How about this -- treat the airplane just like a movie theater: no outside food/drinks allowed.
I think you are right. On the bright side getting rid of carry-on luggage will make security checks, boarding and deplaning much faster and safer, especially in an emergency. The problem of timed explosives in checked bags remain however. The main reason people are averse to checking baggage is the efficiency of the process. Perhaps this is an opportunity for that to improve. Another improvement would be to replace 2 flight attendants with non-lethally armed security guards - if a passenger acts up he gets tapped with a "be good" stick.
The approach, which is being considered by the US Air Force and the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, involves using very low frequency radio waves to flush particles from belts and dump them into the upper atmosphere over either one or several days
Flushing ions from the radiation belts is one step from focusing them on our enemies satellites.
How's about those who want the war go their and fight it. In the process sacrificing their freedoms and possibly lives then? There appear to be far too many people "cheerleading" conflict in Asia from North America and Europe.
The highly professional, all volunteer force has worked very well. Do we really want to return to the Vietnam era where crucial battles are left to demoralized concripts and drug addicts? The action in Iraq was the result of carefull deliberation of those on both sides of the isle, even though the cut and run democrats would have you believe otherwise.
You want my thinking? There is no reason that TSA should institute the same policy in Amarillo or Fargo as they need to do for UK flights in this case.
A foolish assertion. Do I need to remind you that Mohammed Atta passed security at the lightly defended Portland ME airport? It is of vital importance the the security at Kennedy Airport is the same as in Quad Cities.
It is you who is in denial about the pervasive erosion of all kinds of freedom in the US since 9/11.
I think you are confused about freedom. I am practically strip searched before I get on a plane. But I understand why and try to make it easy on the TSA folks. Is it really worth getting worked up because you can't take your Frappuccino on board anymore? Your real freedom is to travel anywhere in our glorious nation on a whim.
Cue the Ben Franklin quote please.... (you don't deserve security or freedom)
Are you really free if you let terror have free reign in the homeland, or are you in denial? Many wise words were written by the founding fathers. But I don't believe they intended to do your thinking for you 250 years later.
I don't feel any safer by having my liquids/toenail clippers/pocket vibe/ipod/laptop taken away from me, when there are plenty of other ways to kill/be killed that airlines have no control over. I am more angry at terrorists for making American privacy close(er) to extinction than anything else. With a "war" on "terror" there are going to be casualties, my water consumption/music listening/laptop using/game playing/phone usage habits shouldn't be at the top of the list.
In a war people must make sacrifices. Consider your bottle of Evian as one of them.
Just Watch - the mid term elections this cycle will again be driven by raising the alert and fear level to drive voters into a panic, "Trust Our Imperious Leaders!" mode, no matter how corrupt, no matter how self-serving these alert levels are.
I think this will remind folks that the terror denying, cut and run, George Soros radical wing of the democrat party is a danger to America. The purging of such wild eyed conservatives Joe Lieberman makes the point.
The Fearmongering must stop ! This is Stupid, Insulting, and Damaging to our Democracy!
This is not fear mongering. It is an imminent threat from islamic crazies.
I was also using Lisp decades ago when you were probably still in grade school, and I am very familiar a couple of dozen other languages.
To display such ignorance after these long decades doesn't speak well of you.
Sounds great on paper, but in the real world, you don't really get anywhere with it. 50 years after Lisp was invented, it's still on the fringes, and that's one reason why: no standardized powerful constructs.
