NO, you don't understand. The idea is not to build the ships here, land then on the moon, refuel them there and launch them form the moon. That would be idioitic.
The idea is to BUILD the ships and equipment on the moon using lunar materials and lanuch them from there. This does make a lot of sense because it is a lot easier to launch from the moon than from earth. Further, it results in us having the infrastructure on the moon to mount similar future missions.
Also it gives us the chance to gain experiance building self-sustaining colonies on other planets. That way when we do get to mars, we can build a perminant colony there too.
In short, it is cheeper in the long run because you get a long term return on your investment(a perminant self-sustaining colony on the moon). And don't you tell me that a self sustaining colony is impossible, nothing is impossible.
This is an idea I've tried to promote to my by-the-book democrat friend. But he always complaind that it robs poor people of their dignity. I can't believe this argument! Isn't accepting handouts just as bad? I just don't get democrats.
Sure, but don't you usually back up your data before you reformat everything? I've copied my music to three diferent computers(just for convience), so I don't forsee having that problem anytime soon.
An objects mach number has nothing to do with the speed at which it flies over the ground. It is the ratio of the objects speed to the speed of sound in the air it is flying through. For example, if the objects speed is 300 mph and the speed of sound in the same conditions is 500 mph the mach number is 0.6. This dimensionless number is commonly used in analyzing the flow of compressible fluids, such as air.
I really lived this quote:
"But it's unclear whether putting weapons into space would provide much protection. The arms themselves could become sitting ducks in orbit -- giving the United States a new weakness, not a new strength. Satellites are already a weak "center of gravity" in American militarty planning, argues Bruce DeBlois, the editor of Beyond the Paths of Heaven: The Emergence of Space Power Thought. They're vulnerbale to electronic jamming, orbiting projectiles and nuclear detonations in near-Earth space. The space-based weapons would have all of the same vulnerabilities -- and would make that center of gravity a more inviting target."
That's right, and the more your forces advance on my country, the more vulnerable they become. Once you have overrun my country your forces will be so spread out that you'll have no chance. Victory is mine!
Of course, you should be able to tell that by how it gives you a headache after you've used it for a while. Then again, maybe I just get that from the flicker. At any rate, my girlfriends iMac doesn't have the problem.
There's a NMR (nuclear magnetic resonance) Spectrometer in the basement of the chemistry building where I go to school. Every-time I get near it I get a splitting headache and feel sick to my stomach (as a result I try not to get near it). I've always wondered it was the magnetic field of just the ultrasonic noise it emits.
Working for Nixon doesn't mean that you agree with the modern republican plaform. When Nixon was president, religon was a MUCH smaller part of the republican party. The republican party today is much different from what it was back then, and most "old school" republicans aren't happy about that.
Let me get this right, they're saying that by making policy based on advice by scientists other than them, the Bush administration is censuring them?
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the findings of these agencies are still published are they not? If they were really being censured, we wouldn't be having this conversation, because none of this information would be public domain.
No, this is really just a bunch of people whining because the policy that gets made isn't the policy they want to see get made. Well, I hate to say it, but the Bush Administration is not required to follow their recommendations no matter what they received the Nobel prize for, and that's a fact.
I always thought it was get a more people to buy. By offering a rebate, the penny pinchers will buy from you and send in for the rebate. Some people, for whatever reason, are willing to pay more, and won't send in the rebate (lazy, stupid, too much money, whatever the reason). That way you make more money off of people willing to pay more, while still making some money off the people who aren't.
Let me guess, they cut the budget 28% and all the administrators are still working there at the same pay rate. This sounds similar to the University of Idaho where I go. The administrators (some of whome make well over $5,000,000 a year) just lay off the teachers (who typically make $40,000 - $50,000)and the staff (some janitors only make $6.25/hour). I wonder if maybe they could use their money more effectively and instead of laying off 10 teachers, just take a 10% pay cut. The again, they need that new estate, and those fancy won't buy themselves.
Throwing money at social problems doesn't work. This is the nature of social problems. You can always find something wrong with society. You could ensure that everyone gets enough to eat. The problem is that then you get a bunch of people who are too fat. Saying "we should solve all our problems here first" is absurd. We will never live in a utopian society. Never. No ammount of money can change that fact. But, we can explore space.
So what should we do? Spend hundreds of trillions of dollars trying to solve an unsolveable problem, or speend a couple billion on space exploration and maybe solve some of those social problems as a result.
I don't think it's fair to say that someone who doesn't want government involvment is an extremest. I mean searously, name one thing the government here touches and doesn't screw up.
In a country founded on the notion that the government shouldn't infringe on peoples lives, it doesn't really make sense that the government should be spending so much money on social programs. The idea is that people are (at least should be) responsible to regulate their own behavior. For example, if people donated time and resources to charity of their own accord, there would be no need for welfare or medicare. Likewise, if people volunteered their time to the military, we could mantain a milita of local volunteers as a fraction of the cost of our defense spending. Moreover, the government wouldn't be able to have an expansionist foregin polocy.
