Several things come to mind here, but it appears as though you don't know much about practical engineering, even for something simple like trying to design a light switch on the ISS (It's just a metal bar you place between two pieces of copper, right?)
The trick in this case is that you would have to be able to interface with all of the other equipment that the old equipment was designed for, keep the design as compact as possible, and since you are trying to get this installed in a zero-g environment you need to make sure that the installation can happen fairly easily and not take up too much time of the astronauts up there in the ISS. I would dare you to design a toothbrush holder for those requirements, keeping in mind that you also have to do outgassing testing of the materials used (it is going into space), see that they don't corrode when in contact with substances that will be near the said device or object, and make sure that you don't have to replace it too often as supply ships don't come that often and are very expensive to ship even the most simple things.
BTW, most of what I've described could also be applied to the requirements for a late 19th Century coaling station where just about everything had to be shipped thousands of miles and took several months to get there. Weight requirements weren't as big of a deal as in spaceflight, but durability and the need to make due with whatever was at hand or you would litterally die was an issue. And taxpayers certainly paid a rather good price tag on those stations in the past.
If you are being critical of the USA about something it doesn't do (or does), at least try to understand why it is the way it is.
In the case of the ban on DDT, it was for an incredibly good reason as DDT is a substnace that doesn't break down too well, and gets into the food supply of people very quickly and in concentrated amounts. In short, although over the short term it is very effective in killing incects like mosquitos, in the long run it will kill you and your children (or keep you from ever having children). DDT is just one of those things that you avoid, avoid, avoid.
I'm a little concerned about the open advertising going on right now with even DEET as the West Nile Virus scare happens in the Western USA. It brings back memories of the articles about DDT back in the 1970's.
I have created ideas that have been "patentable" in software, and in several cases I even had the financial resources available to at least patent the idea for my employer.
The truth is that I deliberatly chose not to do so, and I fail to see how patenting a software idea would have ever made me or my employer even one cent more by going through the process of doing the patent filing. It might be valid to have patents for defensive purposes (to ward off attacks from litigous idiots like SCO) and keep the company from going into the ground due to the system, but it won't be a revenue generator. Certainly our competitors could always find a way around what ever patents we could come up with, so even the exclusivity of the algorithm would not matter, unless we wanted to sink the entire industry like others are doing (again like SCO).
The LZW algorithm is perhaps the classic, and even that was worked around. Had Unisys been forthcoming from the beginning that it had the patent and intended to enforce it, there is no way that the GIF format would have been used at all.
The point here is that as a full-time software developer who almost exclusivly makes my financial income from the creation of totally novel and original software ideas, I don't need software patents and they are much more of a nuscance that anything else, and something done by companies who can't innovate or have run out of fresh ideas. In the time and effort it takes to patent something, I can come up with a dozen or more fresh ideas and implement them in actual software where they are being used.
If somebody else who has encountered the same situation ends up writing almost identical software and came up with the same general concept (I've seen it happen more than once), why not let them try to compete in the marketplace rather than in the courts?
While I would agree that the RSA algorithm does take time, R&D effort, and considerable effort that perhaps should be rewarded somehow, I fail to see how a software patent would even then be useful. Other encryption algorithms can and are being developed using alternative methods, so the absolute value is really in question. That the implementors of a successful algorithm would be the first on the market, have (hopefully) fully debuged software implementing the concept, and using it in practical applications would make that company clearly successful financially, particularly if they sold the software implementations at a reasonable price. The more complex the algorithm, the more they would be able to charge for it simply because it would also be that much harder for a 3rd party to make an independent implementation.
Copyright law, on the other hand, is critical, and just for pure ethical reasons, if you are using somebody's software and claiming it as if your wrote it yourself, that is plagurism at best, and should be protected through existing copyright laws. That the terms of the copyright might be way too long for computer software is another issue, but I would at least like the opportunity to be able to release my stuff knowing I can defend my authorship legally.
BTW, If I were able to directly introduce legislation into the U.S. Congress, I would want to change software copyright to about 20 years. I could even live with 10 years. Life + 70 years makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.
I didn't say anything about humanity, just life on the Earth in general.
For life forms to be able to compete against life forms from the Earth, it would have to have come out of some extreame Darwinian ecological development process that is at least as competitive as what you find on the Earth. That would involve a biosphere that is at least as large as the Earth, involve as many survival niches as are possible on the Earth, and substantial energy gradients like you also find on the Earth. This is not all that common throughout what we've seen elsewhere in the Solar System, and I would call the 100+ planets and moons that are fairly accurately mapped by the Mariner/Voyager/Gallileo/Casinni/Venera missions to be at least a good representitive sample of what we will find in other solar systems when we start looking.
Philosophically, the viewpoint that we may be one of the early "intelligences" in this universe is one that has been proposed by several modern philosophers armed with recent discoveries in cosmology. This may explain in part why we havn't heard anybody with the SETI programs, which have certainly put a lower limit on the denisty of intelligent races capable of radio communication described with the Drake equation. Our sun is one of the first generation of stars capable of advanced elements in large quantities (ie not Hydrogen and Helium exclusively) and there are other factors that may play out in the future that show some more uniqueness to the Earth.
There are also several "tops" of evolutionary lines among Earth life, including Dolphins, Orcas, Oak trees, and Portabello mushrooms (pretty good sized for a mere fungus, and tasty too).
The point here is that if you were to come across an Earth-like planet with your trusty Bussard RAMJET spaceship and your anti-matter powered landing craft (to give a power source to be able to land and take off from said planet), I would be very scared about what I'd find there, assuming that you found life-forms. A mere space probe that went to the asteroid belt is not going to find virii or other biological nasties accidently and return them to the Earth, as any biological life form would be lunch for any one of the millions (or billions?) of species of critters on this planet. Unless it could reproduce in a real hurry or have some other defensive mechanisms, it wouldn't make it at all. Ebola is considered to reproduce and spread too rapidly, as it kills the host usually prior to being able to spread the disease. I can't imagine a space virus much nastier than that one. HIV is such a nasty virus because it keeps the host alive for many years, allowing the transmission of the disease to many other folks before the host dies.
While it may be possible for some "life form" to exist that is not base on CHON (Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen), any such life form would look at us and what we call "living things" (fish, incects, amoebas, mushrooms, etc.) as background noise.
The reason why virii are so effective is precisely because they take over the genetic reproduction mechanisms in cellular division and use if for their own ends. This involves DNA.
Prions admittedly "reproduce" without DNA, but the total number of potential Prions is rather small in comparison. To be able to become an effective disease that is highly adaptable (and generally deadly in the course of just a few days as opposed to months and years in the case of Prions) it would simply have to be DNA-based. A real interesting treat would be if you could have DNA codons besides the typical CATG bases if it came from beyond the Earth.
I'm not suggesting that I'm chauvanistic regarding the Earth (thinking we are better than anywhere else), but that life forms, after having gone through evolutionary development and competition pressures here on the Earth, once on places like Mars or Europa would be essentially competing against evolutionary lightweights. I have no doubt that there is life on Mars right now, but the real question is if it was brought to Mars by American taxpayers or if it was there prior to the 1950's (when the space programs began for Russia and America).
