Re:You wouldn't see a thing!
on
Mastering Light
·
· Score: 1
if all light would travel thru you, your eyes, working on the principle of REFLECTION of light, would become useless...
Beware the invisible man, stumbling his clumsy way around!
oh, well...
Wow; Makes a lot of sense. couldnt they let the device vibrate w electricity, like errrrr xtals do, mount a transparant xtal in front of it or sumting like that.
(just because the idea of a lightsource making a lot of noise seems kinda problematic for everyday use...)
This monstrusosity smells 'like decaying fish,' people actually paying to see the plant live, beware! Much safer for yer nostrils to see it on the web.
NASA could also hire launch hardware, instead of building it by themselves.
it would give a boost to the market, the know they have a customer with certain needs, and they will make sure it is cost-effective.
If NASA put up an 'ad' saying: we ned a man rated launcher, for at least 4 launches a year, an unmanned launcher, capacity XXXX et.c., i'm sure SOMEONE would come up with sumtin useful.
If they did that, maybe Russia's behemoth ENERGYA booster would become used again, it was awesome, but flew only once, there was no market for it...
Also, the small fishes could benefit, if NASA prepaid them for their first several small launches, they could literally go far.
And NASA could stick to developping sciencemodules, habitats et.c. everybody wins.
(ok; i know, oversiplicized; but hey, i've been thru a long and boring day, so my brainzz are kinda rusty)
Myth: digitized info is easier to preserve.
As you said: some info predates American Revolution. All they had to do was stack these books somewhere reasonably safe, an they'll be there for hundreds of years, i don't see that happening with digital data, unless they spend an awful lot of money on backups et.c.
AND LET'S FACE IT: THEY WON'T BOTHER
Imagine, your greatgreat...grand children finding a heap of CD-R's in the attic. chances are fairly slim they'll be able to read them. compare that to the old diary you find on YOUR grandma's attic... A lot of stable stuff (ie books, photographs, et.c.) are trashed after digitizing, only to find out, let's say 20 years later, they don't have the machines anymore to read the stuff...
It's happening everywhere, all the time, digital storage is IMMATURE, but we like to think it's the solution to everything.
i guess a lot of personal stuff, like digital photo's will vanish w/o a trace, while that old shoebox with old black&whites will last some generations more.
their secret? They don't need no machines to read them...
Yea, this has been common knowledge for eons. i remember writing sumtin similar in BASIC on a crappy 64k amstrad to protect my programtapes...Back in the 80's. Even then we geeks (2 on the whole school, called us the freak brothers...) had read about things like that in magazines, so, old hat.
Thoze modern day computer kiddies...
THREE WEEKS to develop a photograph?????
Where on earth did they get that crazily incorrect information? There has never been a photographic process that took three weeks developing. But, i guess they'll get away with it, with all those 'when i wuz young, i hadda walk up AND down a mountain for three weeks to develop a frigging snapshot...'
Oh boy, there we go again, on the ebay link you find another link that links to the thingy istself, its servin one page, last time i saw it, it had a paltry707 hits, afraid it will go down like a 707 wihout kerosene real fast...
Owner: 'What's that funny smell? Why is my legobox melting?..AAAARRRGGG F**K YOU Slashdot!'
yea, DS-1 and NEAR, that was fun! It was a real adventure to follow all the technical solutions and extensions to the misions, the daring experiments (the unplanned landing on an asteroid!)
Think FBC just made it psychologically possible to be that daring with the hardware, like, its cheap stuff, cobbled together, what would happen if we tried to mcguyver this broken startracker, if its not gonna work, well, pity, but, the bird was beyond its primary mission anyway.
With expensive hardware, there wwill be alot more hesitation to experiment, the financial risk being too big. Afraid these rovers will be idling al lot of times when nervous technicians see a big bad boulder in front of them -pushing that big red emergency stop button on their consoles, afraid to bump into it, despite the auto-anti-collisionwhatsoever software built in.
(and 15 minutes later, the lander grinds to a halt, the boulder already far behind... sigh)
No, there are years of work going into a mission like this. its not like, "Whoa, colombia desintegrated! let's put sum rovers on mars quick!"
the building of these complex thingies can't be done in a couple of months, we're nowhere that far technically speaking.
