Petty or not, economic interests in space will likely be the driving force behind its exploration. As the X-prize demonstrated, privately funded space endeavors hold a lot of promise. Even that relatively recent event aside, the bulk of launches have been commercially-oriented (satellites), and these in turn have helped to encourage cheaper, more reliable means of space-travel. In the end, most anything that serves to attract industry to space, like this "real estate," is a good thing.
The relative velocity of the foam to orbiter is what matters here, and that is hardly changing between T=0 and T>0, no matter how fast the shuttle is moving relative to the ground. Yes, the shuttle is accelerating upwards as the foam falls in the current design, but the time over which this occurs (the time it takes the foam to fall the length of the orbiter) is very small, so the relative velocities will basically be constant.
I sure hate blowing good karma on such a partisan and polarizing issue, but I can't just sit back and read any longer. I imagine a lot of people won't read the article in question--it's 20 pages long. I did finish it, however, and I'm frustrated by both slashdot's headline/summary as well as some of the predictable responses here.
The NYT's article *does* present a very strong line of evidence that shows that the uranium enrichment theory for the aluminum tubes was suspect. It goes further and paints the CIA and Tenet in particular as stubborn in light of the Energy Department's critiques.
However, the NYT's article also says time after time that the Department of Energy's access to the White House was limited, whereas the CIA had direct access to senior officials. As such, the article asserts that the CIA had a disproportionate influence. While the Bush Administration was told of the existence of some differing opinions on the aluminum tubes, the article suggests that the Administration new little of the nature of this dissent. From my read, it was the reasonable belief of the Bush Administration (albeit wrong) that the CIA's theory on the tubes was the strong consensus of the entire intelligence community.
The NYT's article illustrates that the failing was one of organization--the CIA's unfettered access to the White House allowed it to bias the Administration and prevent the Energy Department from voicing concern. Though this is alarming, it's *not* the "lie" that the headline suggests.
Conventional LED's used as a screen (think Times Square) do not comprise an OLED monitor. The "O" is for "organic," whereby organic inks are made to produce their own light. An LED uses a completely different phenomenon.
Re:Just like DivX, except....
on
XVID 1.0 Released
·
· Score: 2, Informative
DivX and XviD;-) are different codecs altogether--that's like saying that Quicktime is Real Media in a silver box rather than a green one.
Slashdot's allure (and success) is not simply due to the content that it covers. At least personally, the key to what makes/. so addictive is the postings in response to articles, and since it's clear that plenty of people don't RTFAs, I don't think I'm alone in this sentiment, either. Unfortunately, it'd be tough to recreate this important aspect with a TV network/show.
You're forgetting that sound, being simply a pressure wave, travels a _lot_ slower than an electrical signal (6 orders of magnitude). If the mic is placed closer to the fan than the speakers, the speakers can have plenty of time to invert the signal and replay it. The distance is precisely chosen such that the speakers produce their noise simultaneously with the passing noise of the fan, even though it originated farther away. Delay's not a problem--no predicting needed.
I had an interesting idea based on this (I don't know if it's actually used). Fixing the distance and delay may not be accurate enough to match the signals completely, so you could have a second mic which listens _after_ the cancellation for beats. Superposition of the two similar waves produces the "beats" that musicians use to tune an instrument. By observing the frequency of the beats, the microprocessor could adjust the delay to more perfectly cancel the noise.
For the most part, you're right that robots/rovers are better suited and certainly cheaper than humans in space. You fail to address the serious problem of obtaining adequate funding for these missions, though. Frankly, the public finds humans in space far "sexier" than their metal counter-parts. Without public interest, no politician will support allocating the necessary money. Though theoretically less efficient, manned-missions get the support they need (and all too often even they don't manage to).
Yeah, oversight is a problem. I might support legislation that requires the VoIP providers to alert the costumer of this shortcoming if it exists (without actually requiring its implementation). That's always the downside of a free market--ready availabilty of information. Ideally though (and with enough time), consumer advocate groups help to build awareness.
Modded "insightfull?" This isn't an argument. Poor choices don't justify paternalistic and regulatory practices from the government (at least not among non-minors).
Calm down. Nobody's saying that 911-enabled VoIP is fundamentally a bad thing. VoIP is a service being provided by private companies--you're not locked into anything. Why forcefully regluate things like this when a free market would naturally provide each consumer with what _they_ want?