It is also suggested that the Earth may be one of the most mineral dense and most massive planets that would be capable of having a rocky surface (even if it is just partially above water). Planets not much larger than the Earth would end up keeping most of their primordial atmosphere and turn into Gas Giants (like Jupiter, or more likely like Neptune and Uranus).
In reality, you need to consider just how special this planet is that we live on. It is a rare and precious gift, and it will be interesting to see how many "Earth-like" planets will be discovered over this next century. This is going out on a limb somewhat, but I predict that at least one substantial Earth-like planet (with oxygen atmosphere and water vapour being detected) will be discovered by the year 2100. Not an alien civilization, but merely a planet worth sending an interstellar probe to go visit.
Boy, isn't that an agency that is way out of its element. While it is somewhat arguable that the FAA (that is the Federal Aviation Administration) may have some juristiction over federal satellites, there is in fact no real person or agency that can control what goes on in LEO. They can insist that you deorbit if you want to get a launch permit for the next launch (a big deal for some commercial launchers), but that would be it.
I certainly hope that the FCC was just a typo.
For most picosatellites, I would hope that you would generally keep them at low altitudes (100 to 500 km) because at least then the orbit would eventually decay and it would burn going back into the atmosphere. As for higher altitude orbits, I don't really see where the juristiction would come in. Geosync orbits legitimately are given "slots", because communications to those birds is best done in about 2 degree increments around the equator (based mainly on issues with earth-based receivers), limiting the total number of "active" geosync satellites to roughly 180, and prime slots over Africa and South America to established space faring nations (they got there first).
If you want to really launch satellites, you could always get help from the Mexican Space Agency (I'm not kidding here either). There is little to nothing the FAA could do about that either.
Really, I don't see what the problem is with the BBs. Some space debris is considerably more dangerous (like some of the upper stages for Apollo and some decomissioned satellites in a higher orbit that simply don't decay). There are natural hazards that are of similar relevance.
While that is an interesting issue, the truth is that such objects would essentially vaporize when they hit another spacecraft, like the spaceshuttle. Besides, similar sized objects have already caused damage to the shuttle, so that isn't even news. Also, a single tube of BB's (or similar sized objects) would quickly disperse over a volume that would have at least the area the size of the entire earth + 200km extra radus milage. Comparatively few per m^3.
Something I think would be considerably more effective was described by Buzz Aldrin in his book "The Return", where he describes a nuclear power nation with spacefaring capabilities (I think it was China) detonated a very dirty nuke in LEO, essentially saturating the Van Allen Belts and making the ISS a very deadly place to be living. It also caused havoc with LEO satellites, but they could be hardened much easier than similar precautions that would have to be done with manned spaceflight. This effectively shut down all manned spaceflight to/from the Earth.
I don't know if this is a real possibility, but considering the author, I think it is more likely than merely a bunch of pebbles launched in orbit deliberately.
Keep in mind that photo was a quick grab from a telephoto television camera. Take a look at this photo if you want to see something of a little better quality, and even that was a quick camera shot by the chase helicopter with a hand-held digital camera.
The optics on the Mars Rover were of a much higher quality, so the comparison isn't really all that accurate. It is too bad that some photographer from Associated Press or Newsweek wern't on the PR helicopter to take a really good still photo of the incident.
There were two parachutes, a drogue and a main parachute. It was presumed at least through preliminary analysis that the drogue chute was sheared off during reentry (at least some telemetry that would indicate that occured). I did see something like a chute open up during the decent, but the camera was a telephoto image.
Keep in mind that more backup systems also require extra weight during lanuch (and that is dead payload weight that must be accounted for the entire mission). That is not as cheap as you indicate, plus you have to have extra systems to deal with those redundant systems, testing equipment, and the possibility that the extra parachutes might prematurely detonate deploying while it was in solar orbit during the collection phase...not something you would particularly care for in that position. I dare you to take your little garage remote into space, keep it there for many years exposed to solar flares, and have it get triggered exactly on schedule after communications blackout due to reentry. I don't think that remote would make it.
Still, the parachute deployment should be something that NASA has plenty of experience at doing. The only really unique aspect of this mission was the retreval before it hit the ground.
No, I havn't. I havn't even had a real desire although I've seen the movie on network television. Yeah, I know that Hollywood tends to ruin good books (like Starship Troopers, as a good example), but even then there have been many other books that I've rather wanted to read first.
Still, I do see the relationship here to the basic story, but I also consider it to be totally bogus that any DNA life form from space is going to have any real impact on the Earth. I think the Earth would be considered the harmful biological hell hole that you would want to avoid, avoid, avoid if you were from another world. Most forms of DNA from outer space would be eaten alive (litterally) by most of the critters on this planet. The climate zone you landed in would only specify the length of time that it took.
While it would seem like a good SF, there are a number of reasons to believe that life forms raised on this planet would be much stronger, faster, swifter, and smarter than just about anywhere else. I won't elaborate here at the moment.
While these are very sound reasons, they don't really make sense in regards to the Great Salt Lake. For starters:
The desert that this was recovered at was within 30 miles of the Great Salt Lake. The climate and weather patterns are not all that different by going just a few miles.
Getting ships (well, sheriff patrol craft) into Salt Lake isn't that hard to do, and for sheer publicity I'm sure the state government would provide any rescue equipment necessary for retrevial. And that just for the state here to show it can do something better than the feds. Besides, Hill AFB is sitting close enough that it would be as effective as any aircraft carrier in the Pacific.
The arguments regarding boyancy are still valid, but wouldn't it be better to crash it into a large body of water than the desert? Still a hard landing, but... I don't know. It would probabaly be a wash all of the way around either way. Air capture was the prefered option as well.
One big negative against landing in Salt Lake is that just a little bit further to the east is the homes of about 500,000 people that wouldn't want the probe in their backyard or their living room. That is perhaps the largest advantage for where they did the drop.
In addition, the area where they tried to do the capture (and site of the crash) is very heavily restricted airspace. You can't fly over that area except in space, and the U.S. government would love to stop even that. By restricted that means if you fly over that hunk of land you will very quickly be escorted by F-16 to a lonly bit of runway and arrested, or shot out of the sky. Your choice. Even walking across the desert to get into there is restricted and barred by a huge chain-link fence that is patrolled better than the U.S./Mexico border.
It isn't smart to go walking around in there either if you happened to gain entry, as the area is littered with bombs that date back to WWI (yes, about 1917). It saw heavy use during WWII and the Cold War, and is still used for live bomb testing out of Hill AFB. They are lucky they didn't have Genesis land on one of those old WWII bombs that for some reason or another hasn't detonated yet.
They just got a quicktime link on the main NASA page This page also has a really good photo right on the front that shows the crater and the remains of the probe. It may just be an illusion, but it looks like it may even be a steroscopic photo. I think that is just the mud that got kicked up.
It was NASA TV that said 100 mph, and that was mentioned just after it crashed into the desert. If that estimate was revised, it wouldn't surprise me, although 200 mph still is quite slow compared to what it could have been.
Still, that was a real neat classic impact crater it made in the salt flats.
