Amusingly, Alabama apparently lacks the jurisprudence and the legislation to allow you to keep your ideas that you develop at home without a serious legal fight with no guarantee that you'll win. I'm am, of course, not a lawyer.
There are a few flaws in your argument. 1) He doesn't say just "peaceful" he says "mostly peaceful". I'm sure if he's right or not, though. 2) There's a difference between ownership and possession. You can regulate ownership with laws -- make a law that says people can't own guns and they down own them. But some of them will still possess them. And other weapons. And other things that can be turned into weapons. So while your basic hypothetical --"If there are no guns, violent acts can't be commited with them" -- is true, it's not applicable to real life situations, particularly in countries where state power is limited. Beyond that, you're both arguing using correlations. He believes that societies where people own guns are usually more peaceful and you note that your country has a few (I presume you mean "only a few" guns) and has less problems than, well, somewhere else. I'm not sure who you're comparing your anonymous country to at that point. The US, I guess, from your last sentence.
One last note: Your stance seems to contradict your sig:
"Freedom can only be the whole of freedom; a piece of freedom is not freedom." Max Stirner
All other things being equal, allowing gun ownership is more free than disallowing it.
Maybe I'm being a bit pedantic, but in the dive bomber context, the SBD isn't the category of ship borne dive bombers, it's a specific one. SBD stands for Scout Bomber, Douglas -- aka, the Dauntless -- in the pre-1962 Navy naming scheme.
As the 1st Amendment is an amendment to the Constitution, should it not supersede any authority to limit speech provided by the copyright/patents clause?
So the combination is one, two, three, four, five? That's the stupidest combination I've ever heard in my life! The kind of thing an idiot would have on his luggage!
I am going to call you a Waaaambulance. Cry me a river Iran! It was Ayatollah Khomeini who overthrew the Shah! Of course, that idiot Jimmy Carter didn't help one bit. Regarding their war with Iraq, tough! It takes two to tangle
1) If you're going to call people idiots, perhaps you should back it up and not make mistakes yourself. 2) You don't look so smart yourself, as it's clear that the parent wasn't talking about the Shah being overthrown, but the government of Mohammad_Mossadegh. 3) The idiom is "it takes two to tango," not tangle.
You know why Arab states don't like Iran, its because Iranian Shi'a Islam is considered heretical and destabilizing.
That's a stupid reason not to like a country. Other things the Arab states don't like because it's heretical and/or destabilizing: women's rights, infidels (aka: anyone they disagree with on practically anything), beer, etc, etc.
Nukes in India and Pakistan are of no consequence to Iran.
I'm afraid that the prospect of having your neighbor nuked is always cause for concern. Winds and radioactivity don't care about national borders. I suspect that there's some national angst there.
The US is there to remind the little man that we can whip his ass in a heart beat.
Iran is a man now? With an ass to be whipped? You know better than that kind of oversimplification.
Odd, I thought the U.S. was in the region in such force to rebuild Iraq after deposing of Saddam Hussein because he was allegedly violating the terms of the 1991 armistice and stockpiling weapons of mass destruction.
Your language sounds about as jingoistic as I could imagine. It's not an asswhipping, because it's not a fistfight. It's a war your talking about here -- murder writ large and sometimes a bit of actual self defense.
Iran gets no pity party from me, but its people who are yearning to be free do!
What's the difference between Iran and it's people? Perhaps you shouldn't pity them, but actually work to understand them, and not just the ones who "yearn to be free," but all of the Iranians. I'm not saying agree with them, nor even try to befriend them, but merely to look past Khomeini and friends and view Iran not as a single militant entity, but as millions of different people, many of whom have unjustly suffered at the hands of their neighbors, their religious kin, their government and, sadly, the United States' government.
I fought the charge in court. The officer didn't even show up. As far as the magistrate knew, I was guilty of blowing straight through the intersection and risking lives.
If this is in the US, you need a lawyer, ACLU style. You have a right to face your accuser and if the officer didn't show up, the charge should've been dropped. I, of course, Am NAL.
Could you please explain how being observed harms you? You seem to just be into yelling and ranting that it somehow does so.
I am not destroying any freedoms that you ever had. You don't have the right, or freedom as you put it, to harass me in public by photographing me. You especially don't have the right to do it on my property.
