Wikipedia is great for big topics, but it is still woefully incomplete at the local/reional level. I've added articles on state and county parks, local (but nationally recognized) museums, and never had much fuss. Maybe because I always make sure there is at least one citation - never hard when you live in the shadow of the mighty NY Times.
We've been to the moon. Let the Chinese try it again. I think landing on an asteroid, or a moon of Mars, or buzzing a comet - they are all much more exciting. The moon is a dead end - tackling deep space is the real future!
There's no here here. They don't have any real batteries in production. Its still in real-world testing.
Or to put it in more slashdot-centric way of thinking... they don't even have 2/4 steps for profit
1) Announce untested idea for new battery
2) ??????
3) ??????
4) Profit!
Average temps are normally 90 to 20 F summer to winter. These roads aren't the high speed drags. Mainly routes through the main drag and to the harbor/docks (so they get some heavy weight).
Ok? Not only is it old, its within feet of the harbor. So it gets a heavy salt dose on top of it. Yet a number of these concrete roads in the area survive from the early 20th century. They weren't fooling around with roads back then.
It gets decently cold here (low of 0-10 degrees F in the winter) - and we get snow falls, but snow tires/chains are illegal in these parts (for good reason - this is a fairly urban area, with paid snow removal). But the old concrete roads still keep on trucking. Maybe they really don't make 'em like the used to.
I just don't understand why more roads weren't (and aren't now) made from concrete, rather than asphalt. There are very busily travelled concrete roadways near where I live, that are over a 100 years old, are subjected to salt, heavy trucking, and all sorts of abuse - yet require almost no maintenance.
In comparison, the newer asphalt sections of those same roads just seem to fall apart within a few years of being refurbished. For a few dollars more in the beginning, a centuries worth of maintenance $s can be avoided. Seems short sighted to me...
I'm sorry - but thats complete and utter bullshit. Save your apoplexy for subjects that you didn't study at the Armageddon School of Asteroid studies. Mars is not close. Asteroids don't randomly shoot through the solar system. They are not surrounded by asteroid fields, or whatever craziness you think makes landing difficult. In fact, the practically 0g environment makes them the EASIEST objects to take off from.
This idea is so "out there", that its been studied by NASA for the Orion spacecraft. Here's a wikipedia link, since the actual study isn't in easy to watch movie form. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_Asteroid_Mission
The shuttle replacement is over-budget, under-spec, and without a realistic mission. We have trouble building and servicing a base going around the Earth, in zero-g... why does NASA think we can do this without busting timelines or budgets on the moon?
I wish Bush had set a more realistic goal... landing on near earth asteroids. Then NASA would have two things going for it - something never done, and a bs fallback line to feed axe wielding politicians (we need these missions to learn how to blow up incoming astroids - you want to tell your constituents why they need to live in a tent camp for the next 5 years when we evacuate all of New Mexico?).
Now all NASA has is a half-assed Apollo clone, no clear goal, and a loud insurgent campaign (DIRECT). I just hope this doesn't blow-back and foul up the fairly successful non-manned space missions.
I'm sorry, but reading this completely unrelated tangent, the only thing I could think of was:
Oh yeah, the important thing was that I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn't have any white onions, because of the war. The only thing you can get was those big yellow ones...
My solution is to stop moralizing about all the good some new technique or invention will be doing, when its obvious that there is nothing inherently good about it.
If you've invented a technique to communicate in secret, then its easier for everyone to hide things. End of story.
But at the same time - why is there always editorial commentary about the "good" some invention X will cause, when we damn well know that the "good" use probably won't be its primary user base...
Every time a new way to beat eavesdropping come out, the only thing mentioned is how we can now beat the censors of totalitarian regimes.
What about its other fun uses? Terrorists sending messages to detonate a bomb (defeating the godless atheist liberal censors trying to read their messages), drug gangs sending messages about who to murder (defeating the overbearing fascist police trying to read their messages), spies sending messages with national or corporate secrets (defeating the evil counter-intel agents), etc.
Are we really so naive that new techniques like this are only going to be used by oppressed do-gooders? Or that we'll agree that they shouldn't be oppressed and suppressed?
All I read about is that how in the future your browser will run your apps, and how that handheld devices are the real future of computers in the wider market.
Does this "war" even matter anymore? Twenty years from now, will anyone care what OS is running Chrome 15.2?
I supply a product. You use it or take it without compensating me. You're a thief. Steal an apple, steal an idea, steal a game. Thief, thief, thief. You're hungry, I don't deserve to it, you want to play it for free. Still a thief, thief thief.
Why do people have such a hard time accepting this? Are we so coddled that we can't look ourselves in the mirror after we do something "bad". I wish people would stop using all these defense mechanisms so they can pretend they are good people, and just openly say it: I'm a cheapskate thief.