Is this an extreme view to take? People should be responsible for their own lives.
You said it, I don't know why so many people have trouble understanding that it costs money to put content on the internet. Certinally the fact that you have to pay for internet hosting should clue you in that there is some cost here. I suspect that people who don't understand this, probably just don't pay their own bills.
Or maybe you should just realize that putting content on the internet costs money.
The question is how do you want to pay for the content you view on the internet? Would you rather pay for it yourself and skip the ads, or not pay for it and let the advertizers pick up the tab. No, you can't choose the neither option.
P.S. Most people choose to watch the ads, that's why they are there.
You don't really need to buy a MS PC at all. Everyone says you do. ITS guys, the news media, even LINUX users on fucking slashdot of all places will tell you that you NEED to buy Microsoft. It only the perception that this it the reality that makes it that way.
If PC venders believed that you could sell non-windows PS's, users would believe they could use them and no-one in their right mind would pay $500 for shitty Microsoft office that fucking thinks it knows what you want to type better than you do.
In short, Microsoft isn't really a monopoly, they're just really good at making people think that they are.
Honestly, did you ever notice that two assholes can never work together? There always has to be someone that is willing to get pushed around by the asshole for these kinds of things to work. Really the Jobs-Eisner deal was destined to fail. How could these two ever get along?
PS. This is not flamebait
I might say that as long as they charge a fair price for use of the bridge, there is nothing wrong with them doing so. It isn't their fault that there is no other bridge.
Further there is nothing stopping you from buying and using a different OS or watching different movies. There is not, as you say, only one bridge. Though I must admit, Microsoft has gotten pretty good at making people believe there is.
far the shuttle has cost 16 lives. Both disasters showed that the management had failled.
No, the problem with the space shuttle is that it was poorly conceived from the outset. When the majority of the cost of launching vehicles into space is fuel, a reusable craft makes no sense. In order to make the space shuttle reusable, they had to clad it in brittle ceramic tiles. Space vehicles with ablative heat shields are much more reliable, versatile, simpler, and cheeper. The truth is, we should never have been using the space shuttle in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
NO, you don't understand. The idea is not to build the ships here, land then on the moon, refuel them there and launch them form the moon. That would be idioitic.
The idea is to BUILD the ships and equipment on the moon using lunar materials and lanuch them from there. This does make a lot of sense because it is a lot easier to launch from the moon than from earth. Further, it results in us having the infrastructure on the moon to mount similar future missions.
Also it gives us the chance to gain experiance building self-sustaining colonies on other planets. That way when we do get to mars, we can build a perminant colony there too.
In short, it is cheeper in the long run because you get a long term return on your investment(a perminant self-sustaining colony on the moon). And don't you tell me that a self sustaining colony is impossible, nothing is impossible.
This is an idea I've tried to promote to my by-the-book democrat friend. But he always complaind that it robs poor people of their dignity. I can't believe this argument! Isn't accepting handouts just as bad? I just don't get democrats.
Didn't you mean:
"Alright, no more rhymes! I mean it this time."
Sure, but don't you usually back up your data before you reformat everything? I've copied my music to three diferent computers(just for convience), so I don't forsee having that problem anytime soon.
An objects mach number has nothing to do with the speed at which it flies over the ground. It is the ratio of the objects speed to the speed of sound in the air it is flying through. For example, if the objects speed is 300 mph and the speed of sound in the same conditions is 500 mph the mach number is 0.6.
This dimensionless number is commonly used in analyzing the flow of compressible fluids, such as air.
"Like all the commercial planes around. Last time I took the plane we were flying at 0.95 Mach."
.95.
I don't know what planes you fly in, but around here the typically fly around 300 mph or so, which isn't anywhere near mach
"It will never haul as many people as the A380. It will never have shops, real beds or things like that."
Big planes like that are mostly only for international flights anyway, and like you said, there's a big market for domestic flights.
I really lived this quote: "But it's unclear whether putting weapons into space would provide much protection. The arms themselves could become sitting ducks in orbit -- giving the United States a new weakness, not a new strength. Satellites are already a weak "center of gravity" in American militarty planning, argues Bruce DeBlois, the editor of Beyond the Paths of Heaven: The Emergence of Space Power Thought. They're vulnerbale to electronic jamming, orbiting projectiles and nuclear detonations in near-Earth space. The space-based weapons would have all of the same vulnerabilities -- and would make that center of gravity a more inviting target." That's right, and the more your forces advance on my country, the more vulnerable they become. Once you have overrun my country your forces will be so spread out that you'll have no chance. Victory is mine!
Of course, you should be able to tell that by how it gives you a headache after you've used it for a while. Then again, maybe I just get that from the flicker. At any rate, my girlfriends iMac doesn't have the problem. There's a NMR (nuclear magnetic resonance) Spectrometer in the basement of the chemistry building where I go to school. Every-time I get near it I get a splitting headache and feel sick to my stomach (as a result I try not to get near it). I've always wondered it was the magnetic field of just the ultrasonic noise it emits.
