"If successful, the plane would be the first spacecraft since the shuttle that would be capable of returning experiments back to Earth for analysis."
Buran could do this - they just couldn't afford to fly the thing. Not that I'm suggesting we use Buran, btw... it's been sitting outside for a while.
My phone calls people, it takes calls. It sends SMS and it receives them. That's all - I love my phone. When I went to buy it, the service chick couldn't understand why I didn't want a camera/video/gps/somethingsomething. I'm obviously a geek festooned with gadgets, afterall. The obvious answer is that I already have all those things, and much better ones than can be put in a phone, too. The original ipod was just a music player, but it has become more things - Apple is on a slippery slope - I hope they don't fall to the dark side with creeping featuritis and 'convergence'. I, for one, will always pass on a player/phone that is not just a player or phone.
In a scholastic world where quantitative performance metrics are the norm, I'm surprised that this hasn't started sooner. I do wonder about the effect it will have on students who are already being driven hard to succeed by their parents - it always used to be my (few, decent) teachers who gave me the love of the subject, rather than the impetuous to perform. I weep for the day when Mr. Carbunkle says "I'm sorry Jimmy, I'd love to teach you calculus because I know you're interested in it, and it's really neat, but if you don't regurgitate all these trig tables 100% correctly, I can't afford that new kidney."
Naked geeks online? Backlash in 5... 4... 3... 2... 1...
*shudder*
Seriously, though, I can't think of any benefits of putting this - either you're already putting these things online to the extent you care to, or you aren't interested. What does this add, really?
Voter caging - the wiki tells all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caging_list
It is a means of eliminating voters from the electoral role by disputing their eligibility to vote. This takes the form of mailing items to their address by registered post - if the item isn't signed for, the caging party disputes their postal address and thereby attempts to have them struck from the voting roll. Good to use against certain demographics in marginal seats.
What I have to ask is how do you verify that the database and actual count tally? A receipt is nice and fine, and a database is nice (assuming you are not connected to your number in anyway other than the receipt, eg. it's just the nth number person you happen to be, polling at that time) but how can you really be certain that the official count has anything to do with the database contents? This always bugs me about electronic voting - there's no obvious pile disparity between votes for each candidate. You can't observe the numeracy of the thing. Also, this won't stop other dirty tricks like voter caging etc. Thoughts?
My one thought of bully, as a kid who was bullied mercilessly at school, is that perhaps people will see it from the other side of the fence. Computer games are interesting in that they can make the player develop empathy with characters. I wonder what I might learn from it, and I wonder what bullies might learn from it.
No, I'm not expecting some radical change in school-yard pathos, but don't forget that computer games used to be the great nerd activity. If the lines between nerd and bully blur, what will people be picked on for? My guess is the same usual things - physical differences; those elements deeply ingrained in humanity. I'm waiting for the game 'Human' in which the player must slaughter enemy tribes and steal their women. I wonder what I might learn from it.
I'd not be surprised if there's resistance to the idea of changing time. People are strange in a way. It's of great importance that people stick with something they know, and are comfortable with. Just so, too, when leap years were introduced people were afraid of losing days off their lives because they believed that the date of their death was set. Also, take metric time - it never had a chance in hell because it was so different to what everyone was used to that it was effectively alien (even though, on some levels it makes a great deal of sense). I, personally, have no problem with global time completely disjoint from the location in which I live, so long as it's GMT. As it is, my sleeping patterns already have no correlation with the actual time of day.
By the by, you'd think that Valve would have simply put in some sort of filter in its naming code to ensure that people don't try to name themselves "Valve_employee_261" or some such.
Not that naming yourself so seems to be effective.;)
Actually, it was not an attempt to explain the joke, per se. My original joke was supposed to have a patriotic substituted message, but I foolishly deliniated the edited text by angle-brackets. The second post is how the joke ought to have looked, but as has been mentioned, the accidental text reads just as well as the original. Mental note: review posts.
Ahem... That was supposed to read:
"Well, obviously this is a blatant attempt to -edit- bring the truth to the people about the fair and democratic actions of the legally elected administration of the United States of America -edit-, anyone can see that!"
Erf... obviously my previous message was censored! How bizarre!! Looks like they ARE ensuring the truth is told! Note to self: preview posts...
