Basically, the cost benefit was not there. We had to finish the Vietnam war. Then we had to satisfy all of the social programs. Then we had another two or three wars, interspersed with social programs.
Social programs waste the first derivative of Government spending. No good or service is produced. Mouths are simply fed. (Some will surely suggest this is good in and of itself). But jobs are eventually created, and money trickles up from the poor to the grocer, the baker, and the crack dealer on the corner.
Wars waste the final derivative of Government spending. Stuff is destroyed. Even lives. But new stuff is purchased, and jobs are created, and spending eventually trickles down.
Things like building highways, bridges, moon bases yield huge first derivatives, and the second derivatives are equally huge, and the follow on derivatives are even huger and last forever. We still drive Ike's highways.
But its hard to convince Joe Sixpack of this, because he has visions of rockets filled with 100 dollar bills launching into space and spewing money all over the place. He can't be convinced that all the money is spent right here on earth in his town.
There will always be the cry that we can't waste another nickel in space while some kid somewhere has holes in his shoes. Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!.
And if we ever do manage to accomplish anything in space, it is used to mock all other failings of human civilization. We can send a man to the moon, but we can't get the crack dealer off the corner.
So you see, had we actually persisted we would have an abandoned moon base by now, because we could no longer afford to support it with wars going on and little Freddy down the street having holes in his shoes, and all.
This is my optimistic outlook. After a few drinks I take on a rather darker opinion.
The faster you go, the more distance you travel in a given period of time. (And "time" is the only measure that counts, since this engine technology's sole purpose is to make the time of travel useful to humans).
The more distance you travel the more particles you encounter [again assuming constant density, which I do not accept as fact].
But the speed of impact is high enough that the vehicle may not survive even ONE such impact.
Thats because your thinking process is so horribly compromised by those who don't think at all that you are starting to understand them just as parents understand baby gibberish.
Correct this unfortunate nonsense everywhere you see it. Its not just technical shorthand, its fundamentally wrong.
Of course, to borrow a phrase, "Space is big." The chances of hitting/being hit by a micro-meteor in such a way that the rocket is destroyed are probably less likely than an airplane crashing.
[Citation needed]
Any place one would want to go will include great quantities of small particles. These things are the dust left over from planet building.
If you can not detect them on radar, speculation of their density in what we presume to be empty space seems premature.
There is no doubt in my mind that they are not doing this altruistically, but they happen to be fighting what many believe to be a poorly written statute and in that sense are fighting for the common good at the same time.
Its not clear how you can string those two thoughts together in the same sentence and not see the conflict.
Fighting for the common good with no payday in sight is a pretty good definition of "altruistic" if you ask me.
This verdict had to have been the RIAA's worst nightmare. They had to know, as they left the courthouse that they had just snatched ultimate defeat from the jaws of temporal victory.
NOW it all comes into play again, out from under easily impressed small town judges and professionally packed juries.
The entire investigative tactic, the improper application of laws, (not to mention that little phrase containing the words "Cruel or Unusual Punishment") comes under high level review.
They can't have wanted this. They would have been happy with 100K verdict. This is their worst nightmare.
The theory of comets as a source of water was also published in 1990, by Louis A. Frank.
Not exactly your average crack-pot scientists, Frank was the designer of something like 13 payloads on various launch vehicles in the 80s and 90s.
Frank posits that that small comets still hit the moon and earth almost daily, delivering water virtually every day. These small comets are more like fluffy snowballs, and are small enough not to have much if any radar signature, but their effects upon impact with the atmosphere are visible from above.
This is just a bunch of small colonies whose scents are so similar that members of the other colonies are unable to discern that they are, in fact, not from their own colony.
That's my take on this as well.
This sounds like kids with a a couple of ant farms substituting for science.
Wake me when they have mapped the mitrochondrial DNA and determined that they did indeed descend from some common "Ant Eve"
Till then Bad Breath (or pheromones) might be an equally likely explanation.
