I just looked at the excerpts on wikileak and it looks like this is much ado about nothing. Agree with them or not, I find nothing scandalous about a churches stance on transexuals, sperm donations, surrogate mothers, etc. Sounds like something any good church SHOULD have a stand on, one way or another.
It sounds to me like this really is a pure IP issue. The handbook is a published material with applicable stated copyright laws. I think if you went and asked a Mormon church leader, he would be more than happy to show you his copy and answer any questions you have...;)
As for the PR value of this move, that is certainly questionable.
Check the article again. That's exactly what they are talking about here. NASA is trying out different alternatives to get a private vehicle that can make it to the ISS for supply drops. They feel that the field has matured enough that private industry can develop the vehicles and earn profit off flying them, so NASA doesn't need to be as heavily involved. This is not a new decision, NASA has been going in this direction ever since Rutan won the X-Prize with SpaceShipOne. That was enough to give confidence that private industry can do it.
Meanwhile, their Ares I vehicle to get to the moon is being done the more traditional way. This is not a mature field and in the near-term there will be very little commercial benefit of going to the moon. So this is an area that NASA needs to push along keeping a firm control over the contract. Although if a private company wants to give it a try, there are no rules preventing them from doing it on their own...
The "Manhattan Project" for prosthetics is just what we need. We MUST get those prosthetic arms before the Nazis do. Let's send every prosthetic scientist in the country to the middle of nowhere New Mexico. We must have utmost secrecy on this so no one knows what we are doing. Our country's security depends on this. Only when it is perfected can we drop this on an unknowing Baghdad and win the war in one quick stroke, preventing a long, drawn out invasion of Iraq.
I don't get it. So if the Linux kernel allows non-GPL modules to be loaded, then the Linux kernel cannot be released under GPL? Do I need to remove my NVIDIA drivers now?
The democrats can't keep from shooting themselves in the foot. They have a golden opportunity here. The Republican president has terrible approval ratings. The country in general is fed up with the current government. The Republican party doesn't even like their own candidate. All the Democrats had to do is pick a viable candidate and stroll into the white house. Any candidate would do. But they can't even do that right. All this bickering and smearing is just hurting the party. This is a great example of why the Democratic party has failed so miserably, and why the Republican party can be so stupid, yet win every time.
To go back to your game theory, this is a classic example of two greedy, competitive agents versus two cooperative agents. The competitive agents attempt to maximize their individual gain at all times, while the cooperative agents work to maximize the team gain at all times, understanding that one agent losing may win the team game. Obama and Clinton are obviously the competitive agents, while McCain and Romney are the cooperative agents. (Yes, Romney. Did anyone notice that Romney still has more delegates than Huckabee? He never was a real candidate).
In the end, I'm sick of both parties. Which is worse, the party that destroys the country or the party that is to busy arguing amongst themselves to stop the other party from destroying the country.
Do you honestly sit there and look at Hillary, then look at Barack and think - Yeah, I am convinced that at the state US is in at the moment, these two would be able to run the country perfectly. I mean really - do you do that?
Perfectly? No, of course not. Don't be ridiculous. There is not a person on this planet that could do that. But Obama is the first person I have seen that makes me think he might help the country, as opposed to who would do the least damage.
Chances are, despite growing up Republican, I will vote democrat this election no matter who it is. Bush ran the republican party into the ground. But not all candidates are created equal.
Hillary is a strong traditional candidate. She is carrying out a textbook campaign. She appears to me to be very power hungry and is willing to do whatever it takes to win, but sometimes you want that in a president. I think she would make a decent/good president. I really didn't like Bill Clinton as president, but compared to Bush, the 90s look like the golden years.
Barack, though, is something different. He looks like he is honestly and thoughtfully trying to do what is best for the country. He tries to understand the issues, think through the issues, and come up with the best answer to the issue. That is something very rare. I noticed in the California debates that Hillary would say "this is my answer, it's the best! Your idea is dumb!" Barack would say "I have considered your idea and think that this would be the result of your idea, so I have another idea that doesn't have the disadvantage your idea has." He is the only candidate I have seen that actually thinks an idea through. Everybody else (Republican and Democrat) seem to just throw ideas out that sound good, without thinking about it. Obama has the potential to be one of the top presidents ever. (He may fail of course, you never know...)
