People said that I was daft to send a fission reactor to Europa, but I did it just the same! Sank into the ocean. So I sent a second one! That sank into the ocean. I built a third one! That one burned up, melted the ice and then sank into the ocean! But the forth one stayed up, and that's what you're gonna get lad!
There's a reason for that. The British has almost completely gutted their carrier fleet, leaving only Invincible class carriers left. These aren't the behemoth's the US's Nimitz class carriers are, these are small carriers that can only handle short take-off and landing aircraft, so you'll see them packed to the gills with Harriers and helicopters (mostly helicopters). This is why those Falkland pilots will say that they loved the Harrier, because they had no other choice! For the US armed forces, which does have massive carriers from which to launch a variety of aircraft, the rate of failure of the jet does not justify it's landing flexibility.
Keep in mind the mass of the Moon, and that of Earth, is not and never has been a constant. Tens of thousands of tons of material rain down on Earth every year, and don't you think the moon is exempt from the bombardment. It would take a hell of a lot of transport for mankind to put a dent in the mass of the Moon with that much accumulation. Despite the growing mass of these two bodies, the moon is still inching its way furthur and furthur from Earth, eventually it'll break free. That is, if the sun doesn't swallow up the inner solar system first.
Short term, you're right, there's no resources that one would want to go to the moon for. Long term, you can chemically extract oxygen and water from lunar rock. Since the moon has 1/6th the gravity of Earth, it becomes a very nice fueling station for longer trips to places where you will find those resources that are worth going into space for. The moon is simply a stepping stone, not an end.
I don't quite think that's what the GP is saying. If you have a lander already available in lunar orbit, then that's less mass you need to worry about when you're trying to reach escape velocity, and thus less energy you need to expend. The craft wouldn't have to stop along the way, just have the proper path to hook up with the waystation orbiting the moon to use the lander. Perhaps you can even forgo the waystation and leave the lander in orbit all by itself.
OK. I was just thinking that since there seems to be little functional difference between a click-through agreement and something just attached to a piece of code that there might be a problem. Plus the word "License" in both the names "End-User License Agreement" and "General Public License" seems it would put them into the same category. But, now that I think about it, copyright should protect it.
No, only so that people wouldn't confuse the Securities and Exchange Commission with his fictitious Stock Exchange Commission. The misspelling was purely accidental. ^_^
Please state specifics. It is better than mpeg-1 for purposes of image quality, NOT for purposes of compatability. Ideally you should strive for an mpeg-1 stream as a secondary source because anyone who can download it can play it without installing new programs/codecs. The quality of an AVI is dependant on one of the many of available codecs for it, ditto for qt, several of which produce better image quality at smaller file sizes than mpeg-1, so I have no idea where the "same as mpeg*100" comes from.
They aren't fighting that battle anymore, it's just what they did when cable companies were first coming online. The FCC regulations for content seem to have equalized across the mediums, at least in practice. I'm not quite up with current standards, only the history. But fines are SOP, and an extreme measure can be a revokation of a broadcasting license.
For more information you can visit the FCC website (www.fcc.gov) or check out books on the history of broadcasting. Most of my knowledge is coming from the handful of college courses I've taken on the subject.
The problem is by making and distributing your film or book you are not interfering with the distribution of other films or books asside from market forces. Meanwhile, with broadcast, if you decided to put up a tranmitter and start broadcasting your broadcast would physically interfer with other broadcasts in that range in that area. With AM, which is all that there was when the FCC was created, the signals being transmitted could have an impact on a national, if not global, scale. The call for regulation originated with the broadcasters themselves because of the interference that was being produced and it's why an entity such as the FCC is necessary.
Now, once you recognize radio frequencies as a resource that needs a government entity to manage it, putting in a requirement that broadcasters serve the public interest is not that much furthur off the mark.
Now, beyond that I agree with you. Congress has no right under the Constitution to delegate its lawmaking authority to another entity. You would think that with the necessity for regulation an amendment could have been crafted with 3/4ths of the states agreeing to it. In addition, with shorter-range airwave broadcasts, such as FM, it might even be possible for the individual states to regulate themselves with only conflicts being handled by the FCC (this would, however, do little for many New England states which would still have to rely on the FCC). With things such as cable CERTAINLY regulation should be up to the individual states (those cable lines are going over public land).
That would be a logical conclusion to draw, but that's not how it worked. FCC were so stringent against cable that they, at one point, were banned from airing network programing at the same time the networks were airing it. Basically the FCC got into regulating the cable industry in order to ensure the dominance of the airwaves over cable.
The example you gave about couples not being allowed to share a bed (they could if one couple had a foot on the floor) was NOT an FCC restriction. It was a restriction imposed and enforced by the broadcasters themselves. It is this kind of self-policing that we are sorely missing today.
Yes, but the various episodes with the gay dog were not about the gay dog, nor did it end with the message "it's ok to be gay." Still, South Park is still on the air while Family Guy was cancled.