By 'last into the future' I'm talking about systems that will continue to advance technology, rather than stagnate it. An example of this is the Apollo infrastructure that is reused by the shuttle - it has demonstrated its longevity, but it's pretty hard to improve on a launchpad. The technology in avionics, materials and mechatronics has moved on since the 80s.
I agree that we should use what is useful, but my comment was addressed to the idea of specifically designing craft to reuse previous technology when new/better technology exists. There is a huge difference between UPS vans and the shuttle - as the recent trouble with the system has demonstrated, space-flight remains a decidedly non-routine endeavour, and anything that can improve performance and safety ought to be considered.
Even UPS trucks can use modern efficient engines and anti-lock brakes.
I notice there's a lot of talk for reusing orbiter (like DIRECT) and Apollo technology. Now, I'm all for reuse of facilities and technology, but I can't help but think that we're undercutting ourselves by not developing new technology and capability that will last into the future. It's as if no one ever wanted to develop further than 1920's cars, since they did the job 'well enough'. Is this going to cost us when, in three decades, the new vehicles are hitting end-of-service and suddenly we're stuck with infrastructure that is half a century out of date?
I can't be the only one who noticed that the lead story of Slashdot on the day they critique the page reads "Mistrust of Today's Technology". I find it ironic that they choose that moment to use ancient pablum to analyse the site.
That's right - everything old is new! Fung shui is the new rational thought, vastu is the new fung shui! Why is it that none of the supposedly free-thinking new-age whackjobs out there take you seriously if you're not drawing on the ages-old wisdom of people who thought the world was flat?
I don't buy CDs that have copy protection on them. It treats me like a criminal. I bought a Placebo CD published by EMI and I couldn't play it on my computer like a normal CD. I invest a lot in computer audio equipment and I'm not going to use their crappy little player program instead of my usual tools.
I, a legitimate paying customer, could not play something I'd paid for. I found those same tracks freely available online. By paying money, I had disadvantaged myself. Since then, I have never bought a disc with copy protection. I have never bought a disc from EMI. They have lost a loyal customer.
Of course, being a geek, I extrated the data from the disc directly and burned a new, unsullied CD for listening to, instead. It was very easy; they have not only lost a customer, but also gained nothing in return.
Firstly, I don't live in the US, you insenstive clod.
I'm an aussie, and I thoroughly recommend Australia. It's not just jingoism - I've lived in Australia, Canada and Thailand and travelled widely in the US, UK and throughout Asia and Australia still holds my heart.
It's warm, pleasant and the people are kind. Canada is a close second, being cold but also with kind people. The government isn't quite so far along selling our rights to the highest bidder and there isn't rampant patriotism about anything but sports. The standard of living is high and we have abundant natural resources. Our tech sector is doing well and the market is screaming for engineers.
We have real beer. No, seriously - real beer. I recommend starting out with a light 'training beer' before moving on to the regular stuff.
We have roads where you can legally drive as fast as you want without the risk of running into anything but sand.
We also boast some of the most lethal wildlife, anywhere.
Our vernacular is colourful, distinctive and fun.
Ninety per cent of all Australians live in cites, so you're always close to infrastructure and services. The other 10 percent don't count to anyone but politicians hoping for over-represented marginal electroate votes.
Most of the world does not hate us. It is important to wear a small aussie flag on your stuff when traveling abroad. Most people have figured out that anyone wearing a huge Canadian flag is a yank in disguise and no American could ever impersonate an Australian without years of training and beer.
Very little of our public space is wasted on flags, pennets and patriotic material. We don't need to constantly remind ourselves of which country we live in.
We have rampant multi-culturalism. Not melting pot, but multi-culturalism. All sorts of people living together in relative harmony. This means good things in the food court.
You can walk down alleyways in the dingiest parts of the city and reasonably expect not to get mugged.
We use metric. We speak real English. Most of us can spell. Yes, we can teach you, too.
Most importantly, you can live on an island thousands of kilometers away from the rest of the world, in relative secluded harmony, concerned only for who will win the cricket and whether we can fit in another beer before the barbeque.
Why yes, there is a law that prevents me from aiming a rocket anywhere but straight up in my local jurisdiction, regardless of the fact that I could aim a little sideways and it would fall harmlessly in the water. It strikes me that that's moronic, but the police didn't agree. I think they just wanted an excuse to shutdown my rocketry exercise.
Yes, I know the difference between the aiming and guidance, thank you. Yes, I appreciate this difference. I stand by my comments.
