I think the US reliance on foreign erl represents a clear and present danger to the security of the US.
I think 'W' has gone some way to making this announcement, but not actually stated it as such.
I wish he would, and I also wish Congress would pass some very draconian laws about energy efficiency in reaction to such a declaration. We have allowed conspicuous consumption - WASTE - of energy for too long.
The free market has not behaved rationally in this regard until very recently (at $100/ barrel oil is still cheap), primarily because the market has never truly been free, but encumbered by the political wranglings of OPEC states, and other forces.
This has lead many countries to 'flex' their muscles into areas which we have seen to have catastrophic effects upon the lives of US citizens.
It is time we rid ourselves of our dependence upon foreign sources of energy. I would have very little sympathy if the economies of the Arab states and Venezualia would simply dry up and blow away. Perhaps then their corrupt dictatorships would finally disolve.
I find firefox to be one of the worst browsers - for my use anyway - available. I have tried to use it over an X session, and basically gave up; and that was with my X client running on a P4 1.5 GHz 500M RAM linux server, and my X server (running on my client machine accessing the server) a similar spec machine. The connection was wired 100MB ethernet.
Considering the hooplah that goes along with it, firefox underperforms on basic tasks when compared to KDE's Konqueror.
What's worse is that this command firefox./index.html tries to open http://index.html/ rather than file://index.html. Meanwhile Konqueror behaves correctly.
I remember not long, say a year, after the discovery of the HIV virus, reading an article said that most hand soaps were storng enough to kill the virus, and that liquid bleach products like Clorox (tm) certainly would do the job.
The caveat was that they sting like hell when you squirt them into your sexual orifices !!!
...certain fundamental problems associated with this plan.
1.) It takes energy to get the barges into position.
2.) It takes energy to pump water.
3.) The barges would be reflecting or absorbing sunlight that would otherwise be absorbed by the sea, and used by gazillions of planktons and other micro-organisms in the food chain.
Sorry, I purchased my copy of MS Office in good faith. I am unable to understand how to apply the patch. They must do it for me for me to be compliant.
Why is he writing a biography, at such a young age? What has he accomplished in his life that is worthy of a biography ? Why are so many people buying his book ? Who cares about some washed-out near-do-well, druggy, Hollywood type who's only claim to fame is producing an absolutely dreary 'comedy' with crappy actors.
When I was a lad, biographies were about acheivers, people like George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Florence Nightingale, and Millicent Fawcett.
Nowadays we are plagued with biographies and even supposed autobiographies of Paris Hilton {suppresed snigger] and Eddie McGee [who ? - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_McGee]
I can tell you that to most people 'Social Skills' amounts to talking about whatever B-list celebrity is pregnant, what Mr. Jones next door does for a living, and what kind of car they own or want. Alongside that you have to include mispronouncing words, the inability to form complete sentences, and inability to use logic correctly in a discussion. Then just to be sure you 'fit in' you need to know what kind of clothes are 'cool', and be stupid enough to buy them for that reason alone.
If that's what social skills are, big deal, I don't give a shit.
3. The flight, and the astronauts' lives, did not end at that point, 73 seconds after launch.
Well, effectively, they did. There was nothing that could be done at that point to save them. Also IIRC the only clue that a few were concious was that two of the emergency airpacks were found turned on. Not exactly uncontrovertible evidence.
Exactly ! The arguement made by Ass-Hat that wrote that article was to make us believe that the astronauts almost survivied, which is complete bullshit.
From the article:...liquid oxygen and hydrogen which formed a huge fireball at an altitude of 46,000 ft.
So, a fireball made from hydrogen and oxygen is not the same as an explosion. I must be remembering back to my High School Chemistry class where we used electrolysis to seperate the hydrogen out of water, then ignite it with a burning splint. I am sure that when we did that the force even from that miniscule amount of hydrogen would occasionally crack the test tube.
Sorry, I should have said 46,000 rather than 36,000.
Aside from that, what fact did I get wrong that would lead you to believe I didn't comprehend what I read ?
The reason Oberg mentions this "myth" is that it is a comforting illusion to think that those in the orbiter never knew what hit them.
I disagree. I think the motive is to suggest that they almost survived - this fits the rest of the tone of the article, trying to deflect blame from NASA; and yet the suggestion is completely untrue, NASA acknowledged that there were entirely insufficient measures to protect life in a catastrophy.
What schools did you all go to, that so many of you were all watching it live? No real leasons to go to?
Being British (I assume) it is not surprising that you would not have had the same schooling that American children had. You are obviously a product of that education system and were learning to make witty snipes at your politicians, denegrate the efforts of your very few world class athletes and encouraged to expect the state to provide your housing, American children were encouraged to follow their dreams, take risks, and aim high.
I admit those ideals have been lost in the ensuing decades, but at the time that was the way it was. And watching a space shuttle launch is certainly as educational as a World Cup play-off match, which MANY british children watch during their school hours.