Not true. The FCC regulates cable just as they regulate broadcast. They simply don't get involved until someone complains. Believe it or not, no one complained to the FCC when South Park said "shit" a hundred times.
No, that distinction goes to Futurama, which has jokes that require you to have a basic understanding of quantum mechanics. Family Guy is up there, though.
Except South Park is cable, Family Guy is network. There is a massive difference. Cable channels can take far greater risks as they generally cater to niche audiences. So if Comedy Central alienates the "moral majority" with an episode about a gay dog, it doesn't hurt them much because the audience that was offended probably wasn't watching Comedy Central anyway.
Actually we're in JUST the right RANGE from the sun, which is far more tolerant than you'd think. Besides, if we start mining in space we would also have the capability to change the Earth's orbit through a creative use of asteroids and slingshot maneuvers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1154784.stm
Honestly though, with NASA's penchant for missing it's targets, I would hate to think what they'd do with 100km asteroid.
It's a Victorian attitude, not Puritanical. The Puritans actually had laws to require sex between married coupels. Blame the Puritans for our proclivity to burn accused witches at the stake, not for our fear of sex.
Farscape was actually the biggest ratings winner Sci-Fi had. It was cancled because the Sci-Fi channel didn't want to be the Sci-Fi channel anymore, and instead wanted to concentrate more on horror. Even cable channels do stupid things.
Considering people are living longer while the retirement age isn't being raised, you're getting fewer of those hard working Americans directly contributing to it in relation to the number directly taking from it, and that's not even accounting for the baby boomers. Some people in my generation wonder if SS is even going to be around by the time we're old enough to benifit from it with the current trend. So no, I wouldn't say SS is off limits from a practicle standpoint by a long shot. From a political standpoint, it's almost a career ender to suggest such changes.
Why pick on the defense budget ($358.2 Billion) when it's behind the budgets for Health and Human Services ($502 Billion) and Social Security ($509.9 Billion)?
Yes, here's a quote from the article I found particularly funny:
"Piracy for too long has been high-reward and low-risk," Taylor said. "Legislation such as that being introduced tomorrow will go a long way toward changing that equation."
I want to know what strange universe this guy lives in where getting to see The Hulk for free is considered "high-reward." I would think that would be punishment in and of itself.
Slashdot Mirror
People said that I was daft to send a fission reactor to Europa, but I did it just the same! Sank into the ocean. So I sent a second one! That sank into the ocean. I built a third one! That one burned up, melted the ice and then sank into the ocean! But the forth one stayed up, and that's what you're gonna get lad!
There's a reason for that. The British has almost completely gutted their carrier fleet, leaving only Invincible class carriers left. These aren't the behemoth's the US's Nimitz class carriers are, these are small carriers that can only handle short take-off and landing aircraft, so you'll see them packed to the gills with Harriers and helicopters (mostly helicopters). This is why those Falkland pilots will say that they loved the Harrier, because they had no other choice! For the US armed forces, which does have massive carriers from which to launch a variety of aircraft, the rate of failure of the jet does not justify it's landing flexibility.
Keep in mind the mass of the Moon, and that of Earth, is not and never has been a constant. Tens of thousands of tons of material rain down on Earth every year, and don't you think the moon is exempt from the bombardment. It would take a hell of a lot of transport for mankind to put a dent in the mass of the Moon with that much accumulation. Despite the growing mass of these two bodies, the moon is still inching its way furthur and furthur from Earth, eventually it'll break free. That is, if the sun doesn't swallow up the inner solar system first.
Short term, you're right, there's no resources that one would want to go to the moon for. Long term, you can chemically extract oxygen and water from lunar rock. Since the moon has 1/6th the gravity of Earth, it becomes a very nice fueling station for longer trips to places where you will find those resources that are worth going into space for. The moon is simply a stepping stone, not an end.
I don't quite think that's what the GP is saying. If you have a lander already available in lunar orbit, then that's less mass you need to worry about when you're trying to reach escape velocity, and thus less energy you need to expend. The craft wouldn't have to stop along the way, just have the proper path to hook up with the waystation orbiting the moon to use the lander. Perhaps you can even forgo the waystation and leave the lander in orbit all by itself.
OK. I was just thinking that since there seems to be little functional difference between a click-through agreement and something just attached to a piece of code that there might be a problem. Plus the word "License" in both the names "End-User License Agreement" and "General Public License" seems it would put them into the same category. But, now that I think about it, copyright should protect it.
Wait, if EULAs are struck down, what will that do to the GPL? Wouldn't that get tossed out as well with how its generally implemented?
No, only so that people wouldn't confuse the Securities and Exchange Commission with his fictitious Stock Exchange Commission. The misspelling was purely accidental. ^_^
Please state specifics. It is better than mpeg-1 for purposes of image quality, NOT for purposes of compatability. Ideally you should strive for an mpeg-1 stream as a secondary source because anyone who can download it can play it without installing new programs/codecs. The quality of an AVI is dependant on one of the many of available codecs for it, ditto for qt, several of which produce better image quality at smaller file sizes than mpeg-1, so I have no idea where the "same as mpeg*100" comes from.