I have been voting since 1992, and this is the first time I ever had a candidate that I wanted to win, as opposed to picking the lesser of two evils. (of course, I haven't voted for the winning candidate yet...)
I put a filter on my connection so that any time the words "Ron Paul" comes through, it is changed to "fringe lunatic reactionary". So far, I haven't missed anything.
"In machine counted precincts, Clinton beat Obama by almost 5%. In hand counted precincts, Obama beat Clinton by over 4%"
Sounds like the hand counters did a terrible job. They lost about 9% of Hillary's ballots. I would look into some serious voter fraud on these hand counters. They were clearly trying to throw the vote in Obama's favor.
(slightly sarcastic reply to point out there is more than one way to explain a stat)
Evolution is right, not because it opposes religion, but because it has been repeatedly tested by comparing evidence with predictions of the theory.
That's not the way things work with the scientific method. More correctly, Evolution hasn't been proven wrong. Just like relativity, quantum theory, and superstrings. The scientific method never proves anything right. Just that it fits what we know so far.
I agree, since everyone knows that Japan and Korea are really the exact same country, and everything that applies in Korea is exactly the same as in Japan. In fact, all of Asia is really just like one big homogeneous country. Kind of like corruption in Mexico means America is corrupt too.
On second though, it does sound more like a troll to me.
Actually, I blame Alien and Aliens for the problem. It's not the Sci-Fi action flick that I have a problem with. It's the alien/monster/horror Sci-Fi movie that I have a problem with. Go to Blockbuster and look in their SF section. Nearly every movie will have a monster/alien that the hero has to fight. Most of the action/SF movies now days aren't even included as SF. Just an action movie.
Can you show me the business plan to make money off trips to the South Pole? And yet trips to Antarctica are made in vehicles bought from private companies, not purpose-built in government shipyards. Just because the customer is the government, that doesn't meen the supplier should be the government as well.
So why do they go to the South Pole, if there is no business plan? Research. So where do they get the money to do research? Probably a government research grant.
OK, so how do I buy a vehicle to take me to the moon? The Sears catalog? Eddie Bauer? Obviously nobody has a vehicle, right? To get to the ISS there are three vehicles, the Shuttle, a Progress capsule, or a Soyuz capsule. Do you know who built the Space Shuttle? Three companies. Boeing, Lockheed, and Rockwell. Not a government shipyard. NASA doesn't "build" anything. They don't even "design" anything. They list the exact specifications they need, and leave it up to the contractor to meet the specifications. Actually, that's how the DoD does it too. So how is that different than what you are talking about?
Another way to get an ISS vehicle is to just announce that you will give a billion dollars to anyone who can provide that vehicle. Then you just sit back and wait for somebody to build it for you. I hope you are comfortable, it could be a long wait. But, in fact, NASA is doing that too. They have a program to encourage private industry to build a COTS solution to travel to the ISS. They are doing it in increments, to reward teams for making progress along the path. But again, this is private industry doing something just to get government money. We haven't said anything about private industry going to the moon or to the ISS for their own purpose. This really isn't free enterprise yet. That happens when a private mining company builds a helium-3 mine on the moon (for example). Let me know when that happens, I'd love to hear about it.
And yet, Bigelow Aerospace (funded by billionaire Robert Bigelow) seems pretty confident that all the money they're putting into developing private space stations (a prototype of which was put into orbit last year) will end up turning a profit.
Do you even read the link you gave? Here is a couple tidbits:
"Expandable modules initially were proposed and designed by the United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) under the Transhab program." So they are basing their operation on things that NASA has developed. Without NASA already developing a technology, they wouldn't even start it.
"On July 12, 2006, Genesis I launched on a Dnepr booster from Yasny Launch Base in Siberia. The launch was conducted by Bigelow and ISC Kosmotras." By following the links to find out what a Dnepr booster is and who ISC Kosmotras is, you find out that they used a converted Russian ICBM. In other words, their launch system was developed by the Russian government.
If anything, this example supports my comments. Russia developed the launch system, NASA developed the habitat idea. Using government funding and government research. No company would've tried to start from scratch and develop this. When the concepts were developed enough that an entrepeneur thought he could use the ideas to turn a buck, he jumped in. That's great! I would love the private industry to develop space. But they can't/wont do it until the path is cleared for them.
Slashdot Mirror
I always dump my e-waste into /dev/null, but I guess that's just me.