There is no reason to believe that the crew were subjected to violent trauma which put them into extreme shock;
Other than being within a few dozen feet of an enormous explosion, at 36,000 feet. Sorry, you may choose to equate the statement that some of the crew had been conscious when the cabin hit the water to lack of trauma and shock, I don't
I can't argue with your statement about whether or not the crew were alive, conscious, subject to trauma, or shock. I wasn't there ! That is not my point. My point is to state that their death was sudden and very violent. I think very few people in the history of humanity can be said to have died instantly, the brain may continue to function and experience pain for a lot longer than you or I will probably ever know.
I know the oxygen tank itself didn't kill them, I said it was dangerous to strap yourself to one. And my reference to lighing the tank was a bit of hyperbolie. However the tanks purpose is to fuel the craft, and being around fuel is inherently dangerous.
Political pressure comes in many forms, and doesn't have to start at the top.
My response is to rubbish the assertions made by a whining ex-employee of NASA who feels compelled to justify how NASA dropped the ball and essentially sent the Astronauts to their death on live international television. His purpose seems to be to inflate his own ego, and deflect as much criticism from his ex-employer as possible.
made in this article is either misleading or incorrect
Few people actually saw the Challenger tragedy unfold live on television.
Surely everyone who was watching the launch on TV saw the tragedy unfold. The number of people who did observe this, numbers in the high hundreds of thousands at least; that hardly qualifies as few, regardless of the unsubstantiated assertion the all major broadcast stations had cut away
The shuttle did not explode in the common definition of that word.
I don't know what the author thinks the common definition of explode is, but a quick look on Wiktionary shows it to have as one common meaning to destroy violently or abruptly which is certainly what happened to the shuttle. Furthermore, it is semantics to argue about the 'challenger' exploding versus the shuttle with booster and fuel tank.
The flight, and the astronauts' lives, did not end at that point, 73 seconds after launch.
Again we have semantics being put forth as fact. Most people would find little discrepancy between a person being subjected to violent trauma, going unconscious or into extreme shock, and dying within a minute and dying instantly. Nothing happens instantly anyway.
The design of the booster, while possessing flaws subject to improvement, was neither especially dangerous if operated properly, nor the result of political interference.
This statement is complete poppy-cock. Any rational person would recognise the inherent danger in strapping themselves to the side of an enormous tank of liquid oxygen and lighting it.
Replacement of the original asbestos-bearing putty in the booster seals was unrelated to the failure.
unrelated? surely this is the wrong word to use for a part that has been proven by more than one panel of highly respected scientists to be inherently flawed.
There were pressures on the flight schedule, but none of any recognizable political origin.
This is simply delusional, and requires no further comment
Claims that the disaster was the unavoidable price to be paid for pioneering a new frontier were self-serving rationalizations on the part of those responsible for incompetent engineering management -- the disaster should have been avoidable.
It is difficult to know where to start with this statement. Aside from a criticism of management alongside a discussion of the inherent dangers of exploration, there are too many other mixed issues in this argument to make a sensible attack upon it, other than it is ill constructed.
Slashdot Mirror
yep, milk.
I think the US reliance on foreign erl represents a clear and present danger to the security of the US.
I think 'W' has gone some way to making this announcement, but not actually stated it as such.
I wish he would, and I also wish Congress would pass some very draconian laws about energy efficiency in reaction to such a declaration. We have allowed conspicuous consumption - WASTE - of energy for too long.
The free market has not behaved rationally in this regard until very recently (at $100/ barrel oil is still cheap), primarily because the market has never truly been free, but encumbered by the political wranglings of OPEC states, and other forces.
This has lead many countries to 'flex' their muscles into areas which we have seen to have catastrophic effects upon the lives of US citizens.
It is time we rid ourselves of our dependence upon foreign sources of energy. I would have very little sympathy if the economies of the Arab states and Venezualia would simply dry up and blow away. Perhaps then their corrupt dictatorships would finally disolve.
Considering the hooplah that goes along with it, firefox underperforms on basic tasks when compared to KDE's Konqueror.
What's worse is that this command firefox ./index.html tries to open http://index.html/ rather than file://index.html. Meanwhile Konqueror behaves correctly.
Why didn't they just come out and say that to begin with ?
All this time I thought it was something complicated.
The caveat was that they sting like hell when you squirt them into your sexual orifices !!!
Perhaps he is subconsciously fingering his incompetent appointments ?
Obviously some bean counter trying to get a promotion at Verizon
After 12 pints I am invisible - and Superman !
And how is this different to C ?
Of course this is contrived, but since you don't necessarily know what 'func' is going to do, how do you know it's safe to free the memory ?1.) It takes energy to get the barges into position.
2.) It takes energy to pump water.
3.) The barges would be reflecting or absorbing sunlight that would otherwise be absorbed by the sea, and used by gazillions of planktons and other micro-organisms in the food chain.
4.) It's stupid.
enough said
I did a quick google search for "User-agent" and "Disallow" like this: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=User-agent+ Disallow&btnG=Google+Search&meta=
I chose the first title http://www.searchengineworld.com/robots/robots_tut orial.htm and started reading
"User-agent
The User-agent line specifies the robot. For example:
User-agent: googlebot"
-SNIP-
"Disallow:
The second part of a record consists of Disallow: directive lines. These lines specify files and/or directories. For example..."