It crashed into a county the size of Conneticut with a total population of 40,000 people, and most of that in the extreame eastern end of the county to boot. It also borders Idaho and Nevada, so no, Piedmont AZ isn't anywhere near.
I disagree that your philosophy will work at all in any market, and especially in the voting arena.
Companies that push real hard to go to market regarless of quality gain a reputation of being an awful company to do business with, ruins any brand they are associated with, and totally loses money for the company that engages in such practices.
An example of this is with two different computer hardware companies from the past. Do you know of any Timex or AT&T computers? Timex became totally equated with very, very cheap throwaway computers that you wouldn't line your garbage can with. While AT&T computers weren't terrible, even with an incredible brand name (& Death Star logo) they couldn't gain more than a foothold in the computer industry. This was even pre-Dell, and you couldn't even dispute the fact that AT&T had the cash to make things work.
Some companies can push their way into a market simply through throwing $$$ at the product. Microsoft is particularly famous at doing this, although I would have to say that if MS-DOS 1.0 was a piece of garbage and didn't compare favorably to existing operating systems of its day (like CP/M), there is no way that MS would have become the company that it is today. MS-DOS and later Windows did a very good job for the job those operating systems were designed for: Single user single CPU computers.
In the case of voting machines, this is in particular something where the companies involved should have been really doing their homework and pushing quality assurance standards higher and stronger than even what they've done in the past. Diebold was already an established manufacturer of voting equipment in the past (they made some of the scanning machines that scanned paper ballots).
Standards for voting are much higher than similar standards for dealing with monetary transactions. While most businesses on paper claim that they concentrate on keeping track of each penny, the truth is that often hundreds of dollars are wasted or "misplaced" even with well run companies and efficient auditors. Losing a couple of hundred votes in an election like Bush vs. Gore can end up deciding the election. Diebold is treating the election issues like it is something they would deal with in their ATM division. While you can refund the couple of hundred dollars that got misplaced, a couple of hundred votes misplaced simply can't be refunded.
I've tried to explain the whole issue to my wife, while not computer-phobic and somewhat familar with issue in the computer industry (simply by living with me) she does think I am exaggerating the issues with machines like Diebold's. To further enhance the facts here, she has also been serving as the head election judge for my voting precinct, and is directly responsible for making sure the vote is counted fairly and accurately.
To be more blunt here, I think I understand her issues more than she understands where I'm coming from.
People are familiar with software upgrades, however, and if you tell them that you want to upgrade their comptuer just before they have a major report to turn in for work, or upgrade their operating system while they are uploading their favorite pictures to grandma, I think they would totally understand the issues without explainations even being necessary. Why a software upgrade is dangerous during the middle of an election would be of similar seriousness.
Most people consider computers to be a "black box" (no pun intended to Black Box Voting) where all sorts of "magic" occur, and the current battles over the legitimacy of eVoting are merely duels between wizards and their apprentices. Since it doesn't affect them (really... even when you are talking about who they are voting for), they don't see what the big issues are that you are complaining about.
I still say that the best way to push this all out into the open is to make sure that some obscure 3rd party candidate wins some relatively insignificant contest and breaking this down into something that the mainstream news media would be able to comprehend and complain about. Something like that might just kill eVoting altogether (which wouldn't be my goal with such a project).
Specificly, I openly suggested that this be done with the election of student body officers at a major university (less likely to land you in jail, and you might even get the student government to agree to do this in advance). I wouldn't cry too much if Nader or even Ross Perot (yeah, I know he isn't running) won Wyoming for U.S. President, but I wouldn't want to get into jail doing that.
Explaining the issues that way would be easier to explain to non-techies, that such an election could even happen, which cuts across most partisian viewpoints as well and explains why this is something that both political parties should be concerned about.
I think the Radio Shack model is more like what will really happen. The scaling issue is huge, and the current cost ($/kw) certainly isn't there. Even silicon solar electric cells don't produce in their lifetime the amount of energy needed for their production, so it may not be an issue here either. Still, you would then have to consider energy density (kw/m^3) where cold fusion still doesn't seem as attractive as composting cow manure, where the products are very well understood and can be used with existing equipment.
Cold Fusion, which some nuclear reactions do occur, is strictly a novelty at the moment. Fully understanding the physics behind how it works should make some interesting papers in physics journals, and the ability to control a fusion reaction electronically is interesting too. It might eventually be the basis for a neutrino emitter (for communications), but I don't see it as a power source.
It was precisely because of its potential as a power source that prompted all of the attention. I hope that something that could generate power on the Gigawatt scale could be made, even if it requires element 118 (something similar to Unobtainium). Even the most fantastic weird junk science researchers aren't even claiming that sort of energy production.
For those that want (and in the very long term viewpoint, I hope this does happen) to have a "Mr. Fusion" that they put onto their car and get 2000 mi/gal of water you can pull from your garden hose, I want to say don't get your hopes up too high.
Cold Fusion, like the Farnsworth Fusor technology, is very difficult to scale up to an appreciable size. For now, at best, you will only be able to have some sort of simple device that will be able to turn on and off nuclear reactions with a light switch. Now that is a big deal, and for some scientific studies that would be something in itself very useful, but not practical for running your laptop with.
I have no doubt that there is some actual physical process that does go on in the pladium cryztal to induce nuclear fusion under some circumstances. To what extent though that you can turn it into a practical device for power generation is another story.
Another thing to consider is the political consequences of the ability for each home to generate its own electricity. For now, most home can't do that, even with solar and wind power giving a strong assist (and saving you money when you "sell back" electricty to the power company). Certainly the tin hat crowd has reason to be worried about cold fusion, and it could be as disruptive to the power industry as micros were to the main-frame computer industry. 'nuff said on this point.
Indirectly you are confirming what I have felt for many years now:
NASA simply needs to get out of the space launch business altogether. This is not an area where real hard science is being done, except for alternative launch systems, and the only real alternative to chemical propulsion would be to have nuclear powered rockets, like Orion, and even that is better done in space than near the ground.
NASA needs to be on the frontier, like going to Mars or back to the Moon. They need to be the people pushing the envelope and doing things that havn't been done before. Even building a "reusable spacecraft" is old news, and from many viewpoints a poorly done design at that.
Sometimes you have to lanuch rockets going slightly north instead of just in a southernly direction. Still, you have a point.
I think the reason for KSC was more to do with politics as it was in the 1950's (when NSCA, the predecessor to NASA was involved with setting up Cape Canaveral AAFB (Army Air Force Base) together with the U.S. Army). If you look, space facilities are spread throughout a good portion of the south anyway, and it is no coincidence that the Astronauts say "Hello Houston, we've got a problem", or some other such thing. The PR and lobbying effort by Houston back then was massive, as were Florida congressmen.
I also don't think that it is less than coincedential that Armidillo Aerospace has the Texas flag painted on the outside of its ships, and they aren't the only aerospace company in Texas either. Vandenburg is pretty good for polar orbits and retrograde orbits (there are some uses for that sort of thing), but Texas would be much better. I wouldn't be too surprised if near San Antonio a launch facility were built.