You missed the point. The description for dummies is:
Get root access to one linux VM. Congratulations, you now have undetectable root access to the host server and all the other VMs.
Why is this insightful? This is a problem that can be exploited through a hosted VM! If you've rooted one VM on a system, now you can jump to the host server and all the other hosted VM's. And oh yeah - theres no way to detect it at all!!!
Where do you get that radio waves don't travel at the speed of light? They're photons. In a vacuum. They're going just as fast as your friggin lasers.
And don't get your hopes up about radio transmissions being picked up either. Take the biggest receiver on Earth (Arecibo - 1000 feet across), put it in space and how far can you go before you can't make out TV/radio transmissions? Pluto.
The carrier can go out farther - maybe a light year before Arecibo loses it. And radar beams even farther (assuming the beam sweeps over you). But all those say is that we're here. Not what we're saying.
Put people in a boring, windowless room, and you're so bored the lesson is the distraction. You have little choice but to sit there and listen and write notes (don't bring in the laptop or smart phone - too tempting).
I've done the learn from home, IPod/mindisc/tape lessons, what have you. Its crap. I was way too distracted outside of the classroom to absorb things as well. No questions too (or hard to get in right away, when you type or talk out a tinny speaker). Found the same thing at work when I have training/meetings over the phone versus in person.
Maybe I'm unique or something, but seeing how much constant stimulation people my age and younger crave these days, I doubt it. There will always be a need for a large number of people to sit in a windowless room, and have someone lecture and answer questions.
Yeah really stupid. Now they'll only get publicity when Colbert visits NASA, the first time its launched, the first time he interviews someone on it, etc. And they do it without pissing off international partners (it may be our node, but it ain't our space station).
Slashdot Mirror
Right Mr "I wipe my arse with the Mathematics manual of style!!". It was because of a cabal that you got tossed.
I don't know jack shit about the exponential function. But I know how to interact with other humans. That ain't it.
Wikipedia is great for big topics, but it is still woefully incomplete at the local/reional level. I've added articles on state and county parks, local (but nationally recognized) museums, and never had much fuss. Maybe because I always make sure there is at least one citation - never hard when you live in the shadow of the mighty NY Times.
We've been to the moon. Let the Chinese try it again. I think landing on an asteroid, or a moon of Mars, or buzzing a comet - they are all much more exciting. The moon is a dead end - tackling deep space is the real future!
There's no here here. They don't have any real batteries in production. Its still in real-world testing. Or to put it in more slashdot-centric way of thinking... they don't even have 2/4 steps for profit 1) Announce untested idea for new battery 2) ?????? 3) ?????? 4) Profit!
Upon closer inspection? Did you even read it? You want to know who the #1 candidate in Iran is, according to that poll?
I don't know/Refused to answer/No one. 1/2 won't answer, 1/3 openly support the incumbent, 1/6 openly support the challenger.
In other words, "statistical analysis" of bullshit, results in bullshit.
Average temps are normally 90 to 20 F summer to winter. These roads aren't the high speed drags. Mainly routes through the main drag and to the harbor/docks (so they get some heavy weight).
Pics? Sure:
http://victorianjewel.com/pictures/025.jpg
Or check this out - a link that shows the area before the road went in, and a recent photo
http://www.newsday.com/community/guide/lihistory/ny-hs372a_sg,0,4697114.photogallery
Ok? Not only is it old, its within feet of the harbor. So it gets a heavy salt dose on top of it. Yet a number of these concrete roads in the area survive from the early 20th century. They weren't fooling around with roads back then.
It gets decently cold here (low of 0-10 degrees F in the winter) - and we get snow falls, but snow tires/chains are illegal in these parts (for good reason - this is a fairly urban area, with paid snow removal). But the old concrete roads still keep on trucking. Maybe they really don't make 'em like the used to.
I still get a kick pointing out the trolley tracks still embedded in the road surface... and that the trolley went under 85 years ago - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northport,_New_York#Railroads_.26_Trolleys
I just don't understand why more roads weren't (and aren't now) made from concrete, rather than asphalt. There are very busily travelled concrete roadways near where I live, that are over a 100 years old, are subjected to salt, heavy trucking, and all sorts of abuse - yet require almost no maintenance.
In comparison, the newer asphalt sections of those same roads just seem to fall apart within a few years of being refurbished. For a few dollars more in the beginning, a centuries worth of maintenance $s can be avoided. Seems short sighted to me...
I'm sorry - but thats complete and utter bullshit. Save your apoplexy for subjects that you didn't study at the Armageddon School of Asteroid studies. Mars is not close. Asteroids don't randomly shoot through the solar system. They are not surrounded by asteroid fields, or whatever craziness you think makes landing difficult. In fact, the practically 0g environment makes them the EASIEST objects to take off from.