This is an argument? Any language goes through this period of balkanization. How many times have you written your own a linked list code in C? The organisation you tout that Python enjoys results from it ridding the coattails of C. I like C just fine. C++ less. But it is sad that such flint tools are still in vogue.
uses much more concise and easy-to-read forms for containers than Lisp
The language where each programmer uses macros to try to reinvent their very own real object system,
Some do. I use yasos which is part of slib. You must be a C++ person who doesn't like macros because one of the priests of strong typing told you not to. A pity. Macros are an irreplacable feature being forgotten now in dumbed down languages. Read Paul Graham's On Lisp someday and get clued in.
real language syntax,
???
real containers,
Scheme supports Lists, vectors, and alists and iteration natively. Libstdc++ has spent the last 10 years trying to catch up, and doing so poorly. Python doesn't even have these. You don't know what you are talking about.
and real OS interface library
What slackjawed Python programmer doesn't spend every waking hour "wrapping" existing C API's. My Gentoo system is rotten with them. It saddens me that there is not a full scheme system yet. In the meantime scheme shell is pleasant way to interact with a GNU/Linux system.
I can't say I have specialized in it, but I have used it. If you are going to program with side effects (OO) it doesn't get any simpler. I could live with it. How can anyone explain the madness of Python's fashionability over smalltalk?
That's exactly the kind of stupid shit that gives Lisp users a reputation as a bunch of arrogant assholes.
And yes, Scheme is a great language, and I love it, but it's not the best thing for every situation. If you truly think one language is the best choice for everything, then you're a total idiot.
First to insult me as a Lisp bigot, then you try to associate yourself with it. Amusing! You Python bottom feeders shouldn't be so sensitive.
Python developer, I think this is great. I'm glad that Python is gaining more acceptance.
Javascript, PHP and now Python. A real rogues gallery of languages, each more ill-conceived and vomitous than the last. Use scheme. The language is simpler than the others yet for more expressive and powerful. Learn something. Use it!
you mourn not just your lost PS2 games or your Xbox controllers but also the fact that these once precious things have been proven completely meaningless.
Deep. It makes me think that the lawless, gangbanging aftermath of Katrina in New orleans would make a compelling Grand Theft Auto scenario.
As such, you don't want to be saddled with a language which requires you to think about every malloc(), to manipulate strings of characters as bytes, to set up event handler callback routines, or to call methods on layout-bag-grid-column junk.
You make a very good point. Most programmers do not make the effort to seperate UI elements from their callback infrastructure because they use inheritance to compose functioning widget heirarchies. So they combine program context with their UI. If you use composition you will be much better off, and it is easy. Create a "spineless" GUI mockup for your boss. The code should contain minimal dependencies beyond Qt or wxWidgets or whatever you are using. Implement your event handlers with minimal knowledge of the UI and attach them dynamically. With older toolkits in C you only have callback hooks so this is easy.
Although invented many years earlier Mr BernersLees invention married hypertext with the internet.
I remember accessing GNU Info files via Sun OS 4.1 NFS in 1990. I'm sure there are other even earlier examples. Didn't need a bloated brower either just Emacs or xinfo. Berners Lee just did it later in dumbed down that gained traction with simple minded PC users.
Not only will the lander suffer power loss in the winter, it will be enveloped by ice. The mission will not last beyond the martian winter.
There is no chance for this mission to last for years like the rovers. Sorry.
The stated mission duration for Phoenix is 3 months. And your point is? Also, the lander won't be "enveloped by ice". It will be covered with CO2 frost a few microns thick, just like Viking 2 was.
* Cut the cost from about $400 million per rover to $250 for Scout missions
Duplication should achieve significant cost savings
Dig into the surface and transport batches of samples to the oven
Spectrally analyze samples, heat them, and spectrally analyze the emissions
Small, inexpensive instrumentation features that any mission would have to implement
Not increase the mass of the landing system
Same as first.
Be able to land at the poles instead of the equator with the same launch package
Irrelevant. There are no energy constrains to landing at the poles.
Operate on a fraction of the solar input available to the rovers at the equator.
Not an issue at all in northern hemisphere summer where solar illumination exceeds that of the equator. The Phoenix lander is still solar powered and will suffer power loss in the winter. I assume the electronics are radiogenically heated.
For the same reason earthbound geologists will sometimes spend weeks or months camped in a single spot examining a small area or a single feature intensively. Taking random samples from the surface only tells you so much - sometimes you need to study whats *beneath* the surface. After you've done a broad area search - it's time to start looking at the details.