Other good areas would be Guam or Hawaii. The problem there would be with how to get the rocket physically to those locations as manufacturing facilities are somewhat more sparse in those locations. With reusable rockets, that may be less of a problem than with the issues that KSC has to deal with.
I don't want to totally rehash arguments that have appeared on here numerous times, but before you start poking holes at the American election process, I would strongly suggest that you take a look at a "typical" ballot during a Presidential General Election. This upcoming election in November for myself will include close to 50 (yes, fifty) different election contest from the President of the USA to assistant dog catcher (well, not really, but some very minor "elected" officials are elected, some with just 100 "constituants"). We are also deciding on the fate of judges. They are elected offices here, not merely appointed. They rarely get thrown out, but two did get "impeached" by general election in nearby juristictions. The local sheriff is also an elected office (the police chief), and the state attorney general. We are also deciding on about ten different new laws and a couple of ammendments to the state constitution.
With all of that being decided, a simple "X" on a piece of paper introduces voting errors that approach statistical certainty in the outcomes of these political races, for various reasons. And that is when everybody is being totally honest in the process of voting.
Basically, I'm just trying to point out that the voting process in America is the way it is for many reasons, including some very important historical reasons that in some cases no longer apply but are difficult to remove because of social inertia.
In terms of absentee ballots, the rules as to if you can cast a vote in that manner vary quite a bit from state to state. Usually the process of trying to cast an absentee ballot is significantly more complicated than simply going to the polling location and casting the vote in the more typical and traditional voting booth. In addition, in many locations, you need to declare a formal reason why you are going to cast your vote by absentee ballot, and usually swear under oath (usually by using your signature) that you are correct with that reason. In theory the ballot application can be reject. Again that varies from place to place. Keep in mind that voting laws in the USA are directly under state juristiction, and federal voting laws apply only for rules regarding federal funding of elections, and that only for federal offices (like President).
In the case of Oregon, they are openly encouraging votes by absentee ballot, and simply closing the traditional voting booth altogether. I think it is prone to voter fraud, but so are most other methods.
BTW, in regards to the typical absentee ballot, it typically is just a sheet of paper that allows you to put a big "X" next to the races that you want to vote for. It is presumed that the total number of absentee ballots in most juristictions is going to be less than 5% of the total votes cast, usually considerably less than even that figure.
IMHO e-voting, especially through unsecured and easily spoofed connections like e-mail or even web pages (even with https), is totally untrustworthy. As a citizen I would not trust the outcome of such an election. There is good reason to complain about a voting system like this through the internet.
When my wife and I first got married, our phone number was identical to an 800 phone sex line. No kidding.
This phone number was apparently published widely in Europe (presumably in the Netherlands and Germany, based on the people doing the calling). They also mistakenly thought that the 801 area code (formerly for all of Utah, now just Salt Lake City) was a toll-free call.
Since my wife didn't speak any German, she would just simply ask "What? Who are you?" and there would be something said by the caller in German or Dutch. Since I had some German classes back in High School, I knew enough of the language to finally figure out at least where they calling from. In reality, I felt pity on the guys doing the calling, as they were rather desperate and getting charged an arm and a leg for international long distance. When the area code was reassigned, the phone calls stopped.
Right now my phone number is one digit off from a local grocery store that also allows senior citizens to call in orders for delivery to their home. Really this is a neat service for people who otherwise couldn't do this, but trying to get into the head of somebody in their 80's or 90's that the phone number they just called is not the grocery store they thought it was. My wife usually has a conversation like this:
My Wife: Hello? Caller: Is this Macy's (the grocery store) My Wife: No, this is a private residence. Caller: Oh, I'm sorry. (*hangs up*) ***telephone rings again 10 seconds later*** My Wife: Hello? Caller(same as before): Is this Macy's? My Wife: No, you misdialed the number again. Caller: I know I called this same number before young lady. Now stop fooling around and get the manager on the phone! My Wife: OK, just a sec.... Myself: Hello? Caller: You have very rude employees. That last young lady you had on the phone should be fired. Myself: I'll look into that. Can I help you? Caller: Sure. I'd like the following items... Myself(breaking into the conversation): You do know that this is not Macy's? Caller: Of course this is Macy's. Myself: Please mam', just try to call back and this time use the correct phone number. Caller: How rude! I will never shop at your store again.
I generally don't get rude that often, but sometimes it is fun. Generally I try to help them out (they are seniors... I don't want kids doing this to me when I'm that age), but we've been able to get to know several older community members rather well. You just have to look at it with a bit of humor and not worry about the situation.
There was a fairly primitive sextant that the polynesians (and earlier with the Phonecians, who had something very similar) that ammounted to a card (or fishbone) that had a bunch of notches on it to mark the lattitude of various ports (or islands as it may be) with reckoning based on Polaris or the Southern Cross.
In reference to the MN NW Angle, it actually goes back to the Paris peace talks for the Revolutionary War, when all of the land east of the Mississippi River was given to the USA. As you are quite familiar with Northern Minnesota, obviously there was a minor negotiation regarding the area between Lake Itasca and the northern frontier with "Lower Canada" (now Ontario). The maps that were used in the treaty had Lake Itasca much further west than it was in reality, and the Lake of the Woods much further east. The boundary in the treaty specifically mentioned the northern bank of Lake of the Woods as being in the USA.
When the Louisana Purchase occured, a minor correctional treaty was enacted, but by then several much more accurate maps of the area had been made. It was decided at that time by the British surveyor to simply draw a line at a right angle to include Lake of the Woods, rather than renegotiate the entire Treaty of Paris all over again. England wasn't ready for yet another war against the USA after the War of 1812.
During the final few seconds, yes it was manual. But with Apollo 11 they had about 5 seconds of reserve fuel left when they actually set down. That was not 5 seconds to abort and go back up, but simply 5 seconds before they ran out of fuel.
While indeed there was actual piloting and people were clearly in the loop to run the spacecraft (and needed!), some of the critical timing issues for orbit insertion and lanuch windows simply have to be run with computers. There is no other way to ensure that you can hit the buttons at the precise time and stop in time.
While analog computers could have been used in this situation, this was the time period (late 1960's) when digital computers were finally widespread enough to be used in applications like this. The AGC was one of the first computers to use integrated circuits (IC's), and even then it was primarily 7400 series chips and a couple of specialized circuits. NASA at the time contracted something like 50%-70% of all IC production, which is where some people seem to think NASA was behind the development of some of the early micros.
BTW, this thread referenced the fact that sailors in the 16th through 19th Centuries used pretty much just a compass, clock, map, and sextant. The poster forgot to mention the clock, but it was indespensible back then...to give longitude data. Clocks still are very important even now, as that is all a GPS satellite really transmits anyway (the current time). All the rest of the positioning info is derived from the clock data.
Anyway, the sextant is actually a fairly sophisticated analog computer that is able to correctly identify your current lattitude with amazing precision. It tended to make the navigator go blind with one eye, which is why you see skippers and naval officers in depictions of the era wearing an eye patch. They litterally looked at the sun too long through the sextant. A good navigator using a sextant could get lattitude down to +/- 1/2 to 1/10th of a degree. Longitude you were usually considered very fortunate if you got it down to +/- 10 degrees (almost 600 miles when near the equator), which is why maps of the 18th Century are very accurate on lattitude but miserable with longitude, causing things like Minnesota's Northwest Angle.
