Now thats funny. You rightly suggest that a mod bump up the AC parent to your post & get the 'Offtopic'. Apparently that one forgot to follow the suggestion that points be used to mod up rather than down.
With one exception. The Fox News Sunday 'round-table' is actually pretty good. They usually have Mara Liasson & Juan Williams from NPR across the table from Brit Hume (Fox) and another conservative (whose name I fail to recollect). Good commentary, similar to the McLaughlin group.
Of course, someone now is going to say 'see! public radio & public television are tools of the Left.' On the sunday morning panel, Juan is definately taking a 'leftie' view, while Mara is more neutral. During his day job, I'd say Juan is largely neutral.
To me, the prime example of the FCC about-face is their reversal of opinion on the Bono use of "Fuckin'" on whatever inane awards show that was last year. At first, the FCC allowed the use of the word as an adjective in his jubilant expression of joy ("This is fuckin' awesome", not "I'm goin' home an' fuckin' my wife to celebrate"). They said, basically: its a live show, he slipped, the censors missed it, no big deal. Then Janet flashed her nipple-jewelry & the rules changed. The FCC decided to fine Bono & the broadcast company responsible for letting his utterance be heard.
In my opinion, what the Republican party purports to stand for - small government - is truly the domain of the Libertarian party. The religious right has turned what was once the fiscally conservative party into the socially conservative party, a domain better served by the Constitutional Law people (talk about freaks; holy crap).
Furthermore, I agree with you that Libertarians are neither 'left', 'center', nor 'right' per se; my point was that people who think of themselves as Republicans might want to consider a party that is constitutionally conservative, that truly stands for small government & personal freedom, without trying to impose some kind of moral authority.
Finally, I'd disagree that the two major parties we're currently stuck with are fundamentally opposed to liberty. Nevertheless, it is certainly true that they've become rather sidetracked lately. Its likely that I'm splitting hairs in your post; like you did mine.
Uhmmm... possibly the share holders? If Jobs owned apple he could say he doesn't care about the bottom line and just wants to make a good product and as long as they are profitable he's happy. The share holders though want a return on their investment. That's the price apple paid as soon as they decided to go public.
Well now, that brings up a whole other discussion. Are the shareholders in it for the short term, or the long term? And in any case, Apple shareholders (for the last 14 months anyway) should be pretty happy indeed. Long term value is not necessarily best measured in terms of constant market share growth. With the iPod, Apple is demonstrating well that sometimes entering new markets is more important than in dominating existing markets.
In the article, they mention other shows, aired in the past on PBS, that did not feel the need to bleep colorful language. The implication is that the new & improved FCC policies can only be fought by large, well-financed corporations. PBS, a non-profit funded partially by the federal government, but primarily by private donors & corporate sponsors, does not have the spare cash to spend on FCC fines.
Of course, the easy criticism is that the SF Gate leans a little left (true), PBS leans left (not true) and hollywood leans left (largely true, but not a hard & fast truism, by a long shot); therefore they must be in cahoots to tarnish the Bush administration & conservative-run congress. An interesting rebuttal is to point out that a certain branch of the far right - the libertarians - would also say that censorship is not the job of government. Let people vote with their remotes. It is not the job of the FCC, or any branch of the government, to shelter children from bad kinds of TV. The vice-president drops the F-bomb on the Senate Floor & feels better afterward, but PBS is not allowed to broadcast a television show using the same word without risking a hefty fine? Something just isn't right there.
The author seems fixated on the premise of: market share is king! No surprise there, as its published in Business Week. Chase the almighty dollar! If your stock price & market share aren't constantly growing, how can you be happy?
Maybe, just Maybe, what drives Jobs, et al is not making as much money as possible, but in delivering a great product. Nevermind whether the reader thinks its a great product, if Apple does - and their customers do - then who gives a damn if they're gaining on MS market share or not?
And regarding security, it seems like the marketing department over at Apple may have realized that as soon as they gloat about great security, somebody will come along and embarrass the hell out of them. Instead, they can sit back, let some hack journalist spread the word & enjoy their relative obscurity in the cracker community.
I'm not a mod today, but I am disappointed in you. Burt's craft (arguably Paul's craft) solves many, many problems. Its a first step (see tier) in developing a cheap way to space. I challenge you to get to 100km on $20 million (2004 dollars). I wonder how much other teams have spent & what there chances are of reaching space at all, much less doing it twice, with a 600lb payload, in 2 weeks. Nevermind doing it *first*.
Scaled Composites is to Armadillo as SS1 is to the Armadillo test rocket. No disparagement intended to the Armadillo crew. The point is that SS1 is a small, proof-of-concept test vehicle. Believe it or not, it will scale up. White Knight is a small aircraft - it too will scale up. Think of it as the difference between the Gemini & Apollo projects.
Early aviation history is full of deadly accidents. And people have still continued to build and fly airplanes.
Late aviation history continues to be risky & full of deadly accidents. Yesterday the mayor of Racine, MN died in a helicopter crash (he was the student pilot). I know there have been other crashes this week; I heard something about an aircraft & two houses in California.