Yeah, he does have the right to photograph. To begin with, a camera is nothing more than an extra set of eyes. Hell, some people's eyes are as good as cameras. Is he supposed to somehow not look at you as well? Furthermore, the right to observe and record others in public falls under freedom of the press. To be able to report one sees in in public is a necessary part of this freedom. One particularly accurate and effective way of reporting is take pictures or movies. In the US, that freedom of the press is enshrined in the Constitution and has been for almost 217 years. So yeah, it's definitely a freedom we have and have had. As far as taking pictures on your property goes, you're right. But no one is actually arguing that. But we do have the right to take pictures of your property from somewhere else. This makes areas of your property quasi-public. There's pretty much no way to get around it, as someone's property is almost always in a shot and photons obey neither human law nor your "sense of decency."
There is a big difference between what is right and what is legal. Even more so in the last few decades. You need to ASK somebody if it is OK to take their picture in the park. It is not your right to just take the picture and do whatever the hell you want with it. We have always had cultural boundaries and a sense of decency in this country and what you propose is not consistent with that.
It is polite to ask others before taking their pictures, but you shouldn't need to. I presume if I witness an I'm supposed to ask the assailant for permission before snapping his picture? And you're right about cultural boundaries -- that boundary is the one between public and private. So taking pictures in public doesn't cross that boundary. As far as "sense of decency" goes, that's just a bullshit way of attempting to limit some else's actions, not because they're harmful (and you've yet to explain why taking your picture is harmful), but because you don't like it. If it was actually harmful, you wouldn't need to appeal to a "sense of decency."
You're whole argument seems to come down to, you shouldn't take pictures of me because it "infringes upon my rights to peacefully enjoy my own property, and even public spaces." One, I'm not aware of such a right. But I'll stipulate it. Two, how is your right to peaceful enjoyment infringed? It must be from your own observation of the other person. The very right you're claiming he doesn't have -- to observe you -- is exactly the one you must use to claim that he's actually disturbing you. Your position is fundamentally hypocritical.
To illustrate this further, consider how you'd enforce your privacy rules. You take the alleged photographer to court. How do you prove he was there? Well, it's your word against his -- which amounts to a recording of his actions, just like a camera -- and, if the court doubts your word, you'll need a picture.
Your position has many weaknesses. 1) Eyes are cameras. People can record things with or without assisting devices, sometimes as well as they could with cameras. If you stop and think, you realize that observation is observation, regardless of whether a camera is involved. 2) Freedom of the press requires that people's public actions be recordable and publicizable. 3) To even claim to be disturbed, you must observe the disturber, which would require you to violate his right not to be observed. 4) You've never really explained how this actually harms you.
I'm against this gag order, but the case about First Amendment rights seems to be weak. Under your argument, it would be fine if I posted your Social Security and credit card numbers on the internet, as long as I'm not the one stealing anything from your accounts.
The case about First Amendment rights is unquestionable. This software and presentation are clearly speech and thus can't be restricted under the First Amendment (in combination with the 14th). I don't think my argument necessarily says posting Social Security and credit card numbers should be considered speech. I'm also not sure if they considered "things that occur in government, in government contracts and in the public life." There's clearly a privacy factor that operates with these numbers that act essentially as signatures. But that doesn't apply to discussing the numbers or any methodology that uses the numbers without mentioning specific ones -- these are clearly speech. But maybe they should be considered speech, and then, yes, it would be your right to post such numbers on the internet. It's a question of whether or not that is speech, and I'm not sure what the answer is.
What does free speech have to do with releasing software that will help people steal from the transit system?. It sound criminal to me, assisting people to steal.
Everything. Perhaps because software, and more relevantly, the presentation, is expression and thus protected under the First Amendment? In a free society where participants are expected to take responsibility for both their own actions and the governance of that society, denying an individual information limits his freedom --knowledge really is power and thus important to freedom -- and destroys his ability to make good governing decisions. For any of us to actually be free, society has to make the fundamental assumption that the average individual will not use the powers given to them to commit criminal acts. You seem to be assuming the opposite. Even if you consider it from a "need to know" point of view (and you shouldn't): both the people who buy into this transportation system and the shareholders of the system, who I understand to be the public, have a right to know the strengths and weaknesses of this system. So they -- we -- the public, have a need to know this information to make the best decisions they can about this system. In fact, we the public have a need to know all things that occur in government, in government contracts and in the public life.