You are surely talking out of your ass. It would be easy and cheap to equip a rover with a drill or trenching tool and get the benefit of both. Also the chance of plunking a lander down on exactly the right spot to sample is low. A rover would greatly increase the odds of finding a good site to sample. By the way I am a geologist.
What a load of crap. The marginal cost of duplicating the rovers, perhaps many time, and even adding soil sampling experiments, has to be less than a new dedicated mission. The problem is NASA planetary operations are far too mission focused. It has always been like that. It is like that to this day. There are few common spacecraft buses and subsystems. With the increasing frequency of Mars missions there needs to be much more technical continuity.
Why in the heck would we be launching a stationary lander when the Spirit and Opportunity have been roving the surface for over 2 years? Think of how crudy the rover missions would have been if they were stuck in one spot. We would have seen the inside of 1 ten foot crater and a rubble monoscape. Instead the rovers have climbed mountains, traversed huge craters, found exotic sedimentary deposits, and produced amazing panoramas. Mobility is invaluable. What are NASA planners thinking?
Wow! It looks like it will be crowded on the moon with all of these bases:Japan,
Russia,
China. But lets face it folks. The only credible plans for lunar exploration are coming out of the USA. The rest are just angling to hitch a ride.
I have been struggling with one major problem lately with the Linux operating system and that problem is the amazing lack of new and exciting software.
As a Gentoo user I have been struggling keeping my machine up to date with the 11248 packages that are continually. I find this astounding! Back in 1990 I could keep track of all free software development (20 or so packages) by checking 1 site.
Slashdot Mirror
I call it Copyfarleft.
I think you are right. On the bright side getting rid of carry-on luggage will make security checks, boarding and deplaning much faster and safer, especially in an emergency. The problem of timed explosives in checked bags remain however. The main reason people are averse to checking baggage is the efficiency of the process. Perhaps this is an opportunity for that to improve. Another improvement would be to replace 2 flight attendants with non-lethally armed security guards - if a passenger acts up he gets tapped with a "be good" stick.
Flushing ions from the radiation belts is one step from focusing them on our enemies satellites.
The highly professional, all volunteer force has worked very well. Do we really want to return to the Vietnam era where crucial battles are left to demoralized concripts and drug addicts? The action in Iraq was the result of carefull deliberation of those on both sides of the isle, even though the cut and run democrats would have you believe otherwise.
A foolish assertion. Do I need to remind you that Mohammed Atta passed security at the lightly defended Portland ME airport? It is of vital importance the the security at Kennedy Airport is the same as in Quad Cities.
I think you are confused about freedom. I am practically strip searched before I get on a plane. But I understand why and try to make it easy on the TSA folks. Is it really worth getting worked up because you can't take your Frappuccino on board anymore? Your real freedom is to travel anywhere in our glorious nation on a whim.
Are you really free if you let terror have free reign in the homeland, or are you in denial? Many wise words were written by the founding fathers. But I don't believe they intended to do your thinking for you 250 years later.
Public safety trumps your narcissistic ideals of freedom.
In a war people must make sacrifices. Consider your bottle of Evian as one of them.
I think this will remind folks that the terror denying, cut and run, George Soros radical wing of the democrat party is a danger to America. The purging of such wild eyed conservatives Joe Lieberman makes the point.
This is not fear mongering. It is an imminent threat from islamic crazies.
To display such ignorance after these long decades doesn't speak well of you.
This is an argument? Any language goes through this period of balkanization. How many times have you written your own a linked list code in C? The organisation you tout that Python enjoys results from it ridding the coattails of C. I like C just fine. C++ less. But it is sad that such flint tools are still in vogue.
Yes, constructs like this:
are indeed complex and intimidating.
Some do. I use yasos which is part of slib. You must be a C++ person who doesn't like macros because one of the priests of strong typing told you not to. A pity. Macros are an irreplacable feature being forgotten now in dumbed down languages. Read Paul Graham's On Lisp someday and get clued in.