Agreed on all points.
Can't disagree w the fact he HAS an agenda, still... it's an interesting one...
sure it's easy to keep saying its 70's technology blahblahblah, it's not. They keep upgrading the things on a regular basis. and it would be a waste to scrap the shuttles.
Well maybe NASA'll get some more money to do the right thing. That's all where it boils down to: axing their budgets again and again and again, no wonder they 'have' to make shortcuts into safetyprotocols; no wonder they don't have 'big plans' in the pipeline; they're having a hard time keeping up as it is, right now.
BUT! I still think Nasa shouldve had a cheaper tranfersystem for people, working in tandem with STS.
>the basic design is sound...
NOT! Recent hearings (read all about it on spacedaily.com unearthed the quite shocking truth that administrators and presidents thru the years were aware of the flawed design. They built the big external tank in such a way that the risk of debris was always there. The leading edges of the Shuttle's wings were not built to survive impact of debris, they assumed that the ext. tank would e built in a fashion that prevented shedding of ice, insulation et.c. Also administrators knew it was a horrible expensive system, but by manipulating numbers they got the green light to start building.
Mind you, I still think colombia was a beautiful bird. my heart broke when i heard the news of its demise, havin seen it launched the first time when i was a kid...
Wouldn't be so simple or cheap, All their equipment has to be space- rated, what with all that radiation, weightlessness, extreme vibrations during lift-off and landing... they pulled around an estimated 7G. during landing, et.c....
An you know, i bet American Govt wont let the Russkies play with their newest fancy GPS-SAT-Phones...
Fascination for potential knowledge, I guess. even if we would ever make 'contact,' chances are quite astronomical (yea,...) that we won't be able to interpret the 'message,' but only the fact that there is something out there would be of enourmous importance, it would, at least be a basis for new theories about the emergence of (intelligent) life. I do not agree this is a God replacement, God is supposed to have created the universe (in most religions, i think...) while E.T.'s are merely creatures of that God. even the theologist could have a whole new avenue of thinking: are thes creatures made in the image of god, have they seen a 'Jesus'... et.c.
Yeah, the odds are very low, but the potential gain is ver high, it is like playing lottery for scientists, i guess.
When i was away from my home for a while, some idiot removed the sticker- no unsollicited mail-- from my letterbox.
Sure enough, when i came back i had a hell of a job trying to enter the old house, what with all that junkmail littered and jamming behind my front door... I can imagine he has the same problem now, serves him JUST RIGHT though.
>thinner than the paper your thumb is pressed against right now...
uhm; I dunno how YOU use the internet, but my thumb is pressed against my spacebar, right now:)
while this is 'just' a manned drop test, the actual launch will get him not higher than 30k feet. That's not a space flight.
However, I wish him all the best, for despite al the back seat criticising goin on, he's the one with a dream. just hope he'll be successful, and some big money guys starts dreaming like him, give him lots of money to go boldly where no private company has gone before. If we have to wait for the NASA people we'll be earthbound till eternity. they lost their vision, Steve's got THE RIGHT STUFF
By this i swear i'll bash the first vending machine that tries to lay that kind of trick upon me... God how i hate commercials. this just is not right. im already crazy enough by myself thank you
best thing they could to do, considering it was OLD news: the article starts like: Blah blah blah... 4.6 MILLION YEARS AGO... blah blah blah . Boy, and I thought/. was famous for posting recent stuff????
Private -commercial entrepeneurs like Transorbital are already envisioning this. Wait for their first launch towards the moon. I hope they'll be successful, would love to see the mad scramble towards the moon: Big spacepowers will want to be in to this game, once it wil be blatantly obvious that it is STILL the place to be as a first step into the great beond; Transorbital plans to make this a multimedia SHOW and you can bet your money that it will rock! NASA is just boring for Joe Public, but once small companies actually set foot (even robotically) on the moon, a lot of people will start dreaming again.... And some of those dreamers will effectively ACT and invest on daring new missions.
Slashdot Mirror
if all light would travel thru you, your eyes, working on the principle of REFLECTION of light, would become useless... Beware the invisible man, stumbling his clumsy way around! oh, well...
