Can you give an actual example of a Conservative Republican who wants that?
Oh please. The list is a lot shorter if you ask me which conservative republicans don't want it.
Here's a news flash: At this rate, things are going to come to a head, one way or another. And only one side of this argument owns guns.
From my viewpoint you cannot believe in self defense with a gun and truly believe in God - the two are completely mutually exclusive.
Islam, Christianity and Judaism all have the same roots, and in those roots are the ten commandments. "Thou shalt not kill" is pretty easy to understand, even for a Republican. There are no caveats 'thou shalt not kill except for trespassers, and the rule does not apply to paranoid idiots who think their government is about to collapse.' It is absolute.
It seems that in some branches of science, we accept "plausible" as "proven". Sure there may be some pretty good evidence that an asteroid impact caused mass extinctions, but are there any other explanations?
Sure. If extraterrestrial aliens knew the asteroid was going to impact Earth the may have said "Wow the Earth's ecosystem is going to be destroyed. We should preserve as much as we can". They then proceeded to evacuate as many animals as possible which explains the decline in the fossil record before the impact (especially if several galaxies were given the go-ahead to pilfer animals).
There are probably genetic descendants of the dinosaurs in zoos and geo-formed planetary habitats all across the galaxy right now.
Two futures lie ahead of us, one of an emasculated politically cleansed America where the State (i.e. national government) reigns supreme over pretty much everything, assigns everyone their place and everyone knows resistence to be futile as we spiral down to Third World status and keep going towards failed state.
I view this as what the Bush regime gave us. Trillion dollar increases in the national debt that our grandkids will be lucky to see gone. Sheer incompetence that shows the Republicans couldn't rebuild New Orleans in the amount of time that it took to rebuild all of Europe after WWII.
Or how about a 'politically cleansed america' where if you do scientific research or have a charity that doesn't follow the narrow government sense or morals you lose your funding. Science books are removed from schools and replaced with religious dogma. Neighbours are allowed weapons sizeable to a small army and shoot trespassers with impunity, yet a small swear word on tv results in government ordered fines and content sensorship.
Right wing republicans want a dictatorship in the US, run by religious law - very much indistinguisable from the likes of the Taliban.
Its the Republicans that need to wake up and change their attitude or get the hell out of the country before they destroy it.
Are you sure you are not mixing that up with the American military attitude that they have jurisdiction over everyone on the planet regardless or citizenship?
1) lunar dust contains oxygen and metal oxides that can be refined to make fuel. Remember the moon is just a big chunk of earths crust so generally whatever we can mine here we can mine there.
2) It's all mined telerobotically. You are right if you had to get people up there it would no longer make sense.
3) There are definite cost risks, but we have a good idea
4) Sure we do. I work for a space robotics company. Remeber that this is tele-robotics; controlled by humans from earth. We do not havce the technology for autonomous robotics, but the robotics part is challenging but certainly possible.
I was part of a proposal to NASA to build a massive (150 meter diameter) GEO based telescope. When you do the math, it works out to be far cheaper and much less fuel to mine the moon for all the raw titanium and fuel you need, manufacture the parts and then robotically assemble them in orbit, than it would to launch from earth all the pre-manufactured component parts.
It's the fuel spent escaping earths gravity that kills you.
This is an illuminating and interesting idea, and it may point directly to how we could measure both at the same time, which would make a lot more sense to some of us. Me included.
I'm good with not being able to directly determine position and velocity simultaneously. The part I have problems with is the position and velocity uncertainty also applies to nothingness. The more sure you are that an area of space contains no particles, the more uncertain you are how fast they are going.
The behaviour you describe has nothing to do with the OS's "multitasking" abilities, it's entirely dependent on whether you have a suitable packet-writing driver installed. There's no reason you _couldn't_ do that on NT (or even Windows 9x), if someone bothered to write a driver.
Except that it was handling several ftp clients, performing GUI drag drop operations, and occasionally I'd even format a floppy.
Even on XP (every machine I've ever used so no its not the hardware) occasionally it will pause when you click on the Start menu as it goes off and waits for some nonexistant network drive, and you cant do a thing with the rest of the system until it comes back.
Yes a properly written driver will not mess up multitasking and a poor one will (since it's in the kernel) but fundamentally OS/2 had great multitasking.
My NT4 machine handled this fine. Heck, I used to burn CDs (at a blazing 4x on my brand new CD burner) and play Quakeworld at the same time on that baby.
