I'm not sure what the exact percentage is, but I believe that 20-30% is used to feed livestock. A lot is quite literally thrown away to keep prices up. Good farming practices could eliminate the need for petrol based chemicals. Farm machinery could use the methane generated by the compost heaps that are very abundant. As far as I can tell, there's a hell of a lot of untapped energy there. I would have to refer you to this guy for information on the possibilities.
A world without IP laws is a world of secrets, which stiffles innovation.
In our "lone wolf", "every man for himself" economy, that might be true. But what good is disseminated information if nobody can use it without paying an exhorbitant price available only to the biggest corporations? IP law only gives the first guy to register all the marbles. The second guy who comes up with the same idea(happens all the time) completely loses out. He can't even sell his own invention, which might be better than the first guy's. He might not even be able to use it in a manufacturing process. IP law is protecting people for being first. I don't believe that's a good criteria. Since the patent office is hardly in any position to decide which is best. Anybody else who comes up with similar ideas should be protected also then. At the very least, nobody should be allowed to tell him he can't have, use, and sell it. IP law is there to protect commercial interests, not the interest of the invention. Without IP law, things will be invented because they are needed, not so somebody can make a fast buck at everyone else's expense. IP law has brought us a boatload of junk inventions(pet rocks?), and allows good inventions to rot on the shelf where nobody benefits. It has brought down upon us a whole "new" realm of property speculation and hoarding. Let's take a look at the Alpha chip for example. Here we have a CPU that's vastly superior to anything that Intel or AMD has ever put out, yet nobody can use it because the company that didn't even invent it has it under lockdown. That is totally bogus. That might be a good place to start the reform. If you don't put your invention on the market, then you lose all exclusivity. Giving the next guy that's willing and able to do so the rights to first refusal. Copyright law brings the same result upon us, in addition to its inherent power of censorship. Here again, this was its real intention. It was a bad reaction to the printing press which made the dissemination of information disturbingly easy. All of a sudden the govt lost control of who can disseminate. Copyright law brought back that control through corporate proxy. It was designed to silence govt and corporate critics(scientology comes to mind). It was created to protect a traditional, though outmoded business model, much in the same way restrictions were put into place to harass those who had the gaul to use an automobile on public roads back when it was invented. The car, like the printing press, was considered dangerous, or subversive as the case may be. P2P is suffering the same bad press now for the same reasons, in that it has rendered an entire distribution industry completely obsolete. So, once again the law steps in to protect it. Copyright law has created a nice end-run around the first amendment in the states.
All work is built on previous work to a greater extent than most people want to admit. IP law forces everyone to re-invent the wheel. We have become unable to cooperate. We have to reverse engineer(a good way around the dissemination problem that you say would result without IP protection), thus creating massive kludges to avoid violating the law that will eventually bring down the whole system. This is what you have with Windows, AMD, and many open source projects. If we were allowed to cooperate and build upon each other's work, our computers, for example, might be at least ten times faster and more robust than they are now. They certainly would not be so defective. We might even have the petroleum monkey off our backs. I don't see this as poor application of the law. This is the only natural course it can take. Governments protect corporations and vice versa. These laws were designed to facilitate those protections, no matter what spin the various departments may put on it. As I said a long time ago, we wouldn't still be dragging ox carts around town, screaming, "Bring out your dead!", if we didn't have IP law, as much as some would like to believe. We will invent things to make our lives better, with or without it.
...are crushed beneath the weight of billions of stupid useless patents which prevent any innovation whatsoever -- exactly the sort of thing patents were meant to protect and encourage.
Au contraire, what you are seeing is the true raison d'être of IP law. Wow! I'm learning French from Google. No?
HA...'ah...'ah! You, my dear friend most definitely define the anonymous coward. And your timing is impeccable. I believe you are needed in the middle east to secure the supply. Seeing as that little club of yours needs so much of it.
It doesn't mean you can libel and slander people anonymously consequence free.
If the technology allows it, then we certainly can. Freedom, or the right to offend is a good thing. Private individuals that try to censor are no better than the govt trying to do the same thing. Censorship is censorship. Besides, it's the govt that upholds libel laws. So, effectively, it's still govt that will censor. Just because somebody spreads rumors and lies, it doesn't mean you have to believe them. It still takes two... The only right you have is to refute it. You have no right to stop somebody from saying it. If a false statement is made, then put up the correct info. We'll decide who to believe. All these lawsuits are exactly the same as what China does to censor its internet. The method is different, that's all. In fact,China is likely to come down to our method of using libel, slander, and IP law so they can appear to be as "free" as the rest of us.