I just looked at the excerpts on wikileak and it looks like this is much ado about nothing. Agree with them or not, I find nothing scandalous about a churches stance on transexuals, sperm donations, surrogate mothers, etc. Sounds like something any good church SHOULD have a stand on, one way or another.
;)
It sounds to me like this really is a pure IP issue. The handbook is a published material with applicable stated copyright laws. I think if you went and asked a Mormon church leader, he would be more than happy to show you his copy and answer any questions you have...
As for the PR value of this move, that is certainly questionable.
Check the article again. That's exactly what they are talking about here. NASA is trying out different alternatives to get a private vehicle that can make it to the ISS for supply drops. They feel that the field has matured enough that private industry can develop the vehicles and earn profit off flying them, so NASA doesn't need to be as heavily involved. This is not a new decision, NASA has been going in this direction ever since Rutan won the X-Prize with SpaceShipOne. That was enough to give confidence that private industry can do it.
Meanwhile, their Ares I vehicle to get to the moon is being done the more traditional way. This is not a mature field and in the near-term there will be very little commercial benefit of going to the moon. So this is an area that NASA needs to push along keeping a firm control over the contract. Although if a private company wants to give it a try, there are no rules preventing them from doing it on their own...
Great NEWS!
The "Manhattan Project" for prosthetics is just what we need. We MUST get those prosthetic arms before the Nazis do. Let's send every prosthetic scientist in the country to the middle of nowhere New Mexico. We must have utmost secrecy on this so no one knows what we are doing. Our country's security depends on this. Only when it is perfected can we drop this on an unknowing Baghdad and win the war in one quick stroke, preventing a long, drawn out invasion of Iraq.
(When analogies go bad, next on Fox)
I don't get it. So if the Linux kernel allows non-GPL modules to be loaded, then the Linux kernel cannot be released under GPL? Do I need to remove my NVIDIA drivers now?
What's really sad is that I could believe this came from a perfectly diligent Paul supporter.
The democrats can't keep from shooting themselves in the foot. They have a golden opportunity here. The Republican president has terrible approval ratings. The country in general is fed up with the current government. The Republican party doesn't even like their own candidate. All the Democrats had to do is pick a viable candidate and stroll into the white house. Any candidate would do. But they can't even do that right. All this bickering and smearing is just hurting the party. This is a great example of why the Democratic party has failed so miserably, and why the Republican party can be so stupid, yet win every time.
To go back to your game theory, this is a classic example of two greedy, competitive agents versus two cooperative agents. The competitive agents attempt to maximize their individual gain at all times, while the cooperative agents work to maximize the team gain at all times, understanding that one agent losing may win the team game. Obama and Clinton are obviously the competitive agents, while McCain and Romney are the cooperative agents. (Yes, Romney. Did anyone notice that Romney still has more delegates than Huckabee? He never was a real candidate).
In the end, I'm sick of both parties. Which is worse, the party that destroys the country or the party that is to busy arguing amongst themselves to stop the other party from destroying the country.
Perfectly? No, of course not. Don't be ridiculous. There is not a person on this planet that could do that. But Obama is the first person I have seen that makes me think he might help the country, as opposed to who would do the least damage.
Chances are, despite growing up Republican, I will vote democrat this election no matter who it is. Bush ran the republican party into the ground. But not all candidates are created equal.
Hillary is a strong traditional candidate. She is carrying out a textbook campaign. She appears to me to be very power hungry and is willing to do whatever it takes to win, but sometimes you want that in a president. I think she would make a decent/good president. I really didn't like Bill Clinton as president, but compared to Bush, the 90s look like the golden years.
Barack, though, is something different. He looks like he is honestly and thoughtfully trying to do what is best for the country. He tries to understand the issues, think through the issues, and come up with the best answer to the issue. That is something very rare. I noticed in the California debates that Hillary would say "this is my answer, it's the best! Your idea is dumb!" Barack would say "I have considered your idea and think that this would be the result of your idea, so I have another idea that doesn't have the disadvantage your idea has." He is the only candidate I have seen that actually thinks an idea through. Everybody else (Republican and Democrat) seem to just throw ideas out that sound good, without thinking about it. Obama has the potential to be one of the top presidents ever. (He may fail of course, you never know...)
I have been voting since 1992, and this is the first time I ever had a candidate that I wanted to win, as opposed to picking the lesser of two evils. (of course, I haven't voted for the winning candidate yet...)