I remember doing a CD burning demo on my OS/2 box at work when the NT guys were complaining they were making CD coasters maybe every second or third try. I set up the CD drive as a shared drive, then allowed ftp access to it. I got two or three other computers to connect to the OS/2 box and simultaneously do an ftp upload. There was no indication that they were uploading and simultaneously burning to a CD drive - they could even get directory listings of the files that were being put there. Locally on the machine while the other computers were uploading to the burner, I also dragged and dropped files to the CD drive. OS/2 never EVER made a coaster during a burn - no matter what you did to it.
I have yet to see any system that allows me to do that sort of multitasking like I could do with OS/2.
But I partially agree with some of the comments here: It would make more sense (IMO) for Windows to greet you with the following choice upon initial configuration:
That would make Windows have the same installation choices that OS/2 had 15 years ago! What progress!
So the government invests in open source, essentially making open source a socialized institution. Corporate software will not go away so now you have your government competing with open source. How exactly is this better?
Also instead of getting people to volunteer their time to a software cause (and thereby generally attacting good developers), now you have a bunch of paid software workers, lowly paid at that that likely cannot get a decent paying job elsewhere because they suck at coding. Now you have government funded crap being made, which would span a second fully volunteer open source effort to compete with the government stuff.
And given that open source developers are also a bunch of tin foil hatters, they will shun the government money as they will think the government is taking the source and funneling it into the military.
Not everything has to be or should be open source. The software I make has absolutely zero use to anyone except for the handful of target customers that pay for it. Why exactly should that be open source? Theres no benefit.
On the topic of public works however, I see that as a totally different topic.
Agree. There is a certain level of social infrastructure that everyone should contribute to. I'm Canadian and I count universal free healthcare among those social rights.
As far as the banks go, generally we are entirely unaffected. Our banks have rules to prevent those stupid mistakes from being made. In fact this whole economic downturn is great for me as I'm only paying 2% on my mortgage (woo hoo!)
I don't agree with open source however. I'm not saying it isn't useful in certain instances, or that for some people it is completely beneficial. But part of the free market economy is competition and I dont feel the need to have public tax dollars going to support open source that competes against private alternatives.
So when they throw money at banks and big industry, it's good. When they throw money at something that can potentially benefit everyone, it's bad? I don't get it.
No, I think bailing out the big banks is a mistake. They got themselves into this mess by making stupid decisions so now they should pay the consequences. However you can't just let them collapse entirely as this will affect innocent people.
I see zero reason to bail out GM and Chrysler. They consistently make the worst cars in the world, and they are making more cars than people are buying. I say the market has a say here and the market says let at least one of them die.
I also see zero reason why I should be forced to pay for open source when I don't use it. It should be my choice whether to buy open source or corporate software, and I shouldn't have to be forced to pay for both. And I dispute the notion that open source benefits everyone. Whether I can or cannot download the source code to my internet browser or word processor does not make me more productive.
Bring on the -1 fanboys! Mod me down for clarifying the discussion for this idiot. mod him up, even though he speaks misinformation. I guess even Truth can't come between a slashdot mod and the blind love for google.
I'm the idiot when you are claiming it is perfectly ok to shoot someone for taking a picture. Get a grip.
In August 2004, O'Keefe requested the Goddard Space Flight Center to prepare a detailed proposal for a robotic service mission. These plans were later canceled, the robotic mission being described as "not feasible [washingtonpost.com]".
Just goes to show you cannot believe everything you read.
In reality, the robotic system was in manufacturing when it was 'canceled'. Goddard continued to fund a scaled back Hubble repair, but only a demo using a mockup robot and the hardware in Goddards full scale Hubble simulation labs. The demos finished as planned and were a complete success. Many of the operations were shown to perform better with robotics than with astronauts (like sliding out the instrument trays).
The planned body of the hubble repair robot is now the SPDM robot on the international space station. That robot already existed and hadn't yet flown to the space station due to the grounding of the shuttles at the time. Since the robot existed, the schedule, capabilities and cost were all feasible.
The robotics mission was canceled because Griffin didn't like the head of MDA (the robotics company contracted to build the robot portion of hte mission) as they had a rivalry when they both worked at Orbital. The whole 'unfeasible' story is a complete fabrication.
The problem isn't that the debris might be heading to Hubble's orbit. The problem is that the debris cloud is between us and Hubble, and it's getting larger.
No, Hubble is below the orbit that the satellites collided in by about 150Km.