I feel somewhat slighted.
I'm a aero-robotics post-grad student, and in my spare time I'm working on my own inertial measurement unit and flight control gear. It seems preposterous to me that rocketeers be permitted to build uncontrolled ballistic systems, but (arguably safer) guided systems are prohibited.
Before you flame the hell out of me, please realise that I'm playing the devil's advocate (PTDA) here.
Why can people own high-power firearms that have a good chance of killing someone, whereas guided rockets are right out? Lest we forget, guns are guided by the person pulling the trigger. It makes far, far more sense to prohibit rockets from carrying any sort of warhead. That way, you're unlikely to start a war and less likely to kill anyone.
I'd say it's far more likely that someone up to no good is going to strap a grenade to a guided RC plane than a rocket. It's much easier, and they're more likely to be accurate and less likely to score an own goal that way. How long until can I expect the fuzz to come bust down my door just because I've got the skills to produce guided weapons?
I've found that a good place to start is in RC components. Although they're not ideal components, RC servos can be surprisingly good value and brushless motors are some of the best I've seen. Mind you, electronic speed controllers for hobby applications are horrid!
I speak from experience here, as I've used all these components, as well as custom built experimental gear in the course of my PhD. I've recently acquired a Gumstix and Robostix from gumstix.com for use with hobby servo equipment. It's a cheap and accessible embedded system that will make a good brain for most any project that requires decent I/O and processor power.
Fly Eye for the Spy Guy!
Seriously. How long will it be before ubiquitous miniature cameras are everywhere and make it to the TV?
Time to stock up on flyspray!
Yes, I'm aware of that - it was more a tree-falling-in-the-woods sort of quandary not meant to be taken seriously. Irrespective of the background radiation, the initial big bang must have been fantastically bright to the hypothetical observer there to see it, just on the edges of the universe itself. Would an observer on this boundary cast a shadow to a hypothetical observer beyond it? I'll be the first to say that it's a meaningless question, but it's still intruiging.
How can the big bang cast a shadow if there's nothing outside thereof on which to cast it?
Now that you've centered yourself, you're sure to win that corporate mini-golf tournament.
Slashdot Mirror
"If successful, the plane would be the first spacecraft since the shuttle that would be capable of returning experiments back to Earth for analysis." Buran could do this - they just couldn't afford to fly the thing. Not that I'm suggesting we use Buran, btw... it's been sitting outside for a while.
My phone calls people, it takes calls. It sends SMS and it receives them. That's all - I love my phone. When I went to buy it, the service chick couldn't understand why I didn't want a camera/video/gps/somethingsomething. I'm obviously a geek festooned with gadgets, afterall. The obvious answer is that I already have all those things, and much better ones than can be put in a phone, too. The original ipod was just a music player, but it has become more things - Apple is on a slippery slope - I hope they don't fall to the dark side with creeping featuritis and 'convergence'. I, for one, will always pass on a player/phone that is not just a player or phone.
In a scholastic world where quantitative performance metrics are the norm, I'm surprised that this hasn't started sooner. I do wonder about the effect it will have on students who are already being driven hard to succeed by their parents - it always used to be my (few, decent) teachers who gave me the love of the subject, rather than the impetuous to perform. I weep for the day when Mr. Carbunkle says "I'm sorry Jimmy, I'd love to teach you calculus because I know you're interested in it, and it's really neat, but if you don't regurgitate all these trig tables 100% correctly, I can't afford that new kidney."
Naked geeks online? Backlash in 5... 4... 3... 2... 1... *shudder* Seriously, though, I can't think of any benefits of putting this - either you're already putting these things online to the extent you care to, or you aren't interested. What does this add, really?
Voter caging - the wiki tells all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caging_list It is a means of eliminating voters from the electoral role by disputing their eligibility to vote. This takes the form of mailing items to their address by registered post - if the item isn't signed for, the caging party disputes their postal address and thereby attempts to have them struck from the voting roll. Good to use against certain demographics in marginal seats.
What I have to ask is how do you verify that the database and actual count tally? A receipt is nice and fine, and a database is nice (assuming you are not connected to your number in anyway other than the receipt, eg. it's just the nth number person you happen to be, polling at that time) but how can you really be certain that the official count has anything to do with the database contents? This always bugs me about electronic voting - there's no obvious pile disparity between votes for each candidate. You can't observe the numeracy of the thing. Also, this won't stop other dirty tricks like voter caging etc. Thoughts?