I put a filter on my connection so that any time the words "Ron Paul" comes through, it is changed to "fringe lunatic reactionary". So far, I haven't missed anything.
"In machine counted precincts, Clinton beat Obama by almost 5%. In hand counted precincts, Obama beat Clinton by over 4%"
Sounds like the hand counters did a terrible job. They lost about 9% of Hillary's ballots. I would look into some serious voter fraud on these hand counters. They were clearly trying to throw the vote in Obama's favor.
(slightly sarcastic reply to point out there is more than one way to explain a stat)
Evolution is right, not because it opposes religion, but because it has been repeatedly tested by comparing evidence with predictions of the theory.
That's not the way things work with the scientific method. More correctly, Evolution hasn't been proven wrong. Just like relativity, quantum theory, and superstrings. The scientific method never proves anything right. Just that it fits what we know so far.
I think I did this as a homework assignment in an undergrad class.
Not 1.5 billion, 1.401 billion years ago.
Please DON'T call it a "blowout" sale. That's the last thing we need right now.
I agree, since everyone knows that Japan and Korea are really the exact same country, and everything that applies in Korea is exactly the same as in Japan. In fact, all of Asia is really just like one big homogeneous country. Kind of like corruption in Mexico means America is corrupt too.
On second though, it does sound more like a troll to me.
I just read the article and checked his statistics. He did his numbers wrong.
That's not a bug, that's a feature!
And just think where we would be if Ben Franklin hadn't invented electricity!
This really isn't my field, so I'm curious. What are some examples of non-relational database models?
Yes, I have been illegally downloading music for years, I want to be a part of this class action suit.
Oh, wait... Umm... nevermind.
It's not a law, it's an observation.
Actually, I blame Alien and Aliens for the problem. It's not the Sci-Fi action flick that I have a problem with. It's the alien/monster/horror Sci-Fi movie that I have a problem with. Go to Blockbuster and look in their SF section. Nearly every movie will have a monster/alien that the hero has to fight. Most of the action/SF movies now days aren't even included as SF. Just an action movie.
So why do they go to the South Pole, if there is no business plan? Research. So where do they get the money to do research? Probably a government research grant.
OK, so how do I buy a vehicle to take me to the moon? The Sears catalog? Eddie Bauer? Obviously nobody has a vehicle, right? To get to the ISS there are three vehicles, the Shuttle, a Progress capsule, or a Soyuz capsule. Do you know who built the Space Shuttle? Three companies. Boeing, Lockheed, and Rockwell. Not a government shipyard. NASA doesn't "build" anything. They don't even "design" anything. They list the exact specifications they need, and leave it up to the contractor to meet the specifications. Actually, that's how the DoD does it too. So how is that different than what you are talking about?
Another way to get an ISS vehicle is to just announce that you will give a billion dollars to anyone who can provide that vehicle. Then you just sit back and wait for somebody to build it for you. I hope you are comfortable, it could be a long wait. But, in fact, NASA is doing that too. They have a program to encourage private industry to build a COTS solution to travel to the ISS. They are doing it in increments, to reward teams for making progress along the path. But again, this is private industry doing something just to get government money. We haven't said anything about private industry going to the moon or to the ISS for their own purpose. This really isn't free enterprise yet. That happens when a private mining company builds a helium-3 mine on the moon (for example). Let me know when that happens, I'd love to hear about it.
Do you even read the link you gave? Here is a couple tidbits:
"Expandable modules initially were proposed and designed by the United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) under the Transhab program." So they are basing their operation on things that NASA has developed. Without NASA already developing a technology, they wouldn't even start it.
"On July 12, 2006, Genesis I launched on a Dnepr booster from Yasny Launch Base in Siberia. The launch was conducted by Bigelow and ISC Kosmotras." By following the links to find out what a Dnepr booster is and who ISC Kosmotras is, you find out that they used a converted Russian ICBM. In other words, their launch system was developed by the Russian government.
If anything, this example supports my comments. Russia developed the launch system, NASA developed the habitat idea. Using government funding and government research. No company would've tried to start from scratch and develop this. When the concepts were developed enough that an entrepeneur thought he could use the ideas to turn a buck, he jumped in. That's great! I would love the private industry to develop space. But they can't/wont do it until the path is cleared for them.