-SNIP-
"If you leave the Disallow line blank, it indicates that ALL files may be retrieved." -SNIP-
So, guess who is to blame ?
Surely that is Gnuogle
Sorry, I purchased my copy of MS Office in good faith. I am unable to understand how to apply the patch. They must do it for me for me to be compliant.
Why is he writing a biography, at such a young age? What has he accomplished in his life that is worthy of a biography ? Why are so many people buying his book ? Who cares about some washed-out near-do-well, druggy, Hollywood type who's only claim to fame is producing an absolutely dreary 'comedy' with crappy actors.
When I was a lad, biographies were about acheivers, people like George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Florence Nightingale, and Millicent Fawcett.
Nowadays we are plagued with biographies and even supposed autobiographies of Paris Hilton {suppresed snigger] and Eddie McGee [who ? - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_McGee]
I'm out of mod points, but this should be 'Funny'
Did you even think about what you wrote ?
If that's what social skills are, big deal, I don't give a shit.
Well, effectively, they did. There was nothing that could be done at that point to save them. Also IIRC the only clue that a few were concious was that two of the emergency airpacks were found turned on. Not exactly uncontrovertible evidence.
Exactly ! The arguement made by Ass-Hat that wrote that article was to make us believe that the astronauts almost survivied, which is complete bullshit.
So, a fireball made from hydrogen and oxygen is not the same as an explosion. I must be remembering back to my High School Chemistry class where we used electrolysis to seperate the hydrogen out of water, then ignite it with a burning splint. I am sure that when we did that the force even from that miniscule amount of hydrogen would occasionally crack the test tube.
Sorry, I should have said 46,000 rather than 36,000.
Aside from that, what fact did I get wrong that would lead you to believe I didn't comprehend what I read ?
This is very funny indeed. You are an awesome wit !
I disagree. I think the motive is to suggest that they almost survived - this fits the rest of the tone of the article, trying to deflect blame from NASA; and yet the suggestion is completely untrue, NASA acknowledged that there were entirely insufficient measures to protect life in a catastrophy.
Being British (I assume) it is not surprising that you would not have had the same schooling that American children had. You are obviously a product of that education system and were learning to make witty snipes at your politicians, denegrate the efforts of your very few world class athletes and encouraged to expect the state to provide your housing, American children were encouraged to follow their dreams, take risks, and aim high.
I admit those ideals have been lost in the ensuing decades, but at the time that was the way it was. And watching a space shuttle launch is certainly as educational as a World Cup play-off match, which MANY british children watch during their school hours.
Other than being within a few dozen feet of an enormous explosion, at 36,000 feet. Sorry, you may choose to equate the statement that some of the crew had been conscious when the cabin hit the water to lack of trauma and shock, I don't
I know the oxygen tank itself didn't kill them, I said it was dangerous to strap yourself to one. And my reference to lighing the tank was a bit of hyperbolie. However the tanks purpose is to fuel the craft, and being around fuel is inherently dangerous.
Political pressure comes in many forms, and doesn't have to start at the top.
My response is to rubbish the assertions made by a whining ex-employee of NASA who feels compelled to justify how NASA dropped the ball and essentially sent the Astronauts to their death on live international television. His purpose seems to be to inflate his own ego, and deflect as much criticism from his ex-employer as possible.
Few people actually saw the Challenger tragedy unfold live on television.
Surely everyone who was watching the launch on TV saw the tragedy unfold. The number of people who did observe this, numbers in the high hundreds of thousands at least; that hardly qualifies as few, regardless of the unsubstantiated assertion the all major broadcast stations had cut away
The shuttle did not explode in the common definition of that word.
I don't know what the author thinks the common definition of explode is, but a quick look on Wiktionary shows it to have as one common meaning to destroy violently or abruptly which is certainly what happened to the shuttle. Furthermore, it is semantics to argue about the 'challenger' exploding versus the shuttle with booster and fuel tank.
The flight, and the astronauts' lives, did not end at that point, 73 seconds after launch.
Again we have semantics being put forth as fact. Most people would find little discrepancy between a person being subjected to violent trauma, going unconscious or into extreme shock, and dying within a minute and dying instantly. Nothing happens instantly anyway.
The design of the booster, while possessing flaws subject to improvement, was neither especially dangerous if operated properly, nor the result of political interference.
This statement is complete poppy-cock. Any rational person would recognise the inherent danger in strapping themselves to the side of an enormous tank of liquid oxygen and lighting it.
Replacement of the original asbestos-bearing putty in the booster seals was unrelated to the failure.
unrelated? surely this is the wrong word to use for a part that has been proven by more than one panel of highly respected scientists to be inherently flawed.
There were pressures on the flight schedule, but none of any recognizable political origin.
This is simply delusional, and requires no further comment
Claims that the disaster was the unavoidable price to be paid for pioneering a new frontier were self-serving rationalizations on the part of those responsible for incompetent engineering management -- the disaster should have been avoidable.
It is difficult to know where to start with this statement. Aside from a criticism of management alongside a discussion of the inherent dangers of exploration, there are too many other mixed issues in this argument to make a sensible attack upon it, other than it is ill constructed.