We are the first species on this planet that has this capability to save itself by being on multiple other planets.
Save itself from what?
The other issue is that many wars have been fought over resources. Minerals are needed. Less than 6 months ago, we saw that China invaded American waters to grab fish. Now, they were caught in Russian waters doing the same thing. Then you add the fact that China cut a deal with Philippines just a couple of months ago to withdraw their boats, and even before the ink is dry, they now have a number of their naval ships about 60 miles off the Philippines coast, with one of their mapping cutters grounded on the shoals. Now, why would they be mapping the waters off their when they had no BUSINESS being there.
It will be easier to mine the oceans than mine the moon. And how many fish do you think the Chinese will find there? What do Chinese claims in the South China sea have to do with space? There are still a lot of places you can get resources on the earth for far, far, far less money than trying to get them out of the gravity well. They can buy fish from other countries, for example.
Do you realize how hostile the environment is once you leave Earth's atmosphere? There isn't any spot on the earth that's more hostile to life than they most benign spot on the moon or even mars.
Yes, we will hear all the neo-cons and RWNJ on this site screaming about O killing off Constellation as well as the SLS.
Must be easy to win arguments when the other side is in your head.
Make no mistake. China IS in a cold war with the west, and they are WINNING..
Oh? And what are they going to do with this moon base? Sell souvenirs? Rent it out to tourists?
There's a huge difference between something that's possible and something that makes sense. We shouldn't spend a bent nickel going back to the moon - there's no reason to go. We need to maintain the capability to launch spy satellites and robotic probes. Pretty much everything else is a waste of money.
I'm hoping not only that resolution improves (and color, naturally), but why stop there? I wouldn't mind being able to see in UV bands and a telescopic lens would be nice.
The biggest problem with LTE for handsets is power. Frequency translations in software are the last thing you want to do if you're worried about battery life.
I love the publisher packs. They have a Bethesda pack right now with the Elder Scrolls games plus Fallout 3 and Fallout NV, plus all the DLC, for $50.
The problem is I might already have 3/4 of the titles because of the pack I bought last year. In this case I own the Fallout titles. It's still a good deal, but not as good as it would be for someone who didn't have a big library already.
Apple would have died without an infusion of cash from Microsoft. And that wasn't a green eyeshades business investment either - Microsoft only kept Apple alive because otherwise their antitrust defense would be more difficult.
Not necessarily. It's not hard to imagine a situation where some percentage of new roads are built for autonomous cars only, while at the same time the existing roads are mixed us (by lane, I guess). Over time everyone will have a car that's at least capable of autonomous driving.
You won't save any money. The content providers and satellite company need the same amount of revenue coming in to run their businesses, so they have to adjust the model to make that happen. You're thinking "if they go a la carte I can just order these two channels at $5 each and save myself a bundle." And of course that's what everyone else is thinking, too, but for different channels. You'll all end up with about the same bill every month, only you won't have access to a lot of the channels you have today (and, to be fair, probably don't watch).
You'll still get the crap channels, because broadcasters for HSN and QVC pay your cable/satellite company for access instead of the other way around.
Actually, the world since 1945 is the most peaceful it's ever been. Ever. Warfare has been the constant state of man since the first guy picked up a rock.
The flaw in this argument, of course, is nuclear weapons prevent wars between great powers in the same way the IMF, World Bank, and the Fed prevent the collapse of banks. That is, they can do so for decades, but when the banking system fails everyone goes down together.
It's an academic question anyway. There isn't any way to verify a country hasn't stashed a few nukes away on the sly, which means nobody is going to get rid of their arsenal completely. There will never be a nuclear weapon free world.
No, because the great powers never came into direct conflict. There were something like two million deaths in Vietnam, but 70 million died in WW II. Wars between great powers are a whole different beast than little proxy wars.
Even in America, it's totally possible to sign away all liability on risky stunts.
Depends on the state. There's an entire branch of law (contract law) that revolves around what rights you can and can't sign away. When you buy lift tickets in California, for instance, there's a whole contract that goes with the purchase that's 100% non-enforceable because the state doesn't allow you to sign those rights away.