Wow; Makes a lot of sense. couldnt they let the device vibrate w electricity, like errrrr xtals do, mount a transparant xtal in front of it or sumting like that. (just because the idea of a lightsource making a lot of noise seems kinda problematic for everyday use...)
This monstrusosity smells 'like decaying fish,' people actually paying to see the plant live, beware! Much safer for yer nostrils to see it on the web.
NASA could also hire launch hardware, instead of building it by themselves. it would give a boost to the market, the know they have a customer with certain needs, and they will make sure it is cost-effective. If NASA put up an 'ad' saying: we ned a man rated launcher, for at least 4 launches a year, an unmanned launcher, capacity XXXX et.c., i'm sure SOMEONE would come up with sumtin useful. If they did that, maybe Russia's behemoth ENERGYA booster would become used again, it was awesome, but flew only once, there was no market for it... Also, the small fishes could benefit, if NASA prepaid them for their first several small launches, they could literally go far. And NASA could stick to developping sciencemodules, habitats et.c. everybody wins. (ok; i know, oversiplicized; but hey, i've been thru a long and boring day, so my brainzz are kinda rusty)
Myth: digitized info is easier to preserve. As you said: some info predates American Revolution. All they had to do was stack these books somewhere reasonably safe, an they'll be there for hundreds of years, i don't see that happening with digital data, unless they spend an awful lot of money on backups et.c. AND LET'S FACE IT: THEY WON'T BOTHER Imagine, your greatgreat...grand children finding a heap of CD-R's in the attic. chances are fairly slim they'll be able to read them. compare that to the old diary you find on YOUR grandma's attic... A lot of stable stuff (ie books, photographs, et.c.) are trashed after digitizing, only to find out, let's say 20 years later, they don't have the machines anymore to read the stuff... It's happening everywhere, all the time, digital storage is IMMATURE, but we like to think it's the solution to everything. i guess a lot of personal stuff, like digital photo's will vanish w/o a trace, while that old shoebox with old black&whites will last some generations more. their secret? They don't need no machines to read them...
Yea, this has been common knowledge for eons. i remember writing sumtin similar in BASIC on a crappy 64k amstrad to protect my programtapes...Back in the 80's. Even then we geeks (2 on the whole school, called us the freak brothers...) had read about things like that in magazines, so, old hat.
Thoze modern day computer kiddies... THREE WEEKS to develop a photograph????? Where on earth did they get that crazily incorrect information? There has never been a photographic process that took three weeks developing. But, i guess they'll get away with it, with all those 'when i wuz young, i hadda walk up AND down a mountain for three weeks to develop a frigging snapshot...'
Oh boy, there we go again, on the ebay link you find another link that links to the thingy istself, its servin one page, last time i saw it, it had a paltry707 hits, afraid it will go down like a 707 wihout kerosene real fast... Owner: 'What's that funny smell? Why is my legobox melting? ..AAAARRRGGG F**K YOU Slashdot!'
yea, DS-1 and NEAR, that was fun! It was a real adventure to follow all the technical solutions and extensions to the misions, the daring experiments (the unplanned landing on an asteroid!) Think FBC just made it psychologically possible to be that daring with the hardware, like, its cheap stuff, cobbled together, what would happen if we tried to mcguyver this broken startracker, if its not gonna work, well, pity, but, the bird was beyond its primary mission anyway. With expensive hardware, there wwill be alot more hesitation to experiment, the financial risk being too big. Afraid these rovers will be idling al lot of times when nervous technicians see a big bad boulder in front of them -pushing that big red emergency stop button on their consoles, afraid to bump into it, despite the auto-anti-collisionwhatsoever software built in. (and 15 minutes later, the lander grinds to a halt, the boulder already far behind... sigh)
No, there are years of work going into a mission like this. its not like, "Whoa, colombia desintegrated! let's put sum rovers on mars quick!" the building of these complex thingies can't be done in a couple of months, we're nowhere that far technically speaking.
