Honestly? I couldn't tell you. I don't think I've even heard of the Osprey prior to this, but then, I'm not much of an aviation buff. Should the name be ringing a bell for a 19-year-old college sophomore?
certainly seems safer than the Harrier's technology - I can recall at least six separate Harrier accidents within the last few years, and I'm not even trying that hard. I'm sure a google would turn up more.
But yeah, let's try having the pilot not be IN the plane when it's first learning to fly, eh?
provided that the planetoid (is this an appropriate term?) is large enough to land a spacecraft on, and assuming it has gravity>0, you will spend more fuel leaving it than just flying around in space. Yes, you'd spend less fuel launching from the moon than you would lauching from earth, but it's still going to be greater than it'd be from a space-borne launch platform.
Yeah, but i'd still be a LOT more comfortable if people who understood the technology and its developmental trends were at least assisting in the creation of legal material that governs it, y'know?
Like, you wouldn't ask someone who has no idea what a car IS, let alone what it can or cannot do, write traffic-control laws. It just wouldn't make sense.
One key point: technologically literate people (i.e. Geeks Like Us) *need* to be allowed to have a say in what is put into this thing. Otherwise it'd be just legislators, and we ALL know how that'd work.
I can't think of any funny examples right now, but I'm sure they're out there.
please correct me if i'm wrong (i'm running on no sleep here, so errors are bound to occur), but wasn't the web and/or 'net first created as a US military application? I'm fairly sure i remember hearing about that several times this semester in my "Critical Internet Studies" class (which rocks, by the way - "Neuromancer" is required reading:D )
I'll be the first to admit that I really haven't got the first clue about what's going on between SCO and everyone else, only that SCO is doing a lot of stuff that's pissing off the Geek community that I like to think I'm part of. It does sound, however, like you're getting shafted.
Just out of curiousity, why was this posted here instead of under the latest SCO thread?
I've been told, by a former floormate who claimed to work for the NSA (which was, in and of itself, dubious enough, but that's not a conversation for here or now:), that the NSA has little-to-no jurisdiction over civilians - rather, they're concerned with outsiders.
Not quite. if you build a spacecraft in actual space, it doesn't need to spend huge amounts of fuel to get off a planet/moon. That means it can go farther. Also, it means that if a lunar base WERE established, the *nauts would only have to go about half as far to resupply.
Essentially, the idiot pirates have allowed RIAA to make a plausible-sounding claim that p2p networks are only used for piracy, because the pirates themselves use this term.
Well, yeah, but at the same time, the prevalence of applications like Kazaa, Limewire, and the like, and the fact that the vast majority of their users are not using them for legitimate (read: legal) purposes isn't doing much to help the situation. Yes, in theory, an office worker could use Kazaa to share a document with the rest of a committee, but let's face it, that's not really likely.
Don't get me wrong, I completely agree that the technology in and of itself is not illegal, nor is it only usable for illegal activities - but that IS what many, if not most people use it for.
See, there's two phrases in the story that cause large amounts of hostility in me: "AOL" and "dial-up". I mean, okay, so it's cheaper to give 'em dial-up access than cable or dsl or whatever AOL's offering now. But honestly! who even uses dial-up anymore, except for, like, poor (money-wise) college TAs and public school teachers and the like? Then, even if they DID get the high-speed stuff, which they don't, they still have to use AOL!
Also, I just have to wonder - of the households that STILL aren't online, how many of them simply don't want to go online? I'd bet that it's probably more than the amount of people who can't afford (or don't want) a computer...
Here's what's cute to me: if I rip and encode a cd and give you the resulting mp3s, that's illegal. But, if I rip and encode a cd, keep the mp3s and give or sell you the CD, that's legal. Something is wrong there.
Interestingly enough, if you download a song that's on a CD that you bought and paid for, it's STILL illegal. Yes, that's right, all mp3s MUST be hand-ripped for legality.
Actually, it seems to me that people could simply be saying that "the music industry is producing music worth owning, just that the music isn't worth paying for", at the prices that the RIAA is offering it. Look, for example, at the huge success of iTunes - $0.99 USD for one track, and it's legally yours.
This is a great example of niche marketing at its finest - Apple listened to consumers say that they often only wanted one or two tracks from a CD but not the whole thing, and filled that niche. If the RIAA does ever start some sort of online music service of its own that doesn't suck, I'd expect it to look very much like iTunes.
Slashdot Mirror
When abouts did all this happen?
...so, might Boeing's list of nicknames for future projects include "Fruit fly", "Cardinal", "Mayfly", or "Cockroach"?
Honestly? I couldn't tell you. I don't think I've even heard of the Osprey prior to this, but then, I'm not much of an aviation buff. Should the name be ringing a bell for a 19-year-old college sophomore?