Must Carry channels are local broadcasters who might be locked out of the cable system had not they gotten together and lobbied congress to force cable companies to carry them.
Without must carry rules, many subscribers in small markets would have to (and would probably gladly) forgo local programming.
In exchange for forcing their way onto the cable system, they must provide their signal free of charge to the cable providers.
That's just it. The guy wrote that the law SHOULD be changed to explicitly deny this usage, without the copyright holders permission.
But the most he could recommend is a change in US law, which would be dutifully ignored elsewhere.
Besides, content originators already have the ability to control this for the most part.
All they need do is start paying attention to referrer information in html requests, denying those that did not come from approved sources. This would do quite a bit toward limiting linking, or at least making it harder.
You also have to allow for the possibility that he was floating this as a decoy, trying to point out the logical extension of the current policy, with the intent of generating a backlash.
Slashdot Mirror
This will be ugly and exciting at once.
You mean like Y2K?
Didn't happen.
This won't either.
I bet you lash out at impossibilities on sifi movies as well.
Why sweat the details since you have already bought into the myth?
So an imaginary event that hasn't happened reminded you of DOS?
Do get a grip.
Please.
In the meantime, we spent those trillions chasing the Taliban over hill and dale, and propping up ponzie schemes of banks.
But thank god it wasn't wasted!
shooting up probes from the moon?
Basically, the cost benefit was not there. We had to finish the Vietnam war. Then we had to satisfy all of the social programs. Then we had another two or three wars, interspersed with social programs.
Social programs waste the first derivative of Government spending. No good or service is produced. Mouths are simply fed. (Some will surely suggest this is good in and of itself).
But jobs are eventually created, and money trickles up from the poor to the grocer, the baker, and the crack dealer on the corner.
Wars waste the final derivative of Government spending. Stuff is destroyed. Even lives.
But new stuff is purchased, and jobs are created, and spending eventually trickles down.
Things like building highways, bridges, moon bases yield huge first derivatives, and the second derivatives are equally huge, and the follow on derivatives are even huger and last forever. We still drive Ike's highways.
But its hard to convince Joe Sixpack of this, because he has visions of rockets filled with 100 dollar bills launching into space and spewing money all over the place. He can't be convinced that all the money is spent right here on earth in his town.
There will always be the cry that we can't waste another nickel in space while some kid somewhere has holes in his shoes. Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!.
And if we ever do manage to accomplish anything in space, it is used to mock all other failings of human civilization. We can send a man to the moon, but we can't get the crack dealer off the corner.
So you see, had we actually persisted we would have an abandoned moon base by now, because we could no longer afford to support it with wars going on and little Freddy down the street having holes in his shoes, and all.
This is my optimistic outlook. After a few drinks I take on a rather darker opinion.
But this isn't one of the.
WIKILEAKS!!!
Our slow probes have been hit repeatedly.
Our fast probes would not have survived any of these hits.
The faster you go, the more distance you travel in a given period of time. (And "time" is the only measure that counts, since this engine technology's sole purpose is to make the time of travel useful to humans).
The more distance you travel the more particles you encounter [again assuming constant density, which I do not accept as fact].
But the speed of impact is high enough that the vehicle may not survive even ONE such impact.
And how fast were we going?
The craft were hit multiple times by slow moving particles. Just try that at the speeds being discussed.
Think before you post.
It could be assumed.
It can not be reasonably assumed.
Is it twice as dark with the lights off, or 100 times as dark?
> but I didn't blink at that title.
Thats because your thinking process is so horribly compromised by those who don't think at all that you are starting to understand them just as parents understand baby gibberish.
Correct this unfortunate nonsense everywhere you see it. Its not just technical shorthand, its fundamentally wrong.
Of course, to borrow a phrase, "Space is big." The chances of hitting/being hit by a micro-meteor in such a way that the rocket is destroyed are probably less likely than an airplane crashing.
[Citation needed]
Any place one would want to go will include great quantities of small particles. These things are the dust left over from planet building.