They aren't fighting that battle anymore, it's just what they did when cable companies were first coming online. The FCC regulations for content seem to have equalized across the mediums, at least in practice. I'm not quite up with current standards, only the history. But fines are SOP, and an extreme measure can be a revokation of a broadcasting license.
For more information you can visit the FCC website (www.fcc.gov) or check out books on the history of broadcasting. Most of my knowledge is coming from the handful of college courses I've taken on the subject.
The problem is by making and distributing your film or book you are not interfering with the distribution of other films or books asside from market forces. Meanwhile, with broadcast, if you decided to put up a tranmitter and start broadcasting your broadcast would physically interfer with other broadcasts in that range in that area. With AM, which is all that there was when the FCC was created, the signals being transmitted could have an impact on a national, if not global, scale. The call for regulation originated with the broadcasters themselves because of the interference that was being produced and it's why an entity such as the FCC is necessary.
Now, once you recognize radio frequencies as a resource that needs a government entity to manage it, putting in a requirement that broadcasters serve the public interest is not that much furthur off the mark.
Now, beyond that I agree with you. Congress has no right under the Constitution to delegate its lawmaking authority to another entity. You would think that with the necessity for regulation an amendment could have been crafted with 3/4ths of the states agreeing to it. In addition, with shorter-range airwave broadcasts, such as FM, it might even be possible for the individual states to regulate themselves with only conflicts being handled by the FCC (this would, however, do little for many New England states which would still have to rely on the FCC). With things such as cable CERTAINLY regulation should be up to the individual states (those cable lines are going over public land).
That would be a logical conclusion to draw, but that's not how it worked. FCC were so stringent against cable that they, at one point, were banned from airing network programing at the same time the networks were airing it. Basically the FCC got into regulating the cable industry in order to ensure the dominance of the airwaves over cable.
The example you gave about couples not being allowed to share a bed (they could if one couple had a foot on the floor) was NOT an FCC restriction. It was a restriction imposed and enforced by the broadcasters themselves. It is this kind of self-policing that we are sorely missing today.
Yes, but the various episodes with the gay dog were not about the gay dog, nor did it end with the message "it's ok to be gay." Still, South Park is still on the air while Family Guy was cancled.
Not true. The FCC regulates cable just as they regulate broadcast. They simply don't get involved until someone complains. Believe it or not, no one complained to the FCC when South Park said "shit" a hundred times.
No, that distinction goes to Futurama, which has jokes that require you to have a basic understanding of quantum mechanics. Family Guy is up there, though.
Except South Park is cable, Family Guy is network. There is a massive difference. Cable channels can take far greater risks as they generally cater to niche audiences. So if Comedy Central alienates the "moral majority" with an episode about a gay dog, it doesn't hurt them much because the audience that was offended probably wasn't watching Comedy Central anyway.
But they aren't "new" new episodes, they are episodes that are new to Cartoon Network.
Actually we're in JUST the right RANGE from the sun, which is far more tolerant than you'd think. Besides, if we start mining in space we would also have the capability to change the Earth's orbit through a creative use of asteroids and slingshot maneuvers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1154784.stm
Honestly though, with NASA's penchant for missing it's targets, I would hate to think what they'd do with 100km asteroid.
It's a Victorian attitude, not Puritanical. The Puritans actually had laws to require sex between married coupels. Blame the Puritans for our proclivity to burn accused witches at the stake, not for our fear of sex.
Farscape was actually the biggest ratings winner Sci-Fi had. It was cancled because the Sci-Fi channel didn't want to be the Sci-Fi channel anymore, and instead wanted to concentrate more on horror. Even cable channels do stupid things.
Considering people are living longer while the retirement age isn't being raised, you're getting fewer of those hard working Americans directly contributing to it in relation to the number directly taking from it, and that's not even accounting for the baby boomers. Some people in my generation wonder if SS is even going to be around by the time we're old enough to benifit from it with the current trend. So no, I wouldn't say SS is off limits from a practicle standpoint by a long shot. From a political standpoint, it's almost a career ender to suggest such changes.
Why pick on the defense budget ($358.2 Billion) when it's behind the budgets for Health and Human Services ($502 Billion) and Social Security ($509.9 Billion)?
The Fourth went out with the Second when the courts ruled that the phrase "the right of the people" does not protect individual rights.
Yes, here's a quote from the article I found particularly funny:
"Piracy for too long has been high-reward and low-risk," Taylor said. "Legislation such as that being introduced tomorrow will go a long way toward changing that equation."
I want to know what strange universe this guy lives in where getting to see The Hulk for free is considered "high-reward." I would think that would be punishment in and of itself.