Don't want an oil refinery in your area? Suffer the consequences.
Yeah, bright, clear skies can be a real hazard. We don't need more refineries. We need more alternatives. I shouldn't have to put up with dangerous machinery in my back yard just so you* can enjoy a three hour commute every day in your* monster truck. There are many here that are telling content producers to find another way of doing business. The same goes for the rest of us. It's time to find another method of transporting our bodies from here to there. The present method is obsolete, just like their business model. Why we continue to cling to and fight wars over this, is disturbing at least.
Because it's easy money. They don't have the resources to challenge a lawsuit. Since movie and music sales are down anyway, they need to keep the revenue stream flowing. Who says they haven't learned to adopt new "business" models?
...got a glorious last-minute presidential pardon...
Hmmm... Seems to be a fairly common practice on both sides. Here's an interesting one:Aslam P. Adam (Bush, 1993; clemency for heroin trafficking) Lest you think that one side is actually better than the other. Not that I want to harsh your high or anything.
Most people don't vote their conscience. They vote their wallet and against their neighbor.
Well, a lot of people didn't like the policies of the last administration, either, and voted (rather than paid for) a change in orientation on that front.
There has been no change. It's business, and war as usual. In fact, it has been this way for at least 50-60 years. And as long as either of the major parties retain their power, there will be no change. They are two versions of the same agenda.
It is common knowledge. It just isn't common practice. We tend to default towards the authoritarian way of doing things. The desire for power over others is very strong indeed. It's good to see some people actually evolving away from that.
Most of these problems are not problems specific to Windows but are specific to dumb users.
In this post you are stating that Windows and its apps are too complicated. Excuse me if I seem confused. And your recommendation on how to deal with is right on. The options should be limited. Now I'll be honest with you and tell you that I have amazing luck with virtually all the Windows machines I set up. XP is real plug 'n play. It acts damn near as good as a Mac when I plug something into it(except the network cable). I know that underneath it's a horrible kludge, but clumsy as it is, it works for me. However, The damn thing falls apart with every pot-hole it hits. This is my complaint. The user shouldn't have to deal with that anymore. The computer isn't just a plaything for the super leet anymore. I don't care about the complexity under the hood. It just has to look nice and work well. If a machine with more limited options and is not pretenting to be capable of managing a nuclear reactor comes onto the market, and is advertised for its reliability, I think people will buy them. Most people would do fine with a 386 for their internet and email. But they would compete with all the new crud coming out every week. And to keep the economy alive we need to keep "selling refrigerators to the Eskimos"(Close the door, and the light stays on! Two shelves where none are needed...). I'm just saying that our present day consumer computers are defective, and we should stop buying defective goods.
I'm all for simplicity IN SIMPLE SYSTEMS. But putting users on complex systems that just have a shallow "friendly" cover is asking for trouble. And that's precisely what the Windows world has.
Absolutely. That may happen when we get a cube of epoxy with a reliable embedded system on ROM. And there's no reason not to expect the thing to last at least twenty years. Just like my Magnavox with the "works in a drawer". I really don't feel like we're in disagreement. I'm just not sure if I'm making myself clear...or if I'm understanding you. Just so you know, a lot of things we use appear to be simple, but the moment you open the access panel, you think, "OMG! How in the world does this thing keep from exploding!?" Windows is not only complicated, but it's also way too brittle. Linux may be better, but on an x86, it too, will suffer. We do have a real hardware problem here. I once had ten identical machines with identical configurations. On any given random moment, three of them would lock up, freeze solid. This wasn't a windows problem. These machines are just made out of junk. And they were name brand. I can name off all sorts of bizarre problems that are due to just one marginal, intermittent contact in the RAM slot. UGH!
The problem is the culture that Windows has engendered, which says "everything should be automagic -- don't think! -- just click and the world will be yours!"