If they can lower the odds of death to something less than 'guaranteed', there will be plenty of folks ready to go to space.
As a landlord, I highly recommend that you ask your landlord. Don't attach anything to the building unless you want to pay for it to be removed & damage repaired.
If you tell your landlord that you're willing to pay for the expense, chances are they'll let you do what you want. However, the chance is inversely proportional to the number of units owned by the landlord. i.e. if you're in a large apt building thats one of many owned by a corporation, forget it. If you're in a duplex owned by a guy that lives down the block (or in the building) your odds go up.
Manned or unmanned? I could see them having manned orbital flights in 5 years, getting humans out of orbit will take them longer. It may turn into a race between the Chinese and Scaled Composites.
This thing has no stall speed (at least not on this planet).
'This thing,' presumably referring to Space Ship One, most certainly does have a stall speed. Everything with wings has a stall speed. SS1 has wings - its a glider for its return from space to landing.
As far as trying to 'ward off the media' I imagine they would not have stated they're ready to fly for the prize if they were not ready & confident.
The kind of turbulence of which you speak can have very drastic affects on an airframe. Particularly if the turbulence is generated by something heavy flying slowly and you are in something light. They will teach you in class to stay above and well behind anything heavy and slow in front of you. Note that slow for them may be in excess of your maximum attainable speed in level flight!
In other words, its certainly a real issue, but any turbulence encountered by SS1 was not due to turbulence from other craft.
The one in my truck is powered via wires into the 12v system that operates everything else in the vehicle. The signal is sent to the factory stereo via FM 88.1. I believe the intention of FM broadcast CD changers & the like is that they are compatible with factory stereos that often do not have provisions for adding components.
Then it will be interesting to see if Mozilla has the same inherent weaknesses as IE, won't it? For years MS has used the excuse that they're the largest installed base, thus the target for most virii, etc. I say lets see if thats true.
Firefox is the less bulky (mozilla has email client, etc)
During install, check the 'Do you want Firefox to be your default browser?' checkbox.
I believe Mozilla does, but check out Tools->Settings (I think; currently forced to use IE at the client) where you should be able to turn it off; also Firefox might not have this feature. Download it & find out, its pretty painless.
This process took me about 3 minutes last night on the gf's XP box, including download. Default settings are for no popups. You really don't have to do a thing except click 'Download Firefox'.
Just a note about your choice of style. For those readers that aren't in the habit of reading subjects, your post looks like a recommendation that Firefox do itself a favor & block popups flawlessly, follow standards, implement tabbed browsing, etc. A little misleading, to say the least.
Slashdot Mirror
Now thats funny. You rightly suggest that a mod bump up the AC parent to your post & get the 'Offtopic'. Apparently that one forgot to follow the suggestion that points be used to mod up rather than down.
Word up.
With one exception. The Fox News Sunday 'round-table' is actually pretty good. They usually have Mara Liasson & Juan Williams from NPR across the table from Brit Hume (Fox) and another conservative (whose name I fail to recollect). Good commentary, similar to the McLaughlin group.
Of course, someone now is going to say 'see! public radio & public television are tools of the Left.' On the sunday morning panel, Juan is definately taking a 'leftie' view, while Mara is more neutral. During his day job, I'd say Juan is largely neutral.
To me, the prime example of the FCC about-face is their reversal of opinion on the Bono use of "Fuckin'" on whatever inane awards show that was last year. At first, the FCC allowed the use of the word as an adjective in his jubilant expression of joy ("This is fuckin' awesome", not "I'm goin' home an' fuckin' my wife to celebrate"). They said, basically: its a live show, he slipped, the censors missed it, no big deal. Then Janet flashed her nipple-jewelry & the rules changed. The FCC decided to fine Bono & the broadcast company responsible for letting his utterance be heard.
In my opinion, what the Republican party purports to stand for - small government - is truly the domain of the Libertarian party. The religious right has turned what was once the fiscally conservative party into the socially conservative party, a domain better served by the Constitutional Law people (talk about freaks; holy crap).
Furthermore, I agree with you that Libertarians are neither 'left', 'center', nor 'right' per se; my point was that people who think of themselves as Republicans might want to consider a party that is constitutionally conservative, that truly stands for small government & personal freedom, without trying to impose some kind of moral authority.
Finally, I'd disagree that the two major parties we're currently stuck with are fundamentally opposed to liberty. Nevertheless, it is certainly true that they've become rather sidetracked lately. Its likely that I'm splitting hairs in your post; like you did mine.
Well now, that brings up a whole other discussion. Are the shareholders in it for the short term, or the long term? And in any case, Apple shareholders (for the last 14 months anyway) should be pretty happy indeed. Long term value is not necessarily best measured in terms of constant market share growth. With the iPod, Apple is demonstrating well that sometimes entering new markets is more important than in dominating existing markets.
In the article, they mention other shows, aired in the past on PBS, that did not feel the need to bleep colorful language. The implication is that the new & improved FCC policies can only be fought by large, well-financed corporations. PBS, a non-profit funded partially by the federal government, but primarily by private donors & corporate sponsors, does not have the spare cash to spend on FCC fines.