Slashdot Mirror
Several things come to mind here, but it appears as though you don't know much about practical engineering, even for something simple like trying to design a light switch on the ISS (It's just a metal bar you place between two pieces of copper, right?)
The trick in this case is that you would have to be able to interface with all of the other equipment that the old equipment was designed for, keep the design as compact as possible, and since you are trying to get this installed in a zero-g environment you need to make sure that the installation can happen fairly easily and not take up too much time of the astronauts up there in the ISS. I would dare you to design a toothbrush holder for those requirements, keeping in mind that you also have to do outgassing testing of the materials used (it is going into space), see that they don't corrode when in contact with substances that will be near the said device or object, and make sure that you don't have to replace it too often as supply ships don't come that often and are very expensive to ship even the most simple things.
BTW, most of what I've described could also be applied to the requirements for a late 19th Century coaling station where just about everything had to be shipped thousands of miles and took several months to get there. Weight requirements weren't as big of a deal as in spaceflight, but durability and the need to make due with whatever was at hand or you would litterally die was an issue. And taxpayers certainly paid a rather good price tag on those stations in the past.
I'd have to chime in and agree with you killjoe.
If you are being critical of the USA about something it doesn't do (or does), at least try to understand why it is the way it is.
In the case of the ban on DDT, it was for an incredibly good reason as DDT is a substnace that doesn't break down too well, and gets into the food supply of people very quickly and in concentrated amounts. In short, although over the short term it is very effective in killing incects like mosquitos, in the long run it will kill you and your children (or keep you from ever having children). DDT is just one of those things that you avoid, avoid, avoid.
I'm a little concerned about the open advertising going on right now with even DEET as the West Nile Virus scare happens in the Western USA. It brings back memories of the articles about DDT back in the 1970's.
I have created ideas that have been "patentable" in software, and in several cases I even had the financial resources available to at least patent the idea for my employer.
The truth is that I deliberatly chose not to do so, and I fail to see how patenting a software idea would have ever made me or my employer even one cent more by going through the process of doing the patent filing. It might be valid to have patents for defensive purposes (to ward off attacks from litigous idiots like SCO) and keep the company from going into the ground due to the system, but it won't be a revenue generator. Certainly our competitors could always find a way around what ever patents we could come up with, so even the exclusivity of the algorithm would not matter, unless we wanted to sink the entire industry like others are doing (again like SCO).
The LZW algorithm is perhaps the classic, and even that was worked around. Had Unisys been forthcoming from the beginning that it had the patent and intended to enforce it, there is no way that the GIF format would have been used at all.
The point here is that as a full-time software developer who almost exclusivly makes my financial income from the creation of totally novel and original software ideas, I don't need software patents and they are much more of a nuscance that anything else, and something done by companies who can't innovate or have run out of fresh ideas. In the time and effort it takes to patent something, I can come up with a dozen or more fresh ideas and implement them in actual software where they are being used.
If somebody else who has encountered the same situation ends up writing almost identical software and came up with the same general concept (I've seen it happen more than once), why not let them try to compete in the marketplace rather than in the courts?
While I would agree that the RSA algorithm does take time, R&D effort, and considerable effort that perhaps should be rewarded somehow, I fail to see how a software patent would even then be useful. Other encryption algorithms can and are being developed using alternative methods, so the absolute value is really in question. That the implementors of a successful algorithm would be the first on the market, have (hopefully) fully debuged software implementing the concept, and using it in practical applications would make that company clearly successful financially, particularly if they sold the software implementations at a reasonable price. The more complex the algorithm, the more they would be able to charge for it simply because it would also be that much harder for a 3rd party to make an independent implementation.
Copyright law, on the other hand, is critical, and just for pure ethical reasons, if you are using somebody's software and claiming it as if your wrote it yourself, that is plagurism at best, and should be protected through existing copyright laws. That the terms of the copyright might be way too long for computer software is another issue, but I would at least like the opportunity to be able to release my stuff knowing I can defend my authorship legally.
BTW, If I were able to directly introduce legislation into the U.S. Congress, I would want to change software copyright to about 20 years. I could even live with 10 years. Life + 70 years makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.
I didn't say anything about humanity, just life on the Earth in general.
For life forms to be able to compete against life forms from the Earth, it would have to have come out of some extreame Darwinian ecological development process that is at least as competitive as what you find on the Earth. That would involve a biosphere that is at least as large as the Earth, involve as many survival niches as are possible on the Earth, and substantial energy gradients like you also find on the Earth. This is not all that common throughout what we've seen elsewhere in the Solar System, and I would call the 100+ planets and moons that are fairly accurately mapped by the Mariner/Voyager/Gallileo/Casinni/Venera missions to be at least a good representitive sample of what we will find in other solar systems when we start looking.
Philosophically, the viewpoint that we may be one of the early "intelligences" in this universe is one that has been proposed by several modern philosophers armed with recent discoveries in cosmology. This may explain in part why we havn't heard anybody with the SETI programs, which have certainly put a lower limit on the denisty of intelligent races capable of radio communication described with the Drake equation. Our sun is one of the first generation of stars capable of advanced elements in large quantities (ie not Hydrogen and Helium exclusively) and there are other factors that may play out in the future that show some more uniqueness to the Earth.
There are also several "tops" of evolutionary lines among Earth life, including Dolphins, Orcas, Oak trees, and Portabello mushrooms (pretty good sized for a mere fungus, and tasty too).
The point here is that if you were to come across an Earth-like planet with your trusty Bussard RAMJET spaceship and your anti-matter powered landing craft (to give a power source to be able to land and take off from said planet), I would be very scared about what I'd find there, assuming that you found life-forms. A mere space probe that went to the asteroid belt is not going to find virii or other biological nasties accidently and return them to the Earth, as any biological life form would be lunch for any one of the millions (or billions?) of species of critters on this planet. Unless it could reproduce in a real hurry or have some other defensive mechanisms, it wouldn't make it at all. Ebola is considered to reproduce and spread too rapidly, as it kills the host usually prior to being able to spread the disease. I can't imagine a space virus much nastier than that one. HIV is such a nasty virus because it keeps the host alive for many years, allowing the transmission of the disease to many other folks before the host dies.
While it may be possible for some "life form" to exist that is not base on CHON (Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen), any such life form would look at us and what we call "living things" (fish, incects, amoebas, mushrooms, etc.) as background noise.
The reason why virii are so effective is precisely because they take over the genetic reproduction mechanisms in cellular division and use if for their own ends. This involves DNA.
Prions admittedly "reproduce" without DNA, but the total number of potential Prions is rather small in comparison. To be able to become an effective disease that is highly adaptable (and generally deadly in the course of just a few days as opposed to months and years in the case of Prions) it would simply have to be DNA-based. A real interesting treat would be if you could have DNA codons besides the typical CATG bases if it came from beyond the Earth.