I think you mised the parent's point, none of these things have anything to do with the environmental sciences.
Why is this comment flamebait? Something tells me that people haven't been reading the moderator guidelines.
Working for Nixon doesn't mean that you agree with the modern republican plaform. When Nixon was president, religon was a MUCH smaller part of the republican party. The republican party today is much different from what it was back then, and most "old school" republicans aren't happy about that.
The parrent doesn't seem to be flaimbait or a troll. I am confused as to why it is modded as such.
Let me get this right, they're saying that by making policy based on advice by scientists other than them, the Bush administration is censuring them? Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the findings of these agencies are still published are they not? If they were really being censured, we wouldn't be having this conversation, because none of this information would be public domain. No, this is really just a bunch of people whining because the policy that gets made isn't the policy they want to see get made. Well, I hate to say it, but the Bush Administration is not required to follow their recommendations no matter what they received the Nobel prize for, and that's a fact.
I always thought it was get a more people to buy. By offering a rebate, the penny pinchers will buy from you and send in for the rebate. Some people, for whatever reason, are willing to pay more, and won't send in the rebate (lazy, stupid, too much money, whatever the reason). That way you make more money off of people willing to pay more, while still making some money off the people who aren't.
Let me guess, they cut the budget 28% and all the administrators are still working there at the same pay rate. This sounds similar to the University of Idaho where I go. The administrators (some of whome make well over $5,000,000 a year) just lay off the teachers (who typically make $40,000 - $50,000)and the staff (some janitors only make $6.25/hour). I wonder if maybe they could use their money more effectively and instead of laying off 10 teachers, just take a 10% pay cut. The again, they need that new estate, and those fancy won't buy themselves.
Of course I know you're lying, because adbusters said you'd say that. :)
Throwing money at social problems doesn't work. This is the nature of social problems. You can always find something wrong with society. You could ensure that everyone gets enough to eat. The problem is that then you get a bunch of people who are too fat. Saying "we should solve all our problems here first" is absurd. We will never live in a utopian society. Never. No ammount of money can change that fact. But, we can explore space.
So what should we do? Spend hundreds of trillions of dollars trying to solve an unsolveable problem, or speend a couple billion on space exploration and maybe solve some of those social problems as a result.
I don't think it's fair to say that someone who doesn't want government involvment is an extremest. I mean searously, name one thing the government here touches and doesn't screw up.
In a country founded on the notion that the government shouldn't infringe on peoples lives, it doesn't really make sense that the government should be spending so much money on social programs. The idea is that people are (at least should be) responsible to regulate their own behavior. For example, if people donated time and resources to charity of their own accord, there would be no need for welfare or medicare. Likewise, if people volunteered their time to the military, we could mantain a milita of local volunteers as a fraction of the cost of our defense spending. Moreover, the government wouldn't be able to have an expansionist foregin polocy.
Is this an extreme view to take? People should be responsible for their own lives.
You said it, I don't know why so many people have trouble understanding that it costs money to put content on the internet. Certinally the fact that you have to pay for internet hosting should clue you in that there is some cost here. I suspect that people who don't understand this, probably just don't pay their own bills.
Or maybe you should just realize that putting content on the internet costs money.
The question is how do you want to pay for the content you view on the internet? Would you rather pay for it yourself and skip the ads, or not pay for it and let the advertizers pick up the tab. No, you can't choose the neither option.
P.S. Most people choose to watch the ads, that's why they are there.
From the article:
The federal agency responsible for allocating spectrum might notice that the value of open spectrum is the same as the true value of the Internet.
I hope to god he isn't refering to the electro-magnetic spectrum.
"Yeah, we used to brodcast on 109.5 FM, but then viacom put in a transmitter with twice the power of our station."
You don't really need to buy a MS PC at all. Everyone says you do. ITS guys, the news media, even LINUX users on fucking slashdot of all places will tell you that you NEED to buy Microsoft. It only the perception that this it the reality that makes it that way.
If PC venders believed that you could sell non-windows PS's, users would believe they could use them and no-one in their right mind would pay $500 for shitty Microsoft office that fucking thinks it knows what you want to type better than you do.
In short, Microsoft isn't really a monopoly, they're just really good at making people think that they are.
Honestly, did you ever notice that two assholes can never work together? There always has to be someone that is willing to get pushed around by the asshole for these kinds of things to work. Really the Jobs-Eisner deal was destined to fail. How could these two ever get along? PS. This is not flamebait
I might say that as long as they charge a fair price for use of the bridge, there is nothing wrong with them doing so. It isn't their fault that there is no other bridge.
Further there is nothing stopping you from buying and using a different OS or watching different movies. There is not, as you say, only one bridge. Though I must admit, Microsoft has gotten pretty good at making people believe there is.