???
Scheme supports Lists, vectors, and alists and iteration natively. Libstdc++ has spent the last 10 years trying to catch up, and doing so poorly. Python doesn't even have these. You don't know what you are talking about.
What slackjawed Python programmer doesn't spend every waking hour "wrapping" existing C API's. My Gentoo system is rotten with them. It saddens me that there is not a full scheme system yet. In the meantime scheme shell is pleasant way to interact with a GNU/Linux system.
I can't say I have specialized in it, but I have used it. If you are going to program with side effects (OO) it doesn't get any simpler. I could live with it. How can anyone explain the madness of Python's fashionability over smalltalk?
You are narrowing your options considering who who developed the initial versions of GCC.
First to insult me as a Lisp bigot, then you try to associate yourself with it. Amusing! You Python bottom feeders shouldn't be so sensitive.
Javascript, PHP and now Python. A real rogues gallery of languages, each more ill-conceived and vomitous than the last. Use scheme. The language is simpler than the others yet for more expressive and powerful. Learn something. Use it!
Deep. It makes me think that the lawless, gangbanging aftermath of Katrina in New orleans would make a compelling Grand Theft Auto scenario.
You make a very good point. Most programmers do not make the effort to seperate UI elements from their callback infrastructure because they use inheritance to compose functioning widget heirarchies. So they combine program context with their UI. If you use composition you will be much better off, and it is easy. Create a "spineless" GUI mockup for your boss. The code should contain minimal dependencies beyond Qt or wxWidgets or whatever you are using. Implement your event handlers with minimal knowledge of the UI and attach them dynamically. With older toolkits in C you only have callback hooks so this is easy.
I remember accessing GNU Info files via Sun OS 4.1 NFS in 1990. I'm sure there are other even earlier examples. Didn't need a bloated brower either just Emacs or xinfo. Berners Lee just did it later in dumbed down that gained traction with simple minded PC users.
The stated mission duration for Phoenix is 3 months. And your point is? Also, the lander won't be "enveloped by ice". It will be covered with CO2 frost a few microns thick, just like Viking 2 was.
Duplication should achieve significant cost savings
Small, inexpensive instrumentation features that any mission would have to implement
Same as first.
Irrelevant. There are no energy constrains to landing at the poles.
Not an issue at all in northern hemisphere summer where solar illumination exceeds that of the equator. The Phoenix lander is still solar powered and will suffer power loss in the winter. I assume the electronics are radiogenically heated.
You are surely talking out of your ass. It would be easy and cheap to equip a rover with a drill or trenching tool and get the benefit of both. Also the chance of plunking a lander down on exactly the right spot to sample is low. A rover would greatly increase the odds of finding a good site to sample. By the way I am a geologist.
What a load of crap. The marginal cost of duplicating the rovers, perhaps many time, and even adding soil sampling experiments, has to be less than a new dedicated mission. The problem is NASA planetary operations are far too mission focused. It has always been like that. It is like that to this day. There are few common spacecraft buses and subsystems. With the increasing frequency of Mars missions there needs to be much more technical continuity.
Why in the heck would we be launching a stationary lander when the Spirit and Opportunity have been roving the surface for over 2 years? Think of how crudy the rover missions would have been if they were stuck in one spot. We would have seen the inside of 1 ten foot crater and a rubble monoscape. Instead the rovers have climbed mountains, traversed huge craters, found exotic sedimentary deposits, and produced amazing panoramas. Mobility is invaluable. What are NASA planners thinking?
Wow! It looks like it will be crowded on the moon with all of these bases:Japan, Russia, China. But lets face it folks. The only credible plans for lunar exploration are coming out of the USA. The rest are just angling to hitch a ride.
As a Gentoo user I have been struggling keeping my machine up to date with the 11248 packages that are continually. I find this astounding! Back in 1990 I could keep track of all free software development (20 or so packages) by checking 1 site.