Eh, no. Its practically dead. Thats why every delay to this service mission is so critical - if another couple of gyros go, it won't even be able to orient itself well enough to allow the astronauts to get up close. As it is, most of its main instruments are currently out of action.
Well if Griffin didn't cancel the robotic repair mission that was not only planned but mostly built and tested, it would have been repaired by now.
So what you are saying is that your privacy is an absolute and you have the right to absolute privacy. Black and white - no middle ground.
Next time I see a tourist taking pictures that I happen to be in, I guess I'll just go beat the shit out of him and shoot him to boot. That'll learn 'em for violating my privacy.
Going to shoot every security camera I see too. How dare they record where I am and what I am doing. According to you I have the right to absolute privacy in everything I do.
Slashdot Mirror
Can you give an actual example of a Conservative Republican who wants that?
Oh please. The list is a lot shorter if you ask me which conservative republicans don't want it.
Here's a news flash: At this rate, things are going to come to a head, one way or another. And only one side of this argument owns guns.
From my viewpoint you cannot believe in self defense with a gun and truly believe in God - the two are completely mutually exclusive.
Islam, Christianity and Judaism all have the same roots, and in those roots are the ten commandments. "Thou shalt not kill" is pretty easy to understand, even for a Republican. There are no caveats 'thou shalt not kill except for trespassers, and the rule does not apply to paranoid idiots who think their government is about to collapse.' It is absolute.
It seems that in some branches of science, we accept "plausible" as "proven". Sure there may be some pretty good evidence that an asteroid impact caused mass extinctions, but are there any other explanations?
Sure. If extraterrestrial aliens knew the asteroid was going to impact Earth the may have said "Wow the Earth's ecosystem is going to be destroyed. We should preserve as much as we can". They then proceeded to evacuate as many animals as possible which explains the decline in the fossil record before the impact (especially if several galaxies were given the go-ahead to pilfer animals).
There are probably genetic descendants of the dinosaurs in zoos and geo-formed planetary habitats all across the galaxy right now.
Two futures lie ahead of us, one of an emasculated politically cleansed America where the State (i.e. national government) reigns supreme over pretty much everything, assigns everyone their place and everyone knows resistence to be futile as we spiral down to Third World status and keep going towards failed state.
I view this as what the Bush regime gave us. Trillion dollar increases in the national debt that our grandkids will be lucky to see gone. Sheer incompetence that shows the Republicans couldn't rebuild New Orleans in the amount of time that it took to rebuild all of Europe after WWII.
Or how about a 'politically cleansed america' where if you do scientific research or have a charity that doesn't follow the narrow government sense or morals you lose your funding. Science books are removed from schools and replaced with religious dogma. Neighbours are allowed weapons sizeable to a small army and shoot trespassers with impunity, yet a small swear word on tv results in government ordered fines and content sensorship.
Right wing republicans want a dictatorship in the US, run by religious law - very much indistinguisable from the likes of the Taliban.
Its the Republicans that need to wake up and change their attitude or get the hell out of the country before they destroy it.
How about crazy psychotic nutbar?
Really? That's a Brazillian law?
Are you sure you are not mixing that up with the American military attitude that they have jurisdiction over everyone on the planet regardless or citizenship?
Sure but your examples are all about breaking local laws. Like you say, space is like international waters - no country has jurisdiction.
So exactly what law is being broken?
Sure, but the broadcasters are in Brazil, and the satellite is in space. Which Brazilian law are they actually breaking?
I'm surprised this is actually illegal. It's not like they broke into the satellite, they are just using an open communications channel.
1) lunar dust contains oxygen and metal oxides that can be refined to make fuel. Remember the moon is just a big chunk of earths crust so generally whatever we can mine here we can mine there.
2) It's all mined telerobotically. You are right if you had to get people up there it would no longer make sense.
3) There are definite cost risks, but we have a good idea
4) Sure we do. I work for a space robotics company. Remeber that this is tele-robotics; controlled by humans from earth. We do not havce the technology for autonomous robotics, but the robotics part is challenging but certainly possible.
Actually it sounds crazy but it is not.
I was part of a proposal to NASA to build a massive (150 meter diameter) GEO based telescope. When you do the math, it works out to be far cheaper and much less fuel to mine the moon for all the raw titanium and fuel you need, manufacture the parts and then robotically assemble them in orbit, than it would to launch from earth all the pre-manufactured component parts.
It's the fuel spent escaping earths gravity that kills you.