Agreed on all points. Can't disagree w the fact he HAS an agenda, still... it's an interesting one... sure it's easy to keep saying its 70's technology blahblahblah, it's not. They keep upgrading the things on a regular basis. and it would be a waste to scrap the shuttles. Well maybe NASA'll get some more money to do the right thing. That's all where it boils down to: axing their budgets again and again and again, no wonder they 'have' to make shortcuts into safetyprotocols; no wonder they don't have 'big plans' in the pipeline; they're having a hard time keeping up as it is, right now. BUT! I still think Nasa shouldve had a cheaper tranfersystem for people, working in tandem with STS.
>the basic design is sound... NOT! Recent hearings (read all about it on spacedaily.com unearthed the quite shocking truth that administrators and presidents thru the years were aware of the flawed design. They built the big external tank in such a way that the risk of debris was always there. The leading edges of the Shuttle's wings were not built to survive impact of debris, they assumed that the ext. tank would e built in a fashion that prevented shedding of ice, insulation et.c. Also administrators knew it was a horrible expensive system, but by manipulating numbers they got the green light to start building. Mind you, I still think colombia was a beautiful bird. my heart broke when i heard the news of its demise, havin seen it launched the first time when i was a kid...
Wouldn't be so simple or cheap, All their equipment has to be space- rated, what with all that radiation, weightlessness, extreme vibrations during lift-off and landing... they pulled around an estimated 7G. during landing, et.c.... An you know, i bet American Govt wont let the Russkies play with their newest fancy GPS-SAT-Phones...
Heh. Thank you so much for porting a better IE to the Mac, Billy...
mehinks that whole spambusiness has been launched by some evil genius to make us forget bitching about the time we lose due to crappy software
Fascination for potential knowledge, I guess. even if we would ever make 'contact,' chances are quite astronomical (yea,...) that we won't be able to interpret the 'message,' but only the fact that there is something out there would be of enourmous importance, it would, at least be a basis for new theories about the emergence of (intelligent) life. I do not agree this is a God replacement, God is supposed to have created the universe (in most religions, i think...) while E.T.'s are merely creatures of that God. even the theologist could have a whole new avenue of thinking: are thes creatures made in the image of god, have they seen a 'Jesus'... et.c. Yeah, the odds are very low, but the potential gain is ver high, it is like playing lottery for scientists, i guess.
Weird then, that the president is a man named Rosentahl... hmm...
When i was away from my home for a while, some idiot removed the sticker- no unsollicited mail-- from my letterbox. Sure enough, when i came back i had a hell of a job trying to enter the old house, what with all that junkmail littered and jamming behind my front door... I can imagine he has the same problem now, serves him JUST RIGHT though.
>thinner than the paper your thumb is pressed against right now... uhm; I dunno how YOU use the internet, but my thumb is pressed against my spacebar, right now :)
even Hubble, high in the sky, will be /. ed...
while this is 'just' a manned drop test, the actual launch will get him not higher than 30k feet. That's not a space flight. However, I wish him all the best, for despite al the back seat criticising goin on, he's the one with a dream. just hope he'll be successful, and some big money guys starts dreaming like him, give him lots of money to go boldly where no private company has gone before. If we have to wait for the NASA people we'll be earthbound till eternity. they lost their vision, Steve's got THE RIGHT STUFF
By this i swear i'll bash the first vending machine that tries to lay that kind of trick upon me... God how i hate commercials. this just is not right. im already crazy enough by myself thank you
... and still in use by NASA to test all their new fancy scramjet thingies
best thing they could to do, considering it was OLD news: the article starts like: Blah blah blah... 4.6 MILLION YEARS AGO... blah blah blah . Boy, and I thought /. was famous for posting recent stuff????
Private -commercial entrepeneurs like Transorbital are already envisioning this. Wait for their first launch towards the moon. I hope they'll be successful, would love to see the mad scramble towards the moon: Big spacepowers will want to be in to this game, once it wil be blatantly obvious that it is STILL the place to be as a first step into the great beond; Transorbital plans to make this a multimedia SHOW and you can bet your money that it will rock! NASA is just boring for Joe Public, but once small companies actually set foot (even robotically) on the moon, a lot of people will start dreaming again.... And some of those dreamers will effectively ACT and invest on daring new missions.