Also, I think you're a bit confused on what "assisting" means. There has to be stealing going on for anybody to assisting in it, and I've seen no evidence that there is. By what I infer your definition of assisting to be: "providing any tool or information used to complete a task" then other things that should sound criminal to you include (but aren't limited to): providing a drunk driver with an alcohol (before he was driving), selling a gun, knife, baseball bat, pencil or anything else to someone who then uses it in a violent crime, teaching anyone any sort of OS or computer security theory (if the students are criminal for providing the information to criminally hack the system, is the professor not criminal for assisting the "criminal" students by providing them with information needed to discover the hack?), etc, etc, etc.
SpaceX has just had a mishap that would have been hard to test for on the pad (I'm not knowledgeable enough in the field to comment on the exact differences between testing on the pad and a launch, but I suspect there are still numerous differences, caused by atmospheric pressure, the effects of acceleration etc)
My understanding from the article is that the regeneratively cooled version of the Merlin takes longer to shutdown than the ablatively cooled one, because there's a longer path for the fuel to follow after it leaves the tank. All rocket engines have a shutdown "tail" where the thrust drops off over time, so you can't presume that engine is no longer generating thrust instantly after you shut off the fuel flow. They didn't model the tail to be long enough because the pressure in the chamber during the unanticipated part of the tail is apparently around 10 psi (about 69 kPa or.68 atm). Since this is below atmospheric pressure at sea level (14.7 psi, 101.3 kPa, 1 atm), and the mass flow rate was very small, it was (according to TFA) hard to detect in the actual ground testing they did on the engine. I'm not sure how they're modeling the engines, so I can't speak to why the tail didn't show up in their analysis (as opposed to their tests).
And I think Little Fuzzy and Fuzzy Sapiens are bound together in The Fuzzy Papers. That's how I read them.
As for the Heinlein juveniles, which I realize have come up several times already, I favor Podkayne of Mars and the The Rolling Stones for their strong female characters and good plots.
One thing I haven't seen mentioned here (and should probably go somewhere else as it's off-topic for a reply), is Asimov's Lucky Starr series. They might be even a bit too young for, say, a twelve year old, but I loved them when I was 6 or so.
In case you didn't actually read her linked blog, the girl who supposedly decided not to pursue someone because she was on JLove apparently did so because she thought he was Jewish. In fact, she makes the rather ironic statement:
Hmmm. Hot Jewish single guy on one hand or accepting the Jesus as my Lord and Savior? Sigh.
I have to say, I don't understand how this situation is a dilemma, never mind the whole idea that actually talking to people about who they are -- rather than attempting to search them out on the internet* -- is fundamental to building relationships
So, while JLove probably is being pretty underhanded in making up members, I don't think it can really be blamed for this potential couple's failure to actualize.
It has long amazed me how anyone could manage to construe the subordinate clause "A well regulated militia being necessary to a free state," as anything other than an explanation as to why the amendment was being included in the first place. It is clear that this clause is an introduction to the rest of the amendment: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It's an even stronger prohibition on action than the First Amendment's "Congress shall make no law..."
Scalia and co, make this very point in their decision (found at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07slipopinion.html -- a wonderful site for Supreme Court decisions. The site, really.):
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2-53.
(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2-22....
It's dead on.
On a related note, why don't new sites ever link to the actual decision? It makes no sense.
QED came out in 1985, making it only 23 years old. It'd definitely go on my favorite science book list. It explained virtual photons and summing of probability amplitudes quite well, I though, without calling in the heavy math.
I'm also a fan of The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene.
1) As several people have already mentioned, Stennis Space Center is on the coast. That's nowhere near Oxford, where Ole Miss actually is, of course.
2) Ole Miss is a Space Grant school. Why it's Ole Miss and not Mississippi State, where the Aerospace Engineering program is, I'll never understand. But that's how it is. There are several lines of space related research going on at both schools, though.
3)I'm not sure what you mean by "Extra [FAA] offices." What are you talking about?
4) "Like studying Oceanography in Colorado." I can't but feel insulted. What would make Texas a better choice than Mississippi? Is it somehow more on the border to space? Space access is hard, no matter where you are at, unlike ocean access. In fact, it's pretty much equally inaccessible to every college program in the country. The Florida schools might have a slight advantage, FIT did launch a rocket a couple years back for the Pioneer Cup. Experts on the matters (space, space law, launch vehicles) are scattered across the country -- and this includes Mississippi. I suspect that the program is at Ole Miss because that's where (at least some) experts in space law happen to work. There is a law school there, you know.