If you can not detect them on radar, speculation of their density in what we presume to be empty space seems premature.
Ok, someone has to say it. iPhone/iPod Touch.
Choice of several readers. Choice of formats,
and at least 3 different on line stores if you want to buy something to read.
May not be cost effective for the single purpose of PDF reader, but throw in everything else it does and it makes sense.
Putting the actual generating elements in seawater is a maintenance nightmare.
Images here:
http://media.smithsonianmag.com/images/The-electric-wave-model-8.jpg
There is no doubt in my mind that they are not doing this altruistically, but they happen to be fighting what many believe to be a poorly written statute and in that sense are fighting for the common good at the same time.
Its not clear how you can string those two thoughts together in the same sentence and not see the conflict.
Fighting for the common good with no payday in sight is a pretty good definition of "altruistic" if you ask me.
Seriously, who could not have seen this coming.
This verdict had to have been the RIAA's worst nightmare. They had to know, as they left the courthouse that they had just snatched ultimate defeat from the jaws of temporal victory.
NOW it all comes into play again, out from under easily impressed small town judges and professionally packed juries.
The entire investigative tactic, the improper application of laws, (not to mention that little phrase containing the words "Cruel or Unusual Punishment") comes under high level review.
They can't have wanted this. They would have been happy with 100K verdict. This is their worst nightmare.
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/6420ap_wa_fisher_plaza_fire.html?source=mypi
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009415646_webfisherplaza04.html
Just wait till Homeland Security finds out about this Rocket Propelled Grenade manual.
You can expect a knock on the door, and Slash dot is going to to FISA court.
Bringing it slightly back On Topic, this has nothing to do with translation of already readable stone inscriptions.
Its about determining which hammer and chisel jockey was involved in translating the "written on paper" to the "carved in stone".
This is akin to determining if Margret typed your manuscript or if it was Walter.
Nothing at all about recovering last works or determining if you have risen to the status of a classic author.
So, don't expect any rush of visitors to your department any time soon.
The theory of comets as a source of water was also published in 1990, by Louis A. Frank.
Not exactly your average crack-pot scientists, Frank was the designer of something like 13 payloads on various launch vehicles in the 80s and 90s.
Frank posits that that small comets still hit the moon and earth almost daily, delivering water virtually every day. These small comets are more like fluffy snowballs, and are small enough not to have much if any radar signature, but their effects upon impact with the atmosphere are visible from above.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Splash_(book)
Excerpt from The Big Splash
by Louis A. Frank with Patrick Huyghe
Published by Birch Lane Press, 1990.
ISBN 1-55972-033-6
http://smallcomets.physics.uiowa.edu/blackspot.html
This is just a bunch of small colonies whose scents are so similar that members of the other colonies are unable to discern that they are, in fact, not from their own colony.
That's my take on this as well.
This sounds like kids with a a couple of ant farms substituting for science.
Wake me when they have mapped the mitrochondrial DNA and determined that they did indeed descend from some common "Ant Eve"
Till then Bad Breath (or pheromones) might be an equally likely explanation.
This seems a little over kill (pun intended) to me.
Not exactly.
Must Carry channels are local broadcasters who might be locked out of the cable system had not they gotten together and lobbied congress to force cable companies to carry them.
Without must carry rules, many subscribers in small markets would have to (and would probably gladly) forgo local programming.
In exchange for forcing their way onto the cable system, they must provide their signal free of charge to the cable providers.
Dear European:
Germany.
That's just it. The guy wrote that the law SHOULD be changed to explicitly deny this usage, without the copyright holders permission.
But the most he could recommend is a change in US law, which would be dutifully ignored elsewhere.
Besides, content originators already have the ability to control this for the most part.
All they need do is start paying attention to referrer information in html requests, denying those that did not come from approved sources. This would do quite a bit toward limiting linking, or at least making it harder.
You also have to allow for the possibility that he was floating this as a decoy, trying to point out the logical extension of the current policy, with the intent of generating a backlash.