My one thought of bully, as a kid who was bullied mercilessly at school, is that perhaps people will see it from the other side of the fence. Computer games are interesting in that they can make the player develop empathy with characters. I wonder what I might learn from it, and I wonder what bullies might learn from it. No, I'm not expecting some radical change in school-yard pathos, but don't forget that computer games used to be the great nerd activity. If the lines between nerd and bully blur, what will people be picked on for? My guess is the same usual things - physical differences; those elements deeply ingrained in humanity. I'm waiting for the game 'Human' in which the player must slaughter enemy tribes and steal their women. I wonder what I might learn from it.
When Microsoft leads the way in business ethics ahead of a company with a motto of "Don't be evil", I know it's time ot look for aerial pork.
I'd not be surprised if there's resistance to the idea of changing time. People are strange in a way. It's of great importance that people stick with something they know, and are comfortable with. Just so, too, when leap years were introduced people were afraid of losing days off their lives because they believed that the date of their death was set. Also, take metric time - it never had a chance in hell because it was so different to what everyone was used to that it was effectively alien (even though, on some levels it makes a great deal of sense). I, personally, have no problem with global time completely disjoint from the location in which I live, so long as it's GMT. As it is, my sleeping patterns already have no correlation with the actual time of day.
By the by, you'd think that Valve would have simply put in some sort of filter in its naming code to ensure that people don't try to name themselves "Valve_employee_261" or some such. Not that naming yourself so seems to be effective. ;)
Actually, it was not an attempt to explain the joke, per se. My original joke was supposed to have a patriotic substituted message, but I foolishly deliniated the edited text by angle-brackets. The second post is how the joke ought to have looked, but as has been mentioned, the accidental text reads just as well as the original. Mental note: review posts.
Ahem... That was supposed to read: "Well, obviously this is a blatant attempt to -edit- bring the truth to the people about the fair and democratic actions of the legally elected administration of the United States of America -edit-, anyone can see that!" Erf... obviously my previous message was censored! How bizarre!! Looks like they ARE ensuring the truth is told! Note to self: preview posts...
Well, obviously this is a blatant attempt to . Anyone can see that!
By 'last into the future' I'm talking about systems that will continue to advance technology, rather than stagnate it. An example of this is the Apollo infrastructure that is reused by the shuttle - it has demonstrated its longevity, but it's pretty hard to improve on a launchpad. The technology in avionics, materials and mechatronics has moved on since the 80s. I agree that we should use what is useful, but my comment was addressed to the idea of specifically designing craft to reuse previous technology when new/better technology exists. There is a huge difference between UPS vans and the shuttle - as the recent trouble with the system has demonstrated, space-flight remains a decidedly non-routine endeavour, and anything that can improve performance and safety ought to be considered. Even UPS trucks can use modern efficient engines and anti-lock brakes.
I notice there's a lot of talk for reusing orbiter (like DIRECT) and Apollo technology. Now, I'm all for reuse of facilities and technology, but I can't help but think that we're undercutting ourselves by not developing new technology and capability that will last into the future. It's as if no one ever wanted to develop further than 1920's cars, since they did the job 'well enough'. Is this going to cost us when, in three decades, the new vehicles are hitting end-of-service and suddenly we're stuck with infrastructure that is half a century out of date?
I can't be the only one who noticed that the lead story of Slashdot on the day they critique the page reads "Mistrust of Today's Technology". I find it ironic that they choose that moment to use ancient pablum to analyse the site. That's right - everything old is new! Fung shui is the new rational thought, vastu is the new fung shui! Why is it that none of the supposedly free-thinking new-age whackjobs out there take you seriously if you're not drawing on the ages-old wisdom of people who thought the world was flat?
I don't buy CDs that have copy protection on them. It treats me like a criminal. I bought a Placebo CD published by EMI and I couldn't play it on my computer like a normal CD. I invest a lot in computer audio equipment and I'm not going to use their crappy little player program instead of my usual tools. I, a legitimate paying customer, could not play something I'd paid for. I found those same tracks freely available online. By paying money, I had disadvantaged myself. Since then, I have never bought a disc with copy protection. I have never bought a disc from EMI. They have lost a loyal customer. Of course, being a geek, I extrated the data from the disc directly and burned a new, unsullied CD for listening to, instead. It was very easy; they have not only lost a customer, but also gained nothing in return.