:)
(hey, if I don't ask, how can I get answers?
certainly seems safer than the Harrier's technology - I can recall at least six separate Harrier accidents within the last few years, and I'm not even trying that hard. I'm sure a google would turn up more.
But yeah, let's try having the pilot not be IN the plane when it's first learning to fly, eh?
ah. teach me to be trusting. ....no, no it won't. oh well. thanks for trying :)
provided that the planetoid (is this an appropriate term?) is large enough to land a spacecraft on, and assuming it has gravity>0, you will spend more fuel leaving it than just flying around in space. Yes, you'd spend less fuel launching from the moon than you would lauching from earth, but it's still going to be greater than it'd be from a space-borne launch platform.
:)
that's all i was trying to say.
Yeah, but i'd still be a LOT more comfortable if people who understood the technology and its developmental trends were at least assisting in the creation of legal material that governs it, y'know?
Like, you wouldn't ask someone who has no idea what a car IS, let alone what it can or cannot do, write traffic-control laws. It just wouldn't make sense.
One key point: technologically literate people (i.e. Geeks Like Us) *need* to be allowed to have a say in what is put into this thing. Otherwise it'd be just legislators, and we ALL know how that'd work.
I can't think of any funny examples right now, but I'm sure they're out there.
please correct me if i'm wrong (i'm running on no sleep here, so errors are bound to occur), but wasn't the web and/or 'net first created as a US military application? I'm fairly sure i remember hearing about that several times this semester in my "Critical Internet Studies" class (which rocks, by the way - "Neuromancer" is required reading :D )
Looks like the terrorists have already won. ;)
Yikes - that certainly sounds like fun...
I'll be the first to admit that I really haven't got the first clue about what's going on between SCO and everyone else, only that SCO is doing a lot of stuff that's pissing off the Geek community that I like to think I'm part of. It does sound, however, like you're getting shafted.
Just out of curiousity, why was this posted here instead of under the latest SCO thread?
Best of luck!
and mine was more a response to that whole thread than just to yours :D 'scool though.
Interesting hypothesis. Would that mean that IBM and everyone else can sue Darl & Co for punitive damages or whatnot?
I've been told, by a former floormate who claimed to work for the NSA (which was, in and of itself, dubious enough, but that's not a conversation for here or now :), that the NSA has little-to-no jurisdiction over civilians - rather, they're concerned with outsiders.
at least, that's the OFFICIAL policy....
Not quite. if you build a spacecraft in actual space, it doesn't need to spend huge amounts of fuel to get off a planet/moon. That means it can go farther. Also, it means that if a lunar base WERE established, the *nauts would only have to go about half as far to resupply.
well, i was mainly aiming that comment at people who use it by choice, but your point is duly noted. :)
it's not worth getting pissed off about when it doesn't work. when it DOES work, though... ;)
Essentially, the idiot pirates have allowed RIAA to make a plausible-sounding claim that p2p networks are only used for piracy, because the pirates themselves use this term.
Well, yeah, but at the same time, the prevalence of applications like Kazaa, Limewire, and the like, and the fact that the vast majority of their users are not using them for legitimate (read: legal) purposes isn't doing much to help the situation. Yes, in theory, an office worker could use Kazaa to share a document with the rest of a committee, but let's face it, that's not really likely.
Don't get me wrong, I completely agree that the technology in and of itself is not illegal, nor is it only usable for illegal activities - but that IS what many, if not most people use it for.
'course, in America, the judge would probably blame the company, and award the plaintiff a huge cash sum.
yeah, i know.
See, there's two phrases in the story that cause large amounts of hostility in me: "AOL" and "dial-up". I mean, okay, so it's cheaper to give 'em dial-up access than cable or dsl or whatever AOL's offering now. But honestly! who even uses dial-up anymore, except for, like, poor (money-wise) college TAs and public school teachers and the like? Then, even if they DID get the high-speed stuff, which they don't, they still have to use AOL!
Also, I just have to wonder - of the households that STILL aren't online, how many of them simply don't want to go online? I'd bet that it's probably more than the amount of people who can't afford (or don't want) a computer...
Here's what's cute to me: if I rip and encode a cd and give you the resulting mp3s, that's illegal. But, if I rip and encode a cd, keep the mp3s and give or sell you the CD, that's legal. Something is wrong there.
Interestingly enough, if you download a song that's on a CD that you bought and paid for, it's STILL illegal. Yes, that's right, all mp3s MUST be hand-ripped for legality.
Actually, it seems to me that people could simply be saying that "the music industry is producing music worth owning, just that the music isn't worth paying for", at the prices that the RIAA is offering it. Look, for example, at the huge success of iTunes - $0.99 USD for one track, and it's legally yours.
This is a great example of niche marketing at its finest - Apple listened to consumers say that they often only wanted one or two tracks from a CD but not the whole thing, and filled that niche. If the RIAA does ever start some sort of online music service of its own that doesn't suck, I'd expect it to look very much like iTunes.