Slashdot Mirror
Petty or not, economic interests in space will likely be the driving force behind its exploration. As the X-prize demonstrated, privately funded space endeavors hold a lot of promise. Even that relatively recent event aside, the bulk of launches have been commercially-oriented (satellites), and these in turn have helped to encourage cheaper, more reliable means of space-travel. In the end, most anything that serves to attract industry to space, like this "real estate," is a good thing.
The relative velocity of the foam to orbiter is what matters here, and that is hardly changing between T=0 and T>0, no matter how fast the shuttle is moving relative to the ground. Yes, the shuttle is accelerating upwards as the foam falls in the current design, but the time over which this occurs (the time it takes the foam to fall the length of the orbiter) is very small, so the relative velocities will basically be constant.
I sure hate blowing good karma on such a partisan and polarizing issue, but I can't just sit back and read any longer. I imagine a lot of people won't read the article in question--it's 20 pages long. I did finish it, however, and I'm frustrated by both slashdot's headline/summary as well as some of the predictable responses here. The NYT's article *does* present a very strong line of evidence that shows that the uranium enrichment theory for the aluminum tubes was suspect. It goes further and paints the CIA and Tenet in particular as stubborn in light of the Energy Department's critiques. However, the NYT's article also says time after time that the Department of Energy's access to the White House was limited, whereas the CIA had direct access to senior officials. As such, the article asserts that the CIA had a disproportionate influence. While the Bush Administration was told of the existence of some differing opinions on the aluminum tubes, the article suggests that the Administration new little of the nature of this dissent. From my read, it was the reasonable belief of the Bush Administration (albeit wrong) that the CIA's theory on the tubes was the strong consensus of the entire intelligence community. The NYT's article illustrates that the failing was one of organization--the CIA's unfettered access to the White House allowed it to bias the Administration and prevent the Energy Department from voicing concern. Though this is alarming, it's *not* the "lie" that the headline suggests.
Conventional LED's used as a screen (think Times Square) do not comprise an OLED monitor. The "O" is for "organic," whereby organic inks are made to produce their own light. An LED uses a completely different phenomenon.
DivX and XviD ;-) are different codecs altogether--that's like saying that Quicktime is Real Media in a silver box rather than a green one.
Slashdot's allure (and success) is not simply due to the content that it covers. At least personally, the key to what makes /. so addictive is the postings in response to articles, and since it's clear that plenty of people don't RTFAs, I don't think I'm alone in this sentiment, either. Unfortunately, it'd be tough to recreate this important aspect with a TV network/show.
You're forgetting that sound, being simply a pressure wave, travels a _lot_ slower than an electrical signal (6 orders of magnitude). If the mic is placed closer to the fan than the speakers, the speakers can have plenty of time to invert the signal and replay it. The distance is precisely chosen such that the speakers produce their noise simultaneously with the passing noise of the fan, even though it originated farther away. Delay's not a problem--no predicting needed.
I had an interesting idea based on this (I don't know if it's actually used). Fixing the distance and delay may not be accurate enough to match the signals completely, so you could have a second mic which listens _after_ the cancellation for beats. Superposition of the two similar waves produces the "beats" that musicians use to tune an instrument. By observing the frequency of the beats, the microprocessor could adjust the delay to more perfectly cancel the noise.
For the most part, you're right that robots/rovers are better suited and certainly cheaper than humans in space. You fail to address the serious problem of obtaining adequate funding for these missions, though. Frankly, the public finds humans in space far "sexier" than their metal counter-parts. Without public interest, no politician will support allocating the necessary money. Though theoretically less efficient, manned-missions get the support they need (and all too often even they don't manage to).
Yeah, oversight is a problem. I might support legislation that requires the VoIP providers to alert the costumer of this shortcoming if it exists (without actually requiring its implementation). That's always the downside of a free market--ready availabilty of information. Ideally though (and with enough time), consumer advocate groups help to build awareness.
Modded "insightfull?" This isn't an argument. Poor choices don't justify paternalistic and regulatory practices from the government (at least not among non-minors).
Calm down. Nobody's saying that 911-enabled VoIP is fundamentally a bad thing. VoIP is a service being provided by private companies--you're not locked into anything. Why forcefully regluate things like this when a free market would naturally provide each consumer with what _they_ want?
I'm not so far off: 271-3141 (e-pi)