At least if the crew had stayed on the ISS (however uncomfortable that may have been for a few days/weeks) and jettisoned the demonstrably useless and hazardous shuttle to burn up on its own (it has a remote control so it would have been no problem to bring it in for a burn/splashdown in the middle of the Pacific), then a rescue/recovery mission for the crew would have just been a matter of warming up the VAB and strapping one of the other orbiters to an ET...
I'm not sure how the crew would have "stayed" at the ISS given they were never there in the first place and had no way to get there. Once that piece of foam hit the wing the crew was doomed. They may have been able to discover they were doomed if the Air Force had come through on imaging that was requested, but the scenarios under which the damage is repaired or the crew survives in orbit until rescue are fanciful.
I have no comment on the attractiveness of this particular woman, but when you put a person in zero-g fluids that normally accumulate in the lower body go to the head and produce a flabby bloated look. You're not going to see a "Miss Zero-G" contest any time soon.
As others have pointed out, the cap will be replaced anyway. But the flaw in your logic is in thinking evidence has to be admissible in court to be useful. If the cops find your stamp on a shell casing, they know where to concentrate their resources. They know who to get a DNA sample from to compare with evidence on the scene. They know whose laundry basket to go through looking for shirts with powder residue. They know whose barrel to match up to bullets at the scene.
The reason most killers get caught is the cops can generally tell who did it just working from motive and opportunity. They're pretty good at actually gathering evidence if they can finger a good suspect. This scheme would help in cases where they can't figure out what the motive is, or it's a motive everyone might conceivably have (like robbery).
Slashdot Mirror
We are the first species on this planet that has this capability to save itself by being on multiple other planets.
Save itself from what?
The other issue is that many wars have been fought over resources. Minerals are needed. Less than 6 months ago, we saw that China invaded American waters to grab fish. Now, they were caught in Russian waters doing the same thing. Then you add the fact that China cut a deal with Philippines just a couple of months ago to withdraw their boats, and even before the ink is dry, they now have a number of their naval ships about 60 miles off the Philippines coast, with one of their mapping cutters grounded on the shoals. Now, why would they be mapping the waters off their when they had no BUSINESS being there.
It will be easier to mine the oceans than mine the moon. And how many fish do you think the Chinese will find there? What do Chinese claims in the South China sea have to do with space? There are still a lot of places you can get resources on the earth for far, far, far less money than trying to get them out of the gravity well. They can buy fish from other countries, for example.
Do you realize how hostile the environment is once you leave Earth's atmosphere? There isn't any spot on the earth that's more hostile to life than they most benign spot on the moon or even mars.
They can have it. What could they possibly do there that would make it worth the trip?
Yes, we will hear all the neo-cons and RWNJ on this site screaming about O killing off Constellation as well as the SLS.
Must be easy to win arguments when the other side is in your head.
Make no mistake. China IS in a cold war with the west, and they are WINNING..
Oh? And what are they going to do with this moon base? Sell souvenirs? Rent it out to tourists?
There's a huge difference between something that's possible and something that makes sense. We shouldn't spend a bent nickel going back to the moon - there's no reason to go. We need to maintain the capability to launch spy satellites and robotic probes. Pretty much everything else is a waste of money.
I'm hoping not only that resolution improves (and color, naturally), but why stop there? I wouldn't mind being able to see in UV bands and a telescopic lens would be nice.
Ah, I see the problem. You didn't get the entire translation. It's actually Algonquin for "the good land for beer".
The biggest problem with LTE for handsets is power. Frequency translations in software are the last thing you want to do if you're worried about battery life.
No, of course not, and it never will. However, fusing a hundred pellets a second is the functional equivalent of a sustainable reaction.
Oh yes. I don't think they've passed breakeven, though.
I love the publisher packs. They have a Bethesda pack right now with the Elder Scrolls games plus Fallout 3 and Fallout NV, plus all the DLC, for $50.
The problem is I might already have 3/4 of the titles because of the pack I bought last year. In this case I own the Fallout titles. It's still a good deal, but not as good as it would be for someone who didn't have a big library already.
