomized by Big Bad Billy
I think a big problem with this is the companies are trying to use hardware restrictions on a primarily social problem. It's not the big companies that are providing their movies and music on a digital format that is being distributed. It's regular people who are taking camcorders into theatres and recording the movie, then downloading it onto their computer and sharing it. How can a hardware restriction effect a user created file if the user doesn't apply rights to it? You would have to disable all file mobility.
Trying to lock down the movie and sound formats won't work either because people will either (a) use older formats or (b) create their own players to be shared with the movies and music.
Does it have a boss key?
Does it keep a top score?
What happens if you've got the top score and no more juice left to select the initials?
How do you tell the difference between someone who's looking over your shoulder to see your top score and someone who's looking over your shoulder just to get their kicks?
Is there a better score for a lower calibre weapon?
Now that's the sort of conspiricy theory FUD that slashdot has been lacking for a long time! lol.
The tough question is how much of civial liberty is appropriate to give away in the interest of national security? Especially considering that what is reasonable in one persons view is unreasonable in someone elses.
And you can expect companies to screw their employees by going to cheaper and cheaper labour. After all, the effect in the short term is hardly noticeable even though over time it will completely shift the ecconomic base from the richest countries to the poorer countries.