Firstly, I don't live in the US, you insenstive clod. I'm an aussie, and I thoroughly recommend Australia. It's not just jingoism - I've lived in Australia, Canada and Thailand and travelled widely in the US, UK and throughout Asia and Australia still holds my heart. It's warm, pleasant and the people are kind. Canada is a close second, being cold but also with kind people. The government isn't quite so far along selling our rights to the highest bidder and there isn't rampant patriotism about anything but sports. The standard of living is high and we have abundant natural resources. Our tech sector is doing well and the market is screaming for engineers. We have real beer. No, seriously - real beer. I recommend starting out with a light 'training beer' before moving on to the regular stuff. We have roads where you can legally drive as fast as you want without the risk of running into anything but sand. We also boast some of the most lethal wildlife, anywhere. Our vernacular is colourful, distinctive and fun. Ninety per cent of all Australians live in cites, so you're always close to infrastructure and services. The other 10 percent don't count to anyone but politicians hoping for over-represented marginal electroate votes. Most of the world does not hate us. It is important to wear a small aussie flag on your stuff when traveling abroad. Most people have figured out that anyone wearing a huge Canadian flag is a yank in disguise and no American could ever impersonate an Australian without years of training and beer. Very little of our public space is wasted on flags, pennets and patriotic material. We don't need to constantly remind ourselves of which country we live in. We have rampant multi-culturalism. Not melting pot, but multi-culturalism. All sorts of people living together in relative harmony. This means good things in the food court. You can walk down alleyways in the dingiest parts of the city and reasonably expect not to get mugged. We use metric. We speak real English. Most of us can spell. Yes, we can teach you, too. Most importantly, you can live on an island thousands of kilometers away from the rest of the world, in relative secluded harmony, concerned only for who will win the cricket and whether we can fit in another beer before the barbeque.
Why yes, there is a law that prevents me from aiming a rocket anywhere but straight up in my local jurisdiction, regardless of the fact that I could aim a little sideways and it would fall harmlessly in the water. It strikes me that that's moronic, but the police didn't agree. I think they just wanted an excuse to shutdown my rocketry exercise. Yes, I know the difference between the aiming and guidance, thank you. Yes, I appreciate this difference. I stand by my comments.
I feel somewhat slighted. I'm a aero-robotics post-grad student, and in my spare time I'm working on my own inertial measurement unit and flight control gear. It seems preposterous to me that rocketeers be permitted to build uncontrolled ballistic systems, but (arguably safer) guided systems are prohibited. Before you flame the hell out of me, please realise that I'm playing the devil's advocate (PTDA) here. Why can people own high-power firearms that have a good chance of killing someone, whereas guided rockets are right out? Lest we forget, guns are guided by the person pulling the trigger. It makes far, far more sense to prohibit rockets from carrying any sort of warhead. That way, you're unlikely to start a war and less likely to kill anyone. I'd say it's far more likely that someone up to no good is going to strap a grenade to a guided RC plane than a rocket. It's much easier, and they're more likely to be accurate and less likely to score an own goal that way. How long until can I expect the fuzz to come bust down my door just because I've got the skills to produce guided weapons?
My hovercraft is full of eels.
I've found that a good place to start is in RC components. Although they're not ideal components, RC servos can be surprisingly good value and brushless motors are some of the best I've seen. Mind you, electronic speed controllers for hobby applications are horrid! I speak from experience here, as I've used all these components, as well as custom built experimental gear in the course of my PhD. I've recently acquired a Gumstix and Robostix from gumstix.com for use with hobby servo equipment. It's a cheap and accessible embedded system that will make a good brain for most any project that requires decent I/O and processor power.
Fly Eye for the Spy Guy! Seriously. How long will it be before ubiquitous miniature cameras are everywhere and make it to the TV? Time to stock up on flyspray!
Yes, I'm aware of that - it was more a tree-falling-in-the-woods sort of quandary not meant to be taken seriously. Irrespective of the background radiation, the initial big bang must have been fantastically bright to the hypothetical observer there to see it, just on the edges of the universe itself. Would an observer on this boundary cast a shadow to a hypothetical observer beyond it? I'll be the first to say that it's a meaningless question, but it's still intruiging.
How can the big bang cast a shadow if there's nothing outside thereof on which to cast it? Now that you've centered yourself, you're sure to win that corporate mini-golf tournament.