I'm not suggesting that I'm chauvanistic regarding the Earth (thinking we are better than anywhere else), but that life forms, after having gone through evolutionary development and competition pressures here on the Earth, once on places like Mars or Europa would be essentially competing against evolutionary lightweights. I have no doubt that there is life on Mars right now, but the real question is if it was brought to Mars by American taxpayers or if it was there prior to the 1950's (when the space programs began for Russia and America).
It is also suggested that the Earth may be one of the most mineral dense and most massive planets that would be capable of having a rocky surface (even if it is just partially above water). Planets not much larger than the Earth would end up keeping most of their primordial atmosphere and turn into Gas Giants (like Jupiter, or more likely like Neptune and Uranus).
In reality, you need to consider just how special this planet is that we live on. It is a rare and precious gift, and it will be interesting to see how many "Earth-like" planets will be discovered over this next century. This is going out on a limb somewhat, but I predict that at least one substantial Earth-like planet (with oxygen atmosphere and water vapour being detected) will be discovered by the year 2100. Not an alien civilization, but merely a planet worth sending an interstellar probe to go visit.
Boy, isn't that an agency that is way out of its element. While it is somewhat arguable that the FAA (that is the Federal Aviation Administration) may have some juristiction over federal satellites, there is in fact no real person or agency that can control what goes on in LEO. They can insist that you deorbit if you want to get a launch permit for the next launch (a big deal for some commercial launchers), but that would be it.
I certainly hope that the FCC was just a typo.
For most picosatellites, I would hope that you would generally keep them at low altitudes (100 to 500 km) because at least then the orbit would eventually decay and it would burn going back into the atmosphere. As for higher altitude orbits, I don't really see where the juristiction would come in. Geosync orbits legitimately are given "slots", because communications to those birds is best done in about 2 degree increments around the equator (based mainly on issues with earth-based receivers), limiting the total number of "active" geosync satellites to roughly 180, and prime slots over Africa and South America to established space faring nations (they got there first).
If you want to really launch satellites, you could always get help from the Mexican Space Agency (I'm not kidding here either). There is little to nothing the FAA could do about that either.
Really, I don't see what the problem is with the BBs. Some space debris is considerably more dangerous (like some of the upper stages for Apollo and some decomissioned satellites in a higher orbit that simply don't decay). There are natural hazards that are of similar relevance.
While that is an interesting issue, the truth is that such objects would essentially vaporize when they hit another spacecraft, like the spaceshuttle. Besides, similar sized objects have already caused damage to the shuttle, so that isn't even news. Also, a single tube of BB's (or similar sized objects) would quickly disperse over a volume that would have at least the area the size of the entire earth + 200km extra radus milage. Comparatively few per m^3.
Something I think would be considerably more effective was described by Buzz Aldrin in his book "The Return", where he describes a nuclear power nation with spacefaring capabilities (I think it was China) detonated a very dirty nuke in LEO, essentially saturating the Van Allen Belts and making the ISS a very deadly place to be living. It also caused havoc with LEO satellites, but they could be hardened much easier than similar precautions that would have to be done with manned spaceflight. This effectively shut down all manned spaceflight to/from the Earth.
I don't know if this is a real possibility, but considering the author, I think it is more likely than merely a bunch of pebbles launched in orbit deliberately.
Keep in mind that photo was a quick grab from a telephoto television camera. Take a look at this photo if you want to see something of a little better quality, and even that was a quick camera shot by the chase helicopter with a hand-held digital camera.
The optics on the Mars Rover were of a much higher quality, so the comparison isn't really all that accurate. It is too bad that some photographer from Associated Press or Newsweek wern't on the PR helicopter to take a really good still photo of the incident.
There were two parachutes, a drogue and a main parachute. It was presumed at least through preliminary analysis that the drogue chute was sheared off during reentry (at least some telemetry that would indicate that occured). I did see something like a chute open up during the decent, but the camera was a telephoto image.
Keep in mind that more backup systems also require extra weight during lanuch (and that is dead payload weight that must be accounted for the entire mission). That is not as cheap as you indicate, plus you have to have extra systems to deal with those redundant systems, testing equipment, and the possibility that the extra parachutes might prematurely detonate deploying while it was in solar orbit during the collection phase...not something you would particularly care for in that position. I dare you to take your little garage remote into space, keep it there for many years exposed to solar flares, and have it get triggered exactly on schedule after communications blackout due to reentry. I don't think that remote would make it.
Still, the parachute deployment should be something that NASA has plenty of experience at doing. The only really unique aspect of this mission was the retreval before it hit the ground.
No, I havn't. I havn't even had a real desire although I've seen the movie on network television. Yeah, I know that Hollywood tends to ruin good books (like Starship Troopers, as a good example), but even then there have been many other books that I've rather wanted to read first.
Still, I do see the relationship here to the basic story, but I also consider it to be totally bogus that any DNA life form from space is going to have any real impact on the Earth. I think the Earth would be considered the harmful biological hell hole that you would want to avoid, avoid, avoid if you were from another world. Most forms of DNA from outer space would be eaten alive (litterally) by most of the critters on this planet. The climate zone you landed in would only specify the length of time that it took.
While it would seem like a good SF, there are a number of reasons to believe that life forms raised on this planet would be much stronger, faster, swifter, and smarter than just about anywhere else. I won't elaborate here at the moment.
The arguments regarding boyancy are still valid, but wouldn't it be better to crash it into a large body of water than the desert? Still a hard landing, but... I don't know. It would probabaly be a wash all of the way around either way. Air capture was the prefered option as well.
One big negative against landing in Salt Lake is that just a little bit further to the east is the homes of about 500,000 people that wouldn't want the probe in their backyard or their living room. That is perhaps the largest advantage for where they did the drop.
In addition, the area where they tried to do the capture (and site of the crash) is very heavily restricted airspace. You can't fly over that area except in space, and the U.S. government would love to stop even that. By restricted that means if you fly over that hunk of land you will very quickly be escorted by F-16 to a lonly bit of runway and arrested, or shot out of the sky. Your choice. Even walking across the desert to get into there is restricted and barred by a huge chain-link fence that is patrolled better than the U.S./Mexico border.
It isn't smart to go walking around in there either if you happened to gain entry, as the area is littered with bombs that date back to WWI (yes, about 1917). It saw heavy use during WWII and the Cold War, and is still used for live bomb testing out of Hill AFB. They are lucky they didn't have Genesis land on one of those old WWII bombs that for some reason or another hasn't detonated yet.
They just got a quicktime link on the main NASA page This page also has a really good photo right on the front that shows the crater and the remains of the probe. It may just be an illusion, but it looks like it may even be a steroscopic photo. I think that is just the mud that got kicked up.
It was NASA TV that said 100 mph, and that was mentioned just after it crashed into the desert. If that estimate was revised, it wouldn't surprise me, although 200 mph still is quite slow compared to what it could have been.
Still, that was a real neat classic impact crater it made in the salt flats.
It crashed into a county the size of Conneticut with a total population of 40,000 people, and most of that in the extreame eastern end of the county to boot. It also borders Idaho and Nevada, so no, Piedmont AZ isn't anywhere near.
I disagree that your philosophy will work at all in any market, and especially in the voting arena.