From the headline I thought they were talking about OS/2!
I hope IBM doesn't do anything rash.
This is an illuminating and interesting idea, and it may point directly to how we could measure both at the same time, which would make a lot more sense to some of us. Me included.
I'm good with not being able to directly determine position and velocity simultaneously. The part I have problems with is the position and velocity uncertainty also applies to nothingness. The more sure you are that an area of space contains no particles, the more uncertain you are how fast they are going.
The behaviour you describe has nothing to do with the OS's "multitasking" abilities, it's entirely dependent on whether you have a suitable packet-writing driver installed. There's no reason you _couldn't_ do that on NT (or even Windows 9x), if someone bothered to write a driver.
Except that it was handling several ftp clients, performing GUI drag drop operations, and occasionally I'd even format a floppy.
Even on XP (every machine I've ever used so no its not the hardware) occasionally it will pause when you click on the Start menu as it goes off and waits for some nonexistant network drive, and you cant do a thing with the rest of the system until it comes back.
Yes a properly written driver will not mess up multitasking and a poor one will (since it's in the kernel) but fundamentally OS/2 had great multitasking.
My NT4 machine handled this fine. Heck, I used to burn CDs (at a blazing 4x on my brand new CD burner) and play Quakeworld at the same time on that baby.
I remember doing a CD burning demo on my OS/2 box at work when the NT guys were complaining they were making CD coasters maybe every second or third try. I set up the CD drive as a shared drive, then allowed ftp access to it. I got two or three other computers to connect to the OS/2 box and simultaneously do an ftp upload. There was no indication that they were uploading and simultaneously burning to a CD drive - they could even get directory listings of the files that were being put there. Locally on the machine while the other computers were uploading to the burner, I also dragged and dropped files to the CD drive. OS/2 never EVER made a coaster during a burn - no matter what you did to it.
I have yet to see any system that allows me to do that sort of multitasking like I could do with OS/2.
But I partially agree with some of the comments here: It would make more sense (IMO) for Windows to greet you with the following choice upon initial configuration:
That would make Windows have the same installation choices that OS/2 had 15 years ago! What progress!
Then you could literally plug it and and have it running.
And do what with it? It's kinda cool from a packaging point of view but pretty useless functionally.
So the government invests in open source, essentially making open source a socialized institution. Corporate software will not go away so now you have your government competing with open source. How exactly is this better?
Also instead of getting people to volunteer their time to a software cause (and thereby generally attacting good developers), now you have a bunch of paid software workers, lowly paid at that that likely cannot get a decent paying job elsewhere because they suck at coding. Now you have government funded crap being made, which would span a second fully volunteer open source effort to compete with the government stuff.
And given that open source developers are also a bunch of tin foil hatters, they will shun the government money as they will think the government is taking the source and funneling it into the military.
Not everything has to be or should be open source. The software I make has absolutely zero use to anyone except for the handful of target customers that pay for it. Why exactly should that be open source? Theres no benefit.
On the topic of public works however, I see that as a totally different topic.
Agree. There is a certain level of social infrastructure that everyone should contribute to. I'm Canadian and I count universal free healthcare among those social rights.
As far as the banks go, generally we are entirely unaffected. Our banks have rules to prevent those stupid mistakes from being made. In fact this whole economic downturn is great for me as I'm only paying 2% on my mortgage (woo hoo!)
I don't agree with open source however. I'm not saying it isn't useful in certain instances, or that for some people it is completely beneficial. But part of the free market economy is competition and I dont feel the need to have public tax dollars going to support open source that competes against private alternatives.
So when they throw money at banks and big industry, it's good. When they throw money at something that can potentially benefit everyone, it's bad? I don't get it.
No, I think bailing out the big banks is a mistake. They got themselves into this mess by making stupid decisions so now they should pay the consequences. However you can't just let them collapse entirely as this will affect innocent people.
I see zero reason to bail out GM and Chrysler. They consistently make the worst cars in the world, and they are making more cars than people are buying. I say the market has a say here and the market says let at least one of them die.
I also see zero reason why I should be forced to pay for open source when I don't use it. It should be my choice whether to buy open source or corporate software, and I shouldn't have to be forced to pay for both. And I dispute the notion that open source benefits everyone. Whether I can or cannot download the source code to my internet browser or word processor does not make me more productive.
If you want to give away your time and effort then go ahead - its your life. But I don't want any of my tax dollars subsidizing it.
Bring on the -