"Even Alabama would be better." God, I hope you're trolling, because you've got the prejudiced asshole act down. Neither Mississippi nor Alabama is perfect, but they are American states in the 21st century. Like pretty much anywhere, there are plenty of poor people, stupid people, ignorant people and prejudiced people (your act could help you fit in). They may even have a larger proportion of such people than other places, but that doesn't preclude them from having plenty of knowledgable, intelligent, reasonable people who can practice space law or build rockets or speak intelligently about nearly anything else.
It reminds me less of the Shuttle and more of the X-34 and the X-37family.
I am excited about the operational model, though. The large number of people involved in most launch vehicle operations is a huge fixed cost that pretty negates the advantage of launching smaller payloads on smaller, cheaper rockets. Sounds like it has a lot of promise. I wonder if they're thinking about an air launched version as well, Pegasus style. If the rocket is no larger than a Space Ship Two, then it could maybe use a White Knight carrier aircraft to improve the economies of scale and further reduce costs or maybe just increase orbited payloads by launching higher and with a velocity. If you're going to have wings for reentry, you might as well take advantage of them for launch, too, assuming the structural penalty isn't too high.
1860's unthinkably light by current standards. I drive a Mustang GT that has a curb weight of something like 3860 pounds, so that's more than two tons with a driver and a tank of gas. You want a performance car that's even close to that 1860lbs, you end up with...a Lotus Exige, which is about 2000 lbs. And costs a hell of a lot more than an '85 CRX.
Funny you should mention that. I was looking up car weights today, and as I also drive a Mustang GT (a 2007), I looked it up at edmunds.com and it says the curb weight 3356 lb. Also, I believe that curb weight includes the weight of a fuel tank of gas. I also looked up the Exige. It and the Elise used to weigh more like 1800 lb. but have been putting on weight pretty much every year. Anyway, I just thought it was weird you quoted the two cars I looked up earlier today. To add to the Chapman quotes -- "Simplify, then add lightness."
I'd like to how these companies and agencies react when hardware blueprints and software source code for their (very likely) proprietary products get subpoenaed by tech savvy defense lawyers. A reasonable court* would hold that a defendant has a right to examine the devices for his defense. Neither state secrets nor trade secrets will (given a reasonable court*) be a justification to hide the proprietary bits.
Since I expect neither the companies nor the government will be too keen on letting such material be examined in court, the combination of reasonable courts* and a tech savvy defense will greatly limit the applicability of this technology to law enforcement. Or, perhaps, people will realize that any hardware and software used by the government, particularly for law enforcement purposes, must be open public examination.
I agree with you in principle. But probably disagree with your definition of "responsible." Behaving responsibly in a free society means respecting the freedom of expression of all people and it means defending the freedoms of others when they are threatened. "Making sacrifices" as you seem to be using it is the exact opposite of being responsible. Responsibility requires that I exercise my freedoms and do not give into the fear that somebody may kill me or my family in the process. Fundamentally, giving up freedom does not improve security. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin -- so one who explicitly chose not to "behave responsibly" in the UK -- "those who give up essential freedom for security deserve neither."
Now, that said, the cops had reason to believe this girl was threatening others and, yes, they acted appropriately. She probably shouldn't be convicted of the hoax charge, though. She was stupid, yes, but if stupidity is illegal, we're all criminals
I've only glanced over the article so far, but it suggests specific impulses in the 10,000 seconds plus range. That's a critical measure of efficiency in a rocket that dictates the velocity it can obtain. The shuttle's SSMEs get about 455 seconds of specific impulse at a high thrust (millions of Newtons) and ion drives, like the one on the DS1 probe, and the like get specific impulses (Isp) of about 3000 seconds at low thrust. (millinewtons). Apparently the Mini-Mag Orion can produce thrust on par with the SSME. Yikes.
Good link. Glad you RTFA. However, since this is a server chip, why don't they do benchmarking with something other than Windows? Does anyone know of decent benchmarking apps or tech sites that use them for, say, Linux?
While I find this to be a great idea, the "Ground Rules" section has a bothersome rule:
None shall be permitted to cite, copy, reproduce, or distribute information from the website without the expressed written permission (email) of the author and the team leaders Never mind that this ignores fair use and probably is an overstatement rights the website can actually claim, I think that such restrictions keep it from being truly public. The public isn't even allowed to cite the discussion, much less criticize it on a seperate forum. I mean, if this rule is somehow in enforcable, no arguments or data turned up in the discussion is actually usable by the public -- not that I can see how the rule is actually enforcable.