For the average joe that's the way it should be. Just like the TV, microwave, car, etc. They're not buying a Heathkit. They want a working appliance. The thing should be every bit as trustworthy and reliable and durable as a typewriter and an adding machine and an old sytle desk phone. When defects show up in these things, we usually take it to the shop, or there is a recall, or it's fixed under warranty. Why we continue to buy defective computers I'll never understand. The situation is truly unacceptable. The real danger comes up when an x86 machine with any kind of OS is put into a critical system. They have absolutely no business in such a place. BTW, the Mac is pretty much "click and go". Windows is simply trying to emulate it. With pretty nasty results I might add.
It's surprising that we don't copy nature more often.
We are nature. Just as natural as any other thing in the whole universe. Nature continues to evolve...through us and everything else. Everthing you see is natural. Everything we make is natural.
I never blamed NASA. The problem has always been the bean counters and a public that thinks space flight and science in general is a waste...or sacrilegious.
It's often used now as a case study in statistics classes.
A perfect end to a horrible tragedy. Too think that a couple of trips to Vegas would've provided all the data they needed:-) In this case, the odds are directly proportional to the alloted budget.
I mean, seriously, which takes more intelligence to figure out: that a double layer of O-rings will fail in cold temperatures, or that launching in a bloody thunderstorm a tall metal craft spewing ionized gasses out the back will attract lightning?
Considering the number of strikes on aircraft with virtually no damage to any of them throughout the history of flight(Note that I didn't say it didn't cause an accident or two). I would consider lightning to be much less of a problem than frozen O-rings, but I'll leave it up to the statisticians to decide which is safer. Although I wouldn't spit at the devil by knowingly launch into a storm either. I wonder how much foam and how many tiles would be blown off by a strike on the shuttle. It's usually the non-conductive parts that suffer the most damage due to the temporarily super heated metal that it's attached to. That tall metal craft in Apollo's case probably saved the mission. The shuttle is covered with lots of "plastic". And I believe the Apollo launch window was considerably smaller than most shuttle launches. Personally, I think they should've kept both Saturn/Apollo and the shuttle up and running for just these kinds of problems. If one failed, we'd have a backup heavy launch vehicle. As it is, nobody's going up again before next March...unless they hitch a ride on Soyuz. A good job the bean counters and the population that supports them did. There is no future beyond the next budget meeting or tax "cut". My point still is that these failures are 99% political. This is regardless of which system we go with. Story of our lives.
In case you're interested, From the link in my sig:
Of course, our failures are a consequence of many factors, but possibly one of the most important is the fact that society operates on the theory that specialization is the key to success, not realizing that specialization precludes comprehensive thinking...If the total scheme of nature required man to be a specialist she would have made him so by having him born with one eye and a microscope attached to it....What nature needed man to be was adaptive in many if not any direction; wherefore she gave man a mind as well as a coordinating switchboard brain. Mind apprehends and comprehends the general principles governing flight and deep sea diving, and man puts on his wings or his lungs, then takes them off when not using them. The specialist bird is greatly impeded by its wings when trying to walk. The fish cannot come out of the sea and walk upon land, for birds and fish are specialists.
to try to "reform" anything with this group in charge? Let's start by imagining all the riders that will be attached. You'll get patent reform when the industry gets super DCMA and the govt gets the ultra-patriot act III into the Constitution. The plus side is that Peoria will get an eight lane expressway.
Nine Apollo missions, and one near catastrophic. Compared to 113 shuttle missions, no near catastrophic, and two catastrophic. Soyuz, for comparison, had 92 missions, two catastrophic, and two near catastrophic. The shuttle clearly has the best safety record of the bunch.
I did consider that when I said, If we had kept the Apollo program running, we would probably have zero mission fatalities to this day. It was that good. Well, with less than 15 launches, who knows?
Neither thermal tiles. *RCC* has resulted in a fatality, but that's one of the strongest materials out there.