Companies that push real hard to go to market regarless of quality gain a reputation of being an awful company to do business with, ruins any brand they are associated with, and totally loses money for the company that engages in such practices.
An example of this is with two different computer hardware companies from the past. Do you know of any Timex or AT&T computers? Timex became totally equated with very, very cheap throwaway computers that you wouldn't line your garbage can with. While AT&T computers weren't terrible, even with an incredible brand name (& Death Star logo) they couldn't gain more than a foothold in the computer industry. This was even pre-Dell, and you couldn't even dispute the fact that AT&T had the cash to make things work.
Some companies can push their way into a market simply through throwing $$$ at the product. Microsoft is particularly famous at doing this, although I would have to say that if MS-DOS 1.0 was a piece of garbage and didn't compare favorably to existing operating systems of its day (like CP/M), there is no way that MS would have become the company that it is today. MS-DOS and later Windows did a very good job for the job those operating systems were designed for: Single user single CPU computers.
In the case of voting machines, this is in particular something where the companies involved should have been really doing their homework and pushing quality assurance standards higher and stronger than even what they've done in the past. Diebold was already an established manufacturer of voting equipment in the past (they made some of the scanning machines that scanned paper ballots).
Standards for voting are much higher than similar standards for dealing with monetary transactions. While most businesses on paper claim that they concentrate on keeping track of each penny, the truth is that often hundreds of dollars are wasted or "misplaced" even with well run companies and efficient auditors. Losing a couple of hundred votes in an election like Bush vs. Gore can end up deciding the election. Diebold is treating the election issues like it is something they would deal with in their ATM division. While you can refund the couple of hundred dollars that got misplaced, a couple of hundred votes misplaced simply can't be refunded.
I've tried to explain the whole issue to my wife, while not computer-phobic and somewhat familar with issue in the computer industry (simply by living with me) she does think I am exaggerating the issues with machines like Diebold's. To further enhance the facts here, she has also been serving as the head election judge for my voting precinct, and is directly responsible for making sure the vote is counted fairly and accurately.
To be more blunt here, I think I understand her issues more than she understands where I'm coming from.
People are familiar with software upgrades, however, and if you tell them that you want to upgrade their comptuer just before they have a major report to turn in for work, or upgrade their operating system while they are uploading their favorite pictures to grandma, I think they would totally understand the issues without explainations even being necessary. Why a software upgrade is dangerous during the middle of an election would be of similar seriousness.
Most people consider computers to be a "black box" (no pun intended to Black Box Voting) where all sorts of "magic" occur, and the current battles over the legitimacy of eVoting are merely duels between wizards and their apprentices. Since it doesn't affect them (really... even when you are talking about who they are voting for), they don't see what the big issues are that you are complaining about.
I still say that the best way to push this all out into the open is to make sure that some obscure 3rd party candidate wins some relatively insignificant contest and breaking this down into something that the mainstream news media would be able to comprehend and complain about. Something like that might just kill eVoting altogether (which wouldn't be my goal with such a project).
Specificly, I openly suggested that this be done with the election of student body officers at a major university (less likely to land you in jail, and you might even get the student government to agree to do this in advance). I wouldn't cry too much if Nader or even Ross Perot (yeah, I know he isn't running) won Wyoming for U.S. President, but I wouldn't want to get into jail doing that.
Explaining the issues that way would be easier to explain to non-techies, that such an election could even happen, which cuts across most partisian viewpoints as well and explains why this is something that both political parties should be concerned about.
I think the Radio Shack model is more like what will really happen. The scaling issue is huge, and the current cost ($/kw) certainly isn't there. Even silicon solar electric cells don't produce in their lifetime the amount of energy needed for their production, so it may not be an issue here either. Still, you would then have to consider energy density (kw/m^3) where cold fusion still doesn't seem as attractive as composting cow manure, where the products are very well understood and can be used with existing equipment.
Cold Fusion, which some nuclear reactions do occur, is strictly a novelty at the moment. Fully understanding the physics behind how it works should make some interesting papers in physics journals, and the ability to control a fusion reaction electronically is interesting too. It might eventually be the basis for a neutrino emitter (for communications), but I don't see it as a power source.
It was precisely because of its potential as a power source that prompted all of the attention. I hope that something that could generate power on the Gigawatt scale could be made, even if it requires element 118 (something similar to Unobtainium). Even the most fantastic weird junk science researchers aren't even claiming that sort of energy production.
For those that want (and in the very long term viewpoint, I hope this does happen) to have a "Mr. Fusion" that they put onto their car and get 2000 mi/gal of water you can pull from your garden hose, I want to say don't get your hopes up too high.
Cold Fusion, like the Farnsworth Fusor technology, is very difficult to scale up to an appreciable size. For now, at best, you will only be able to have some sort of simple device that will be able to turn on and off nuclear reactions with a light switch. Now that is a big deal, and for some scientific studies that would be something in itself very useful, but not practical for running your laptop with.
I have no doubt that there is some actual physical process that does go on in the pladium cryztal to induce nuclear fusion under some circumstances. To what extent though that you can turn it into a practical device for power generation is another story.
Another thing to consider is the political consequences of the ability for each home to generate its own electricity. For now, most home can't do that, even with solar and wind power giving a strong assist (and saving you money when you "sell back" electricty to the power company). Certainly the tin hat crowd has reason to be worried about cold fusion, and it could be as disruptive to the power industry as micros were to the main-frame computer industry. 'nuff said on this point.
Indirectly you are confirming what I have felt for many years now:
NASA simply needs to get out of the space launch business altogether. This is not an area where real hard science is being done, except for alternative launch systems, and the only real alternative to chemical propulsion would be to have nuclear powered rockets, like Orion, and even that is better done in space than near the ground.
NASA needs to be on the frontier, like going to Mars or back to the Moon. They need to be the people pushing the envelope and doing things that havn't been done before. Even building a "reusable spacecraft" is old news, and from many viewpoints a poorly done design at that.
Sometimes you have to lanuch rockets going slightly north instead of just in a southernly direction. Still, you have a point.
I think the reason for KSC was more to do with politics as it was in the 1950's (when NSCA, the predecessor to NASA was involved with setting up Cape Canaveral AAFB (Army Air Force Base) together with the U.S. Army). If you look, space facilities are spread throughout a good portion of the south anyway, and it is no coincidence that the Astronauts say "Hello Houston, we've got a problem", or some other such thing. The PR and lobbying effort by Houston back then was massive, as were Florida congressmen.
I also don't think that it is less than coincedential that Armidillo Aerospace has the Texas flag painted on the outside of its ships, and they aren't the only aerospace company in Texas either. Vandenburg is pretty good for polar orbits and retrograde orbits (there are some uses for that sort of thing), but Texas would be much better. I wouldn't be too surprised if near San Antonio a launch facility were built.
Other good areas would be Guam or Hawaii. The problem there would be with how to get the rocket physically to those locations as manufacturing facilities are somewhat more sparse in those locations. With reusable rockets, that may be less of a problem than with the issues that KSC has to deal with.