Of course, they simply be trying to encourage people to speak up, and I like the idea of the discussion itself, but a truly public discussion must be usable -- not just accessible to -- the public.
Slashdot Mirror
Amusingly, Alabama apparently lacks the jurisprudence and the legislation to allow you to keep your ideas that you develop at home without a serious legal fight with no guarantee that you'll win. I'm am, of course, not a lawyer.
--sabre86
One last note: Your stance seems to contradict your sig:
"Freedom can only be the whole of freedom; a piece of freedom is not freedom." Max Stirner
All other things being equal, allowing gun ownership is more free than disallowing it.
--sabre86
Maybe I'm being a bit pedantic, but in the dive bomber context, the SBD isn't the category of ship borne dive bombers, it's a specific one. SBD stands for Scout Bomber, Douglas -- aka, the Dauntless -- in the pre-1962 Navy naming scheme.
--sabre86
As the 1st Amendment is an amendment to the Constitution, should it not supersede any authority to limit speech provided by the copyright/patents clause?
--sabre86
...password ... like 1-2-3-4.
So the combination is one, two, three, four, five? That's the stupidest combination I've ever heard in my life! The kind of thing an idiot would have on his luggage!
Apologies to Rick Moranis and Mel Brooks.
That said, what's the difference between lower case numbers and upper case numbers?
--sabre86
I am going to call you a Waaaambulance. Cry me a river Iran! It was Ayatollah Khomeini who overthrew the Shah! Of course, that idiot Jimmy Carter didn't help one bit. Regarding their war with Iraq, tough! It takes two to tangle
1) If you're going to call people idiots, perhaps you should back it up and not make mistakes yourself. 2) You don't look so smart yourself, as it's clear that the parent wasn't talking about the Shah being overthrown, but the government of Mohammad_Mossadegh. 3) The idiom is "it takes two to tango," not tangle.
You know why Arab states don't like Iran, its because Iranian Shi'a Islam is considered heretical and destabilizing.
That's a stupid reason not to like a country. Other things the Arab states don't like because it's heretical and/or destabilizing: women's rights, infidels (aka: anyone they disagree with on practically anything), beer, etc, etc.
Nukes in India and Pakistan are of no consequence to Iran.
I'm afraid that the prospect of having your neighbor nuked is always cause for concern. Winds and radioactivity don't care about national borders. I suspect that there's some national angst there.
The US is there to remind the little man that we can whip his ass in a heart beat.
Iran is a man now? With an ass to be whipped? You know better than that kind of oversimplification.
Odd, I thought the U.S. was in the region in such force to rebuild Iraq after deposing of Saddam Hussein because he was allegedly violating the terms of the 1991 armistice and stockpiling weapons of mass destruction.
Your language sounds about as jingoistic as I could imagine. It's not an asswhipping, because it's not a fistfight. It's a war your talking about here -- murder writ large and sometimes a bit of actual self defense.
Iran gets no pity party from me, but its people who are yearning to be free do!
What's the difference between Iran and it's people? Perhaps you shouldn't pity them, but actually work to understand them, and not just the ones who "yearn to be free," but all of the Iranians. I'm not saying agree with them, nor even try to befriend them, but merely to look past Khomeini and friends and view Iran not as a single militant entity, but as millions of different people, many of whom have unjustly suffered at the hands of their neighbors, their religious kin, their government and, sadly, the United States' government.
Cry for them.
Other components such as a fuel injector were replaced with their electric counterparts
What's the electric counterpart to a fuel injector? A... wire?
--sabre86
I fought the charge in court. The officer didn't even show up. As far as the magistrate knew, I was guilty of blowing straight through the intersection and risking lives.
If this is in the US, you need a lawyer, ACLU style. You have a right to face your accuser and if the officer didn't show up, the charge should've been dropped. I, of course, Am NAL.
--sabre86
I am not destroying any freedoms that you ever had. You don't have the right, or freedom as you put it, to harass me in public by photographing me. You especially don't have the right to do it on my property.