And because of poor design due to budget constraints, it failed. Which brings me to my real(original?) point. The shuttle is a great idea that was turned into a horrible boondoggle because of dirty, corrupt, greedy politics. This especially applies to Challenger as it was pure politics that said "no more delays. We're going dammit!". It does not take a great deal of knowledge to realize that to launch with all that frozen stuff around was a sure disaster. And the engineers in the trenches knew it. They expected it to blow on the pad. Neither Columbia nor Challenger were destroyed by "unforseen" engineering problems, any more than Lee Iacocca didn't know about the defects in the Ford Pnto in the early 70s. They considered it cheaper to deal with the consequences later on. It just goes to show that whether you're making widgets or building space ships, everybody suffers from the same foibles. Without the politics, we might have had "second generation" the first time around. Oh, and since you insist that the tank isn't worth converting, I'll grant you that. I won't argue the costs, but I still disagree. I believe that if you invest a few extra pennies up front, it can save you lots in the future. But that's not the world we live in, and so we'll live with kerosene(hydrogen, whatever) burning space jalopies for some time to come. We have yet to make one that can come back intact. We're still working with 700+ year old tech using the brute force of a computer to keep it under control. When you try to stand a pin up on its point, you will get lucky a few times, but you will get bit. It's great drama, but it's no way to run a circus.
Just proves my point. A similar problem in the shuttle would have doomed it for sure. And remember, the the guys in Apollo came back alive. No fatalities on a mission. I didn't say no incidents.
Ablatives are just as famous for chipping as tiles are.
But they never resulted in a fatality. John Glenn came bach to earth with the retro pack still attached. Made a great light show, but I believe he's still alive to talk about it.
Yes, I did mean ballistics.
Because "those dopes" are aware that the external tank doesn't even complete a single orbit before it falls into the Indian Ocean.
Slashdot Mirror
"We will bury you." -- Nikita Kruschev, Soviet Premier, predicting Soviet communism will win over U.S. capitalism, 1958
Modern agriculture yields...
I'm not sure what the exact percentage is, but I believe that 20-30% is used to feed livestock. A lot is quite literally thrown away to keep prices up. Good farming practices could eliminate the need for petrol based chemicals. Farm machinery could use the methane generated by the compost heaps that are very abundant. As far as I can tell, there's a hell of a lot of untapped energy there. I would have to refer you to this guy for information on the possibilities.
A world without IP laws is a world of secrets, which stiffles innovation.
In our "lone wolf", "every man for himself" economy, that might be true. But what good is disseminated information if nobody can use it without paying an exhorbitant price available only to the biggest corporations? IP law only gives the first guy to register all the marbles. The second guy who comes up with the same idea(happens all the time) completely loses out. He can't even sell his own invention, which might be better than the first guy's. He might not even be able to use it in a manufacturing process. IP law is protecting people for being first. I don't believe that's a good criteria. Since the patent office is hardly in any position to decide which is best. Anybody else who comes up with similar ideas should be protected also then. At the very least, nobody should be allowed to tell him he can't have, use, and sell it. IP law is there to protect commercial interests, not the interest of the invention. Without IP law, things will be invented because they are needed, not so somebody can make a fast buck at everyone else's expense. IP law has brought us a boatload of junk inventions(pet rocks?), and allows good inventions to rot on the shelf where nobody benefits. It has brought down upon us a whole "new" realm of property speculation and hoarding. Let's take a look at the Alpha chip for example. Here we have a CPU that's vastly superior to anything that Intel or AMD has ever put out, yet nobody can use it because the company that didn't even invent it has it under lockdown. That is totally bogus. That might be a good place to start the reform. If you don't put your invention on the market, then you lose all exclusivity. Giving the next guy that's willing and able to do so the rights to first refusal. Copyright law brings the same result upon us, in addition to its inherent power of censorship. Here again, this was its real intention. It was a bad reaction to the printing press which made the dissemination of information disturbingly easy. All of a sudden the govt lost control of who can disseminate. Copyright law brought back that control through corporate proxy. It was designed to silence govt and corporate critics(scientology comes to mind). It was created to protect a traditional, though outmoded business model, much in the same way restrictions were put into place to harass those who had the gaul to use an automobile on public roads back when it was invented. The car, like the printing press, was considered dangerous, or subversive as the case may be. P2P is suffering the same bad press now for the same reasons, in that it has rendered an entire distribution industry completely obsolete. So, once again the law steps in to protect it. Copyright law has created a nice end-run around the first amendment in the states.