You guy always get raped on game costs. Is that some tax thing?
$30. It's also part of some nice bundles.
I play PC games through steam, and I'm patient. Haven't paid more than $30 for a game in years, and I'm not about to start.
Apple would have died without an infusion of cash from Microsoft. And that wasn't a green eyeshades business investment either - Microsoft only kept Apple alive because otherwise their antitrust defense would be more difficult.
Not necessarily. It's not hard to imagine a situation where some percentage of new roads are built for autonomous cars only, while at the same time the existing roads are mixed us (by lane, I guess). Over time everyone will have a car that's at least capable of autonomous driving.
You won't save any money. The content providers and satellite company need the same amount of revenue coming in to run their businesses, so they have to adjust the model to make that happen. You're thinking "if they go a la carte I can just order these two channels at $5 each and save myself a bundle." And of course that's what everyone else is thinking, too, but for different channels. You'll all end up with about the same bill every month, only you won't have access to a lot of the channels you have today (and, to be fair, probably don't watch).
You'll still get the crap channels, because broadcasters for HSN and QVC pay your cable/satellite company for access instead of the other way around.
Except for the "kicking your ass if you don't pay" part.
McArthur told Truman he could win the Korean war by attacking southern China with only 40 nukes, and was waiting for the okay to proceed.
Actually, the world since 1945 is the most peaceful it's ever been. Ever. Warfare has been the constant state of man since the first guy picked up a rock.
The flaw in this argument, of course, is nuclear weapons prevent wars between great powers in the same way the IMF, World Bank, and the Fed prevent the collapse of banks. That is, they can do so for decades, but when the banking system fails everyone goes down together.
It's an academic question anyway. There isn't any way to verify a country hasn't stashed a few nukes away on the sly, which means nobody is going to get rid of their arsenal completely. There will never be a nuclear weapon free world.
No, because the great powers never came into direct conflict. There were something like two million deaths in Vietnam, but 70 million died in WW II. Wars between great powers are a whole different beast than little proxy wars.
Even in America, it's totally possible to sign away all liability on risky stunts.
Depends on the state. There's an entire branch of law (contract law) that revolves around what rights you can and can't sign away. When you buy lift tickets in California, for instance, there's a whole contract that goes with the purchase that's 100% non-enforceable because the state doesn't allow you to sign those rights away.
At least if the crew had stayed on the ISS (however uncomfortable that may have been for a few days/weeks) and jettisoned the demonstrably useless and hazardous shuttle to burn up on its own (it has a remote control so it would have been no problem to bring it in for a burn/splashdown in the middle of the Pacific), then a rescue/recovery mission for the crew would have just been a matter of warming up the VAB and strapping one of the other orbiters to an ET...
I'm not sure how the crew would have "stayed" at the ISS given they were never there in the first place and had no way to get there. Once that piece of foam hit the wing the crew was doomed. They may have been able to discover they were doomed if the Air Force had come through on imaging that was requested, but the scenarios under which the damage is repaired or the crew survives in orbit until rescue are fanciful.
I have no comment on the attractiveness of this particular woman, but when you put a person in zero-g fluids that normally accumulate in the lower body go to the head and produce a flabby bloated look. You're not going to see a "Miss Zero-G" contest any time soon.
But by then he'd transitioned to a political/managerial role from the more hands-on engineering role he played at Peenemünde.
As others have pointed out, the cap will be replaced anyway. But the flaw in your logic is in thinking evidence has to be admissible in court to be useful. If the cops find your stamp on a shell casing, they know where to concentrate their resources. They know who to get a DNA sample from to compare with evidence on the scene. They know whose laundry basket to go through looking for shirts with powder residue. They know whose barrel to match up to bullets at the scene.
The reason most killers get caught is the cops can generally tell who did it just working from motive and opportunity. They're pretty good at actually gathering evidence if they can finger a good suspect. This scheme would help in cases where they can't figure out what the motive is, or it's a motive everyone might conceivably have (like robbery).