Yeah, he does have the right to photograph. To begin with, a camera is nothing more than an extra set of eyes. Hell, some people's eyes are as good as cameras. Is he supposed to somehow not look at you as well? Furthermore, the right to observe and record others in public falls under freedom of the press. To be able to report one sees in in public is a necessary part of this freedom. One particularly accurate and effective way of reporting is take pictures or movies. In the US, that freedom of the press is enshrined in the Constitution and has been for almost 217 years. So yeah, it's definitely a freedom we have and have had. As far as taking pictures on your property goes, you're right. But no one is actually arguing that. But we do have the right to take pictures of your property from somewhere else. This makes areas of your property quasi-public. There's pretty much no way to get around it, as someone's property is almost always in a shot and photons obey neither human law nor your "sense of decency."
There is a big difference between what is right and what is legal. Even more so in the last few decades. You need to ASK somebody if it is OK to take their picture in the park. It is not your right to just take the picture and do whatever the hell you want with it. We have always had cultural boundaries and a sense of decency in this country and what you propose is not consistent with that.
It is polite to ask others before taking their pictures, but you shouldn't need to. I presume if I witness an I'm supposed to ask the assailant for permission before snapping his picture? And you're right about cultural boundaries -- that boundary is the one between public and private. So taking pictures in public doesn't cross that boundary. As far as "sense of decency" goes, that's just a bullshit way of attempting to limit some else's actions, not because they're harmful (and you've yet to explain why taking your picture is harmful), but because you don't like it. If it was actually harmful, you wouldn't need to appeal to a "sense of decency."
You're whole argument seems to come down to, you shouldn't take pictures of me because it "infringes upon my rights to peacefully enjoy my own property, and even public spaces." One, I'm not aware of such a right. But I'll stipulate it. Two, how is your right to peaceful enjoyment infringed? It must be from your own observation of the other person. The very right you're claiming he doesn't have -- to observe you -- is exactly the one you must use to claim that he's actually disturbing you. Your position is fundamentally hypocritical.
To illustrate this further, consider how you'd enforce your privacy rules. You take the alleged photographer to court. How do you prove he was there? Well, it's your word against his -- which amounts to a recording of his actions, just like a camera -- and, if the court doubts your word, you'll need a picture.
Your position has many weaknesses. 1) Eyes are cameras. People can record things with or without assisting devices, sometimes as well as they could with cameras. If you stop and think, you realize that observation is observation, regardless of whether a camera is involved. 2) Freedom of the press requires that people's public actions be recordable and publicizable. 3) To even claim to be disturbed, you must observe the disturber, which would require you to violate his right not to be observed. 4) You've never really explained how this actually harms you.
--sabre86
I'm against this gag order, but the case about First Amendment rights seems to be weak. Under your argument, it would be fine if I posted your Social Security and credit card numbers on the internet, as long as I'm not the one stealing anything from your accounts.
The case about First Amendment rights is unquestionable. This software and presentation are clearly speech and thus can't be restricted under the First Amendment (in combination with the 14th). I don't think my argument necessarily says posting Social Security and credit card numbers should be considered speech. I'm also not sure if they considered "things that occur in government, in government contracts and in the public life." There's clearly a privacy factor that operates with these numbers that act essentially as signatures. But that doesn't apply to discussing the numbers or any methodology that uses the numbers without mentioning specific ones -- these are clearly speech. But maybe they should be considered speech, and then, yes, it would be your right to post such numbers on the internet. It's a question of whether or not that is speech, and I'm not sure what the answer is.
--sabre86
What does free speech have to do with releasing software that will help people steal from the transit system?. It sound criminal to me, assisting people to steal.
Everything. Perhaps because software, and more relevantly, the presentation, is expression and thus protected under the First Amendment? In a free society where participants are expected to take responsibility for both their own actions and the governance of that society, denying an individual information limits his freedom --knowledge really is power and thus important to freedom -- and destroys his ability to make good governing decisions. For any of us to actually be free, society has to make the fundamental assumption that the average individual will not use the powers given to them to commit criminal acts. You seem to be assuming the opposite. Even if you consider it from a "need to know" point of view (and you shouldn't): both the people who buy into this transportation system and the shareholders of the system, who I understand to be the public, have a right to know the strengths and weaknesses of this system. So they -- we -- the public, have a need to know this information to make the best decisions they can about this system. In fact, we the public have a need to know all things that occur in government, in government contracts and in the public life.
Also, I think you're a bit confused on what "assisting" means. There has to be stealing going on for anybody to assisting in it, and I've seen no evidence that there is. By what I infer your definition of assisting to be: "providing any tool or information used to complete a task" then other things that should sound criminal to you include (but aren't limited to): providing a drunk driver with an alcohol (before he was driving), selling a gun, knife, baseball bat, pencil or anything else to someone who then uses it in a violent crime, teaching anyone any sort of OS or computer security theory (if the students are criminal for providing the information to criminally hack the system, is the professor not criminal for assisting the "criminal" students by providing them with information needed to discover the hack?), etc, etc, etc.