All work is built on previous work to a greater extent than most people want to admit. IP law forces everyone to re-invent the wheel. We have become unable to cooperate. We have to reverse engineer(a good way around the dissemination problem that you say would result without IP protection), thus creating massive kludges to avoid violating the law that will eventually bring down the whole system. This is what you have with Windows, AMD, and many open source projects. If we were allowed to cooperate and build upon each other's work, our computers, for example, might be at least ten times faster and more robust than they are now. They certainly would not be so defective. We might even have the petroleum monkey off our backs. I don't see this as poor application of the law. This is the only natural course it can take. Governments protect corporations and vice versa. These laws were designed to facilitate those protections, no matter what spin the various departments may put on it. As I said a long time ago, we wouldn't still be dragging ox carts around town, screaming, "Bring out your dead!", if we didn't have IP law, as much as some would like to believe. We will invent things to make our lives better, with or without it.
I believe that the USPO(United States Post Office) is also self funded. And they really deliver!
...are crushed beneath the weight of billions of stupid useless patents which prevent any innovation whatsoever -- exactly the sort of thing patents were meant to protect and encourage.
Au contraire, what you are seeing is the true raison d'être of IP law. Wow! I'm learning French from Google. No?
HA...'ah...'ah! You, my dear friend most definitely define the anonymous coward. And your timing is impeccable. I believe you are needed in the middle east to secure the supply. Seeing as that little club of yours needs so much of it.
It doesn't mean you can libel and slander people anonymously consequence free.
If the technology allows it, then we certainly can. Freedom, or the right to offend is a good thing. Private individuals that try to censor are no better than the govt trying to do the same thing. Censorship is censorship. Besides, it's the govt that upholds libel laws. So, effectively, it's still govt that will censor. Just because somebody spreads rumors and lies, it doesn't mean you have to believe them. It still takes two... The only right you have is to refute it. You have no right to stop somebody from saying it. If a false statement is made, then put up the correct info. We'll decide who to believe. All these lawsuits are exactly the same as what China does to censor its internet. The method is different, that's all. In fact,China is likely to come down to our method of using libel, slander, and IP law so they can appear to be as "free" as the rest of us.
I expect a flood of new AND innovative products from all sorts of different companies any day now. Maybe, even Rio can make a comeback.
Don't want an oil refinery in your area? Suffer the consequences.
Yeah, bright, clear skies can be a real hazard. We don't need more refineries. We need more alternatives. I shouldn't have to put up with dangerous machinery in my back yard just so you* can enjoy a three hour commute every day in your* monster truck. There are many here that are telling content producers to find another way of doing business. The same goes for the rest of us. It's time to find another method of transporting our bodies from here to there. The present method is obsolete, just like their business model. Why we continue to cling to and fight wars over this, is disturbing at least.
*editorial
Asked and answered amny times.
Because it's easy money. They don't have the resources to challenge a lawsuit. Since movie and music sales are down anyway, they need to keep the revenue stream flowing. Who says they haven't learned to adopt new "business" models?
...got a glorious last-minute presidential pardon...
Hmmm... Seems to be a fairly common practice on both sides. Here's an interesting one:Aslam P. Adam (Bush, 1993; clemency for heroin trafficking) Lest you think that one side is actually better than the other. Not that I want to harsh your high or anything.
Most people don't vote their conscience. They vote their wallet and against their neighbor.
Well, a lot of people didn't like the policies of the last administration, either, and voted (rather than paid for) a change in orientation on that front.
There has been no change. It's business, and war as usual. In fact, it has been this way for at least 50-60 years. And as long as either of the major parties retain their power, there will be no change. They are two versions of the same agenda.
does Google get into more trouble for linking? China? with plain old regular law? or the US/Europe? with their draconian IP laws?
a Geneva Naming Convention. We must put an end to these atrocities. Viiv...Good grief!
It is common knowledge. It just isn't common practice. We tend to default towards the authoritarian way of doing things. The desire for power over others is very strong indeed. It's good to see some people actually evolving away from that.
Your original post:
Most of these problems are not problems specific to Windows but are specific to dumb users.
In this post you are stating that Windows and its apps are too complicated. Excuse me if I seem confused. And your recommendation on how to deal with is right on. The options should be limited. Now I'll be honest with you and tell you that I have amazing luck with virtually all the Windows machines I set up. XP is real plug 'n play. It acts damn near as good as a Mac when I plug something into it(except the network cable). I know that underneath it's a horrible kludge, but clumsy as it is, it works for me. However, The damn thing falls apart with every pot-hole it hits. This is my complaint. The user shouldn't have to deal with that anymore. The computer isn't just a plaything for the super leet anymore. I don't care about the complexity under the hood. It just has to look nice and work well. If a machine with more limited options and is not pretenting to be capable of managing a nuclear reactor comes onto the market, and is advertised for its reliability, I think people will buy them. Most people would do fine with a 386 for their internet and email. But they would compete with all the new crud coming out every week. And to keep the economy alive we need to keep "selling refrigerators to the Eskimos"(Close the door, and the light stays on! Two shelves where none are needed...). I'm just saying that our present day consumer computers are defective, and we should stop buying defective goods.