I don't want to totally rehash arguments that have appeared on here numerous times, but before you start poking holes at the American election process, I would strongly suggest that you take a look at a "typical" ballot during a Presidential General Election. This upcoming election in November for myself will include close to 50 (yes, fifty) different election contest from the President of the USA to assistant dog catcher (well, not really, but some very minor "elected" officials are elected, some with just 100 "constituants"). We are also deciding on the fate of judges. They are elected offices here, not merely appointed. They rarely get thrown out, but two did get "impeached" by general election in nearby juristictions. The local sheriff is also an elected office (the police chief), and the state attorney general. We are also deciding on about ten different new laws and a couple of ammendments to the state constitution.
With all of that being decided, a simple "X" on a piece of paper introduces voting errors that approach statistical certainty in the outcomes of these political races, for various reasons. And that is when everybody is being totally honest in the process of voting.
Basically, I'm just trying to point out that the voting process in America is the way it is for many reasons, including some very important historical reasons that in some cases no longer apply but are difficult to remove because of social inertia.
In terms of absentee ballots, the rules as to if you can cast a vote in that manner vary quite a bit from state to state. Usually the process of trying to cast an absentee ballot is significantly more complicated than simply going to the polling location and casting the vote in the more typical and traditional voting booth. In addition, in many locations, you need to declare a formal reason why you are going to cast your vote by absentee ballot, and usually swear under oath (usually by using your signature) that you are correct with that reason. In theory the ballot application can be reject. Again that varies from place to place. Keep in mind that voting laws in the USA are directly under state juristiction, and federal voting laws apply only for rules regarding federal funding of elections, and that only for federal offices (like President).
In the case of Oregon, they are openly encouraging votes by absentee ballot, and simply closing the traditional voting booth altogether. I think it is prone to voter fraud, but so are most other methods.
BTW, in regards to the typical absentee ballot, it typically is just a sheet of paper that allows you to put a big "X" next to the races that you want to vote for. It is presumed that the total number of absentee ballots in most juristictions is going to be less than 5% of the total votes cast, usually considerably less than even that figure.
IMHO e-voting, especially through unsecured and easily spoofed connections like e-mail or even web pages (even with https), is totally untrustworthy. As a citizen I would not trust the outcome of such an election. There is good reason to complain about a voting system like this through the internet.
When my wife and I first got married, our phone number was identical to an 800 phone sex line. No kidding.
This phone number was apparently published widely in Europe (presumably in the Netherlands and Germany, based on the people doing the calling). They also mistakenly thought that the 801 area code (formerly for all of Utah, now just Salt Lake City) was a toll-free call.
Since my wife didn't speak any German, she would just simply ask "What? Who are you?" and there would be something said by the caller in German or Dutch. Since I had some German classes back in High School, I knew enough of the language to finally figure out at least where they calling from. In reality, I felt pity on the guys doing the calling, as they were rather desperate and getting charged an arm and a leg for international long distance. When the area code was reassigned, the phone calls stopped.
Right now my phone number is one digit off from a local grocery store that also allows senior citizens to call in orders for delivery to their home. Really this is a neat service for people who otherwise couldn't do this, but trying to get into the head of somebody in their 80's or 90's that the phone number they just called is not the grocery store they thought it was. My wife usually has a conversation like this:
My Wife: Hello?
Caller: Is this Macy's (the grocery store)
My Wife: No, this is a private residence.
Caller: Oh, I'm sorry. (*hangs up*)
***telephone rings again 10 seconds later***
My Wife: Hello?
Caller(same as before): Is this Macy's?
My Wife: No, you misdialed the number again.
Caller: I know I called this same number before young lady. Now stop fooling around and get the manager on the phone!
My Wife: OK, just a sec....
Myself: Hello?
Caller: You have very rude employees. That last young lady you had on the phone should be fired.
Myself: I'll look into that. Can I help you?
Caller: Sure. I'd like the following items...
Myself(breaking into the conversation): You do know that this is not Macy's?
Caller: Of course this is Macy's.
Myself: Please mam', just try to call back and this time use the correct phone number.
Caller: How rude! I will never shop at your store again.
I generally don't get rude that often, but sometimes it is fun. Generally I try to help them out (they are seniors... I don't want kids doing this to me when I'm that age), but we've been able to get to know several older community members rather well. You just have to look at it with a bit of humor and not worry about the situation.
There was a fairly primitive sextant that the polynesians (and earlier with the Phonecians, who had something very similar) that ammounted to a card (or fishbone) that had a bunch of notches on it to mark the lattitude of various ports (or islands as it may be) with reckoning based on Polaris or the Southern Cross.
In reference to the MN NW Angle, it actually goes back to the Paris peace talks for the Revolutionary War, when all of the land east of the Mississippi River was given to the USA. As you are quite familiar with Northern Minnesota, obviously there was a minor negotiation regarding the area between Lake Itasca and the northern frontier with "Lower Canada" (now Ontario). The maps that were used in the treaty had Lake Itasca much further west than it was in reality, and the Lake of the Woods much further east. The boundary in the treaty specifically mentioned the northern bank of Lake of the Woods as being in the USA.
When the Louisana Purchase occured, a minor correctional treaty was enacted, but by then several much more accurate maps of the area had been made. It was decided at that time by the British surveyor to simply draw a line at a right angle to include Lake of the Woods, rather than renegotiate the entire Treaty of Paris all over again. England wasn't ready for yet another war against the USA after the War of 1812.
Some extra info can be found here.
During the final few seconds, yes it was manual. But with Apollo 11 they had about 5 seconds of reserve fuel left when they actually set down. That was not 5 seconds to abort and go back up, but simply 5 seconds before they ran out of fuel.
While indeed there was actual piloting and people were clearly in the loop to run the spacecraft (and needed!), some of the critical timing issues for orbit insertion and lanuch windows simply have to be run with computers. There is no other way to ensure that you can hit the buttons at the precise time and stop in time.
While analog computers could have been used in this situation, this was the time period (late 1960's) when digital computers were finally widespread enough to be used in applications like this. The AGC was one of the first computers to use integrated circuits (IC's), and even then it was primarily 7400 series chips and a couple of specialized circuits. NASA at the time contracted something like 50%-70% of all IC production, which is where some people seem to think NASA was behind the development of some of the early micros.
BTW, this thread referenced the fact that sailors in the 16th through 19th Centuries used pretty much just a compass, clock, map, and sextant. The poster forgot to mention the clock, but it was indespensible back then...to give longitude data. Clocks still are very important even now, as that is all a GPS satellite really transmits anyway (the current time). All the rest of the positioning info is derived from the clock data.
Anyway, the sextant is actually a fairly sophisticated analog computer that is able to correctly identify your current lattitude with amazing precision. It tended to make the navigator go blind with one eye, which is why you see skippers and naval officers in depictions of the era wearing an eye patch. They litterally looked at the sun too long through the sextant. A good navigator using a sextant could get lattitude down to +/- 1/2 to 1/10th of a degree. Longitude you were usually considered very fortunate if you got it down to +/- 10 degrees (almost 600 miles when near the equator), which is why maps of the 18th Century are very accurate on lattitude but miserable with longitude, causing things like Minnesota's Northwest Angle.