SpaceX has just had a mishap that would have been hard to test for on the pad (I'm not knowledgeable enough in the field to comment on the exact differences between testing on the pad and a launch, but I suspect there are still numerous differences, caused by atmospheric pressure, the effects of acceleration etc)
My understanding from the article is that the regeneratively cooled version of the Merlin takes longer to shutdown than the ablatively cooled one, because there's a longer path for the fuel to follow after it leaves the tank. All rocket engines have a shutdown "tail" where the thrust drops off over time, so you can't presume that engine is no longer generating thrust instantly after you shut off the fuel flow. They didn't model the tail to be long enough because the pressure in the chamber during the unanticipated part of the tail is apparently around 10 psi (about 69 kPa or .68 atm). Since this is below atmospheric pressure at sea level (14.7 psi, 101.3 kPa, 1 atm), and the mass flow rate was very small, it was (according to TFA) hard to detect in the actual ground testing they did on the engine. I'm not sure how they're modeling the engines, so I can't speak to why the tail didn't show up in their analysis (as opposed to their tests).
--sabre86
The Fuzzy series is great!
And I think Little Fuzzy and Fuzzy Sapiens are bound together in The Fuzzy Papers . That's how I read them.
As for the Heinlein juveniles, which I realize have come up several times already, I favor Podkayne of Mars and the The Rolling Stones for their strong female characters and good plots.
One thing I haven't seen mentioned here (and should probably go somewhere else as it's off-topic for a reply), is Asimov's Lucky Starr series. They might be even a bit too young for, say, a twelve year old, but I loved them when I was 6 or so.
--sabre86
Hmmm. Hot Jewish single guy on one hand or accepting the Jesus as my Lord and Savior? Sigh.
I have to say, I don't understand how this situation is a dilemma, never mind the whole idea that actually talking to people about who they are -- rather than attempting to search them out on the internet* -- is fundamental to building relationships
So, while JLove probably is being pretty underhanded in making up members, I don't think it can really be blamed for this potential couple's failure to actualize.
--sabre86
*The Internet, TM. Where everything is true!
Scalia and co, make this very point in their decision (found at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07slipopinion.html -- a wonderful site for Supreme Court decisions. The site, really.): Held: 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2-53. (a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2-22.
It's dead on.
On a related note, why don't new sites ever link to the actual decision? It makes no sense.
--sabre86
QED came out in 1985, making it only 23 years old. It'd definitely go on my favorite science book list. It explained virtual photons and summing of probability amplitudes quite well, I though, without calling in the heavy math.
I'm also a fan of The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene.
--sabre86
1) As several people have already mentioned, Stennis Space Center is on the coast. That's nowhere near Oxford, where Ole Miss actually is, of course.
2) Ole Miss is a Space Grant school. Why it's Ole Miss and not Mississippi State, where the Aerospace Engineering program is, I'll never understand. But that's how it is. There are several lines of space related research going on at both schools, though.
3)I'm not sure what you mean by "Extra [FAA] offices." What are you talking about?
4) "Like studying Oceanography in Colorado." I can't but feel insulted. What would make Texas a better choice than Mississippi? Is it somehow more on the border to space? Space access is hard, no matter where you are at, unlike ocean access. In fact, it's pretty much equally inaccessible to every college program in the country. The Florida schools might have a slight advantage, FIT did launch a rocket a couple years back for the Pioneer Cup. Experts on the matters (space, space law, launch vehicles) are scattered across the country -- and this includes Mississippi. I suspect that the program is at Ole Miss because that's where (at least some) experts in space law happen to work. There is a law school there, you know.
"Even Alabama would be better." God, I hope you're trolling, because you've got the prejudiced asshole act down. Neither Mississippi nor Alabama is perfect, but they are American states in the 21st century. Like pretty much anywhere, there are plenty of poor people, stupid people, ignorant people and prejudiced people (your act could help you fit in). They may even have a larger proportion of such people than other places, but that doesn't preclude them from having plenty of knowledgable, intelligent, reasonable people who can practice space law or build rockets or speak intelligently about nearly anything else.