I'm all for simplicity IN SIMPLE SYSTEMS. But putting users on complex systems that just have a shallow "friendly" cover is asking for trouble. And that's precisely what the Windows world has.
Absolutely. That may happen when we get a cube of epoxy with a reliable embedded system on ROM. And there's no reason not to expect the thing to last at least twenty years. Just like my Magnavox with the "works in a drawer". I really don't feel like we're in disagreement. I'm just not sure if I'm making myself clear...or if I'm understanding you. Just so you know, a lot of things we use appear to be simple, but the moment you open the access panel, you think, "OMG! How in the world does this thing keep from exploding!?" Windows is not only complicated, but it's also way too brittle. Linux may be better, but on an x86, it too, will suffer. We do have a real hardware problem here. I once had ten identical machines with identical configurations. On any given random moment, three of them would lock up, freeze solid. This wasn't a windows problem. These machines are just made out of junk. And they were name brand. I can name off all sorts of bizarre problems that are due to just one marginal, intermittent contact in the RAM slot. UGH!
The problem is the culture that Windows has engendered, which says "everything should be automagic -- don't think! -- just click and the world will be yours!"
For the average joe that's the way it should be. Just like the TV, microwave, car, etc. They're not buying a Heathkit. They want a working appliance. The thing should be every bit as trustworthy and reliable and durable as a typewriter and an adding machine and an old sytle desk phone. When defects show up in these things, we usually take it to the shop, or there is a recall, or it's fixed under warranty. Why we continue to buy defective computers I'll never understand. The situation is truly unacceptable. The real danger comes up when an x86 machine with any kind of OS is put into a critical system. They have absolutely no business in such a place. BTW, the Mac is pretty much "click and go". Windows is simply trying to emulate it. With pretty nasty results I might add.
It's surprising that we don't copy nature more often.
We are nature. Just as natural as any other thing in the whole universe. Nature continues to evolve...through us and everything else. Everthing you see is natural. Everything we make is natural.
Talk about modern warfare...
Or a re-make of a very famous movie.
I never blamed NASA. The problem has always been the bean counters and a public that thinks space flight and science in general is a waste...or sacrilegious.
:-) In this case, the odds are directly proportional to the alloted budget.
It's often used now as a case study in statistics classes.
A perfect end to a horrible tragedy. Too think that a couple of trips to Vegas would've provided all the data they needed
I mean, seriously, which takes more intelligence to figure out: that a double layer of O-rings will fail in cold temperatures, or that launching in a bloody thunderstorm a tall metal craft spewing ionized gasses out the back will attract lightning?
Considering the number of strikes on aircraft with virtually no damage to any of them throughout the history of flight(Note that I didn't say it didn't cause an accident or two). I would consider lightning to be much less of a problem than frozen O-rings, but I'll leave it up to the statisticians to decide which is safer. Although I wouldn't spit at the devil by knowingly launch into a storm either. I wonder how much foam and how many tiles would be blown off by a strike on the shuttle. It's usually the non-conductive parts that suffer the most damage due to the temporarily super heated metal that it's attached to. That tall metal craft in Apollo's case probably saved the mission. The shuttle is covered with lots of "plastic". And I believe the Apollo launch window was considerably smaller than most shuttle launches. Personally, I think they should've kept both Saturn/Apollo and the shuttle up and running for just these kinds of problems. If one failed, we'd have a backup heavy launch vehicle. As it is, nobody's going up again before next March...unless they hitch a ride on Soyuz. A good job the bean counters and the population that supports them did. There is no future beyond the next budget meeting or tax "cut". My point still is that these failures are 99% political. This is regardless of which system we go with. Story of our lives.