Of course, the easy criticism is that the SF Gate leans a little left (true), PBS leans left (not true) and hollywood leans left (largely true, but not a hard & fast truism, by a long shot); therefore they must be in cahoots to tarnish the Bush administration & conservative-run congress. An interesting rebuttal is to point out that a certain branch of the far right - the libertarians - would also say that censorship is not the job of government. Let people vote with their remotes. It is not the job of the FCC, or any branch of the government, to shelter children from bad kinds of TV. The vice-president drops the F-bomb on the Senate Floor & feels better afterward, but PBS is not allowed to broadcast a television show using the same word without risking a hefty fine? Something just isn't right there.
The author seems fixated on the premise of: market share is king! No surprise there, as its published in Business Week. Chase the almighty dollar! If your stock price & market share aren't constantly growing, how can you be happy?
Maybe, just Maybe, what drives Jobs, et al is not making as much money as possible, but in delivering a great product. Nevermind whether the reader thinks its a great product, if Apple does - and their customers do - then who gives a damn if they're gaining on MS market share or not?
And regarding security, it seems like the marketing department over at Apple may have realized that as soon as they gloat about great security, somebody will come along and embarrass the hell out of them. Instead, they can sit back, let some hack journalist spread the word & enjoy their relative obscurity in the cracker community.
I'm not a mod today, but I am disappointed in you. Burt's craft (arguably Paul's craft) solves many, many problems. Its a first step (see tier) in developing a cheap way to space. I challenge you to get to 100km on $20 million (2004 dollars). I wonder how much other teams have spent & what there chances are of reaching space at all, much less doing it twice, with a 600lb payload, in 2 weeks. Nevermind doing it *first*.
Scaled Composites is to Armadillo as SS1 is to the Armadillo test rocket. No disparagement intended to the Armadillo crew. The point is that SS1 is a small, proof-of-concept test vehicle. Believe it or not, it will scale up. White Knight is a small aircraft - it too will scale up. Think of it as the difference between the Gemini & Apollo projects.
Late aviation history continues to be risky & full of deadly accidents. Yesterday the mayor of Racine, MN died in a helicopter crash (he was the student pilot). I know there have been other crashes this week; I heard something about an aircraft & two houses in California.
If they can lower the odds of death to something less than 'guaranteed', there will be plenty of folks ready to go to space.
As a landlord, I highly recommend that you ask your landlord. Don't attach anything to the building unless you want to pay for it to be removed & damage repaired.
If you tell your landlord that you're willing to pay for the expense, chances are they'll let you do what you want. However, the chance is inversely proportional to the number of units owned by the landlord. i.e. if you're in a large apt building thats one of many owned by a corporation, forget it. If you're in a duplex owned by a guy that lives down the block (or in the building) your odds go up.
good luck-
Just Another Slumlord
Why not rent time to the Brits - they should have some leftover budget available.
Manned or unmanned? I could see them having manned orbital flights in 5 years, getting humans out of orbit will take them longer. It may turn into a race between the Chinese and Scaled Composites.
'This thing,' presumably referring to Space Ship One, most certainly does have a stall speed. Everything with wings has a stall speed. SS1 has wings - its a glider for its return from space to landing.
As far as trying to 'ward off the media' I imagine they would not have stated they're ready to fly for the prize if they were not ready & confident.
The kind of turbulence of which you speak can have very drastic affects on an airframe. Particularly if the turbulence is generated by something heavy flying slowly and you are in something light. They will teach you in class to stay above and well behind anything heavy and slow in front of you. Note that slow for them may be in excess of your maximum attainable speed in level flight!
In other words, its certainly a real issue, but any turbulence encountered by SS1 was not due to turbulence from other craft.
You call it a toy, I call it a prototype. Burt, et al will unveil an orbit-ready design within two years.
Or maybe before Ben, mail was delivered by whatever the USPS is called in the UK.
The one in my truck is powered via wires into the 12v system that operates everything else in the vehicle. The signal is sent to the factory stereo via FM 88.1. I believe the intention of FM broadcast CD changers & the like is that they are compatible with factory stereos that often do not have provisions for adding components.
Then it will be interesting to see if Mozilla has the same inherent weaknesses as IE, won't it? For years MS has used the excuse that they're the largest installed base, thus the target for most virii, etc. I say lets see if thats true.
This process took me about 3 minutes last night on the gf's XP box, including download. Default settings are for no popups. You really don't have to do a thing except click 'Download Firefox'.
There's a firefox link on the front pageJust a note about your choice of style. For those readers that aren't in the habit of reading subjects, your post looks like a recommendation that Firefox do itself a favor & block popups flawlessly, follow standards, implement tabbed browsing, etc. A little misleading, to say the least.
Is it ignorance, or it is fear?
All they have to do is require that the faster chips ship with Longhorn. There won't be enough cycles left for advanced weapons design!
I did not pose my question well. When I turn on my Rendezvouz enabled toaster (wifi), which network does it join?