--sabre86
It reminds me less of the Shuttle and more of the X-34 and the X-37 family.
I am excited about the operational model, though. The large number of people involved in most launch vehicle operations is a huge fixed cost that pretty negates the advantage of launching smaller payloads on smaller, cheaper rockets. Sounds like it has a lot of promise. I wonder if they're thinking about an air launched version as well, Pegasus style. If the rocket is no larger than a Space Ship Two, then it could maybe use a White Knight carrier aircraft to improve the economies of scale and further reduce costs or maybe just increase orbited payloads by launching higher and with a velocity. If you're going to have wings for reentry, you might as well take advantage of them for launch, too, assuming the structural penalty isn't too high.
--sabre86
Funny you should mention that. I was looking up car weights today, and as I also drive a Mustang GT (a 2007), I looked it up at edmunds.com and it says the curb weight 3356 lb. Also, I believe that curb weight includes the weight of a fuel tank of gas. I also looked up the Exige. It and the Elise used to weigh more like 1800 lb. but have been putting on weight pretty much every year. Anyway, I just thought it was weird you quoted the two cars I looked up earlier today. To add to the Chapman quotes -- "Simplify, then add lightness."
What year is your Mustang?
--sabre86
Damn, I regret burning my mod points earlier today. You've got a damn good point and it's the first time I've seen it in this thread.
--sabre86
I'd like to how these companies and agencies react when hardware blueprints and software source code for their (very likely) proprietary products get subpoenaed by tech savvy defense lawyers. A reasonable court* would hold that a defendant has a right to examine the devices for his defense. Neither state secrets nor trade secrets will (given a reasonable court*) be a justification to hide the proprietary bits.
Since I expect neither the companies nor the government will be too keen on letting such material be examined in court, the combination of reasonable courts* and a tech savvy defense will greatly limit the applicability of this technology to law enforcement. Or, perhaps, people will realize that any hardware and software used by the government, particularly for law enforcement purposes, must be open public examination.
--sabre86
*Reasonable courts do exist, right? Please.
I agree with you in principle. But probably disagree with your definition of "responsible." Behaving responsibly in a free society means respecting the freedom of expression of all people and it means defending the freedoms of others when they are threatened. "Making sacrifices" as you seem to be using it is the exact opposite of being responsible. Responsibility requires that I exercise my freedoms and do not give into the fear that somebody may kill me or my family in the process. Fundamentally, giving up freedom does not improve security. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin -- so one who explicitly chose not to "behave responsibly" in the UK -- "those who give up essential freedom for security deserve neither."
Now, that said, the cops had reason to believe this girl was threatening others and, yes, they acted appropriately. She probably shouldn't be convicted of the hoax charge, though. She was stupid, yes, but if stupidity is illegal, we're all criminals
--sabre86
The company behind the technology is Andrews Space at this site.
From my (admitted limited) viewpoint as an (inexperienced) aerospace engineer, they look like the real thing.
The system is actually described in a 2003 AIAA conference paper linked on this page. The paper is titled "Mini-MagOrion: A Pulsed Nuclear Rocket for Crewed Solar System Exploration."
I've only glanced over the article so far, but it suggests specific impulses in the 10,000 seconds plus range. That's a critical measure of efficiency in a rocket that dictates the velocity it can obtain. The shuttle's SSMEs get about 455 seconds of specific impulse at a high thrust (millions of Newtons) and ion drives, like the one on the DS1 probe, and the like get specific impulses (Isp) of about 3000 seconds at low thrust. (millinewtons). Apparently the Mini-Mag Orion can produce thrust on par with the SSME. Yikes.
--sabre86
Good link. Glad you RTFA. However, since this is a server chip, why don't they do benchmarking with something other than Windows? Does anyone know of decent benchmarking apps or tech sites that use them for, say, Linux?
--sabre86
None shall be permitted to cite, copy, reproduce, or distribute information from the website without the expressed written permission (email) of the author and the team leaders Never mind that this ignores fair use and probably is an overstatement rights the website can actually claim, I think that such restrictions keep it from being truly public. The public isn't even allowed to cite the discussion, much less criticize it on a seperate forum. I mean, if this rule is somehow in enforcable, no arguments or data turned up in the discussion is actually usable by the public -- not that I can see how the rule is actually enforcable.
Of course, they simply be trying to encourage people to speak up, and I like the idea of the discussion itself, but a truly public discussion must be usable -- not just accessible to -- the public.
--sabre86