Gentoo is too easy. Show some "tough love" and make him install Linux from Scratch :-)
In case you're interested, From the link in my sig:
Of course, our failures are a consequence of many factors, but possibly one of the most important is the fact that society operates on the theory that specialization is the key to success, not realizing that specialization precludes comprehensive thinking...If the total scheme of nature required man to be a specialist she would have made him so by having him born with one eye and a microscope attached to it....What nature needed man to be was adaptive in many if not any direction; wherefore she gave man a mind as well as a coordinating switchboard brain. Mind apprehends and comprehends the general principles governing flight and deep sea diving, and man puts on his wings or his lungs, then takes them off when not using them. The specialist bird is greatly impeded by its wings when trying to walk. The fish cannot come out of the sea and walk upon land, for birds and fish are specialists.
to try to "reform" anything with this group in charge? Let's start by imagining all the riders that will be attached. You'll get patent reform when the industry gets super DCMA and the govt gets the ultra-patriot act III into the Constitution. The plus side is that Peoria will get an eight lane expressway.
Nine Apollo missions, and one near catastrophic. Compared to 113 shuttle missions, no near catastrophic, and two catastrophic. Soyuz, for comparison, had 92 missions, two catastrophic, and two near catastrophic. The shuttle clearly has the best safety record of the bunch.
I did consider that when I said, If we had kept the Apollo program running, we would probably have zero mission fatalities to this day. It was that good. Well, with less than 15 launches, who knows?
Neither thermal tiles. *RCC* has resulted in a fatality, but that's one of the strongest materials out there.
And because of poor design due to budget constraints, it failed. Which brings me to my real(original?) point. The shuttle is a great idea that was turned into a horrible boondoggle because of dirty, corrupt, greedy politics. This especially applies to Challenger as it was pure politics that said "no more delays. We're going dammit!". It does not take a great deal of knowledge to realize that to launch with all that frozen stuff around was a sure disaster. And the engineers in the trenches knew it. They expected it to blow on the pad. Neither Columbia nor Challenger were destroyed by "unforseen" engineering problems, any more than Lee Iacocca didn't know about the defects in the Ford Pnto in the early 70s. They considered it cheaper to deal with the consequences later on. It just goes to show that whether you're making widgets or building space ships, everybody suffers from the same foibles. Without the politics, we might have had "second generation" the first time around. Oh, and since you insist that the tank isn't worth converting, I'll grant you that. I won't argue the costs, but I still disagree. I believe that if you invest a few extra pennies up front, it can save you lots in the future. But that's not the world we live in, and so we'll live with kerosene(hydrogen, whatever) burning space jalopies for some time to come. We have yet to make one that can come back intact. We're still working with 700+ year old tech using the brute force of a computer to keep it under control. When you try to stand a pin up on its point, you will get lucky a few times, but you will get bit. It's great drama, but it's no way to run a circus.
That's ok. You can blame me for taking a cheap shot
Not bloody likely (*cough* Apollo 13 *cough*)
Just proves my point. A similar problem in the shuttle would have doomed it for sure. And remember, the the guys in Apollo came back alive. No fatalities on a mission. I didn't say no incidents.
Ablatives are just as famous for chipping as tiles are.
But they never resulted in a fatality. John Glenn came bach to earth with the retro pack still attached. Made a great light show, but I believe he's still alive to talk about it.
Yes, I did mean ballistics.
Because "those dopes" are aware that the external tank doesn't even complete a single orbit before it falls into the Indian Ocean.
Notably, if the tank is saved, the Space Shuttle can lift MORE payload up from Earth, or it can go up to a higher orbit. Why? Saving the tank would eliminate a manuvering operation required to send the tank to burn up safely in a small target area at a remote spot in the Indian Ocean. This requires use of fuel on board the Shuttle, which is a compact but relatively heavy fuel (hydrazine), which is also used to propel the Shuttle to its final orbital velocity. Saving the tank would also allow more of the tank's leftover fuel to be used (by a slow burn at lower tank pressure). An engineering study by the tank's manufacturer, Martin Marietta, shows that the Shuttle can take an extra ton of cargo to orbit if the tank is saved. Turns out there are several people with the same idea. You do remember what Skylab was made of, don't you?
FTL:
An external tanks space station was also a competitor to funding for the International Space Station (ISS) effort that has gained so much political support and money for NASA. There were many interest groups who opposed use of the MET.
Maybe that's the real reason, eh? No rocket science there. I'll leave the insults up to you.