This idea is so "out there", that its been studied by NASA for the Orion spacecraft. Here's a wikipedia link, since the actual study isn't in easy to watch movie form. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_Asteroid_Mission
The shuttle replacement is over-budget, under-spec, and without a realistic mission. We have trouble building and servicing a base going around the Earth, in zero-g... why does NASA think we can do this without busting timelines or budgets on the moon?
I wish Bush had set a more realistic goal... landing on near earth asteroids. Then NASA would have two things going for it - something never done, and a bs fallback line to feed axe wielding politicians (we need these missions to learn how to blow up incoming astroids - you want to tell your constituents why they need to live in a tent camp for the next 5 years when we evacuate all of New Mexico?).
Now all NASA has is a half-assed Apollo clone, no clear goal, and a loud insurgent campaign (DIRECT). I just hope this doesn't blow-back and foul up the fairly successful non-manned space missions.
I'm sorry, but reading this completely unrelated tangent, the only thing I could think of was:
Oh yeah, the important thing was that I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time.
They didn't have any white onions, because of the war. The only thing you can get was those big yellow ones...
armchair science and movie science merged together to fight actual science. Who will win???
My solution is to stop moralizing about all the good some new technique or invention will be doing, when its obvious that there is nothing inherently good about it.
If you've invented a technique to communicate in secret, then its easier for everyone to hide things. End of story.
Who says they should be banned?
But at the same time - why is there always editorial commentary about the "good" some invention X will cause, when we damn well know that the "good" use probably won't be its primary user base...
Every time a new way to beat eavesdropping come out, the only thing mentioned is how we can now beat the censors of totalitarian regimes.
What about its other fun uses? Terrorists sending messages to detonate a bomb (defeating the godless atheist liberal censors trying to read their messages), drug gangs sending messages about who to murder (defeating the overbearing fascist police trying to read their messages), spies sending messages with national or corporate secrets (defeating the evil counter-intel agents), etc.
Are we really so naive that new techniques like this are only going to be used by oppressed do-gooders? Or that we'll agree that they shouldn't be oppressed and suppressed?
I see over 1000 articles (with photos) by this guy on the Times website. And I can access all of them.
All I read about is that how in the future your browser will run your apps, and how that handheld devices are the real future of computers in the wider market.
Does this "war" even matter anymore? Twenty years from now, will anyone care what OS is running Chrome 15.2?
The difference is simple. One is harder to rationalize theft, the other one is easier to rationalize theft.
The correct term is theft.
I supply a product. You use it or take it without compensating me. You're a thief. Steal an apple, steal an idea, steal a game. Thief, thief, thief. You're hungry, I don't deserve to it, you want to play it for free. Still a thief, thief thief.
Why do people have such a hard time accepting this? Are we so coddled that we can't look ourselves in the mirror after we do something "bad". I wish people would stop using all these defense mechanisms so they can pretend they are good people, and just openly say it: I'm a cheapskate thief.
You missed the point. The description for dummies is: Get root access to one linux VM. Congratulations, you now have undetectable root access to the host server and all the other VMs.
Why is this insightful? This is a problem that can be exploited through a hosted VM! If you've rooted one VM on a system, now you can jump to the host server and all the other hosted VM's. And oh yeah - theres no way to detect it at all!!!
Where do you get that radio waves don't travel at the speed of light? They're photons. In a vacuum. They're going just as fast as your friggin lasers.
And don't get your hopes up about radio transmissions being picked up either. Take the biggest receiver on Earth (Arecibo - 1000 feet across), put it in space and how far can you go before you can't make out TV/radio transmissions? Pluto.
The carrier can go out farther - maybe a light year before Arecibo loses it. And radar beams even farther (assuming the beam sweeps over you). But all those say is that we're here. Not what we're saying.
No distractions.
Put people in a boring, windowless room, and you're so bored the lesson is the distraction. You have little choice but to sit there and listen and write notes (don't bring in the laptop or smart phone - too tempting).
I've done the learn from home, IPod/mindisc/tape lessons, what have you. Its crap. I was way too distracted outside of the classroom to absorb things as well. No questions too (or hard to get in right away, when you type or talk out a tinny speaker). Found the same thing at work when I have training/meetings over the phone versus in person.
Maybe I'm unique or something, but seeing how much constant stimulation people my age and younger crave these days, I doubt it. There will always be a need for a large number of people to sit in a windowless room, and have someone lecture and answer questions.
Yeah really stupid. Now they'll only get publicity when Colbert visits NASA, the first time its launched, the first time he interviews someone on it, etc. And they do it without pissing off international partners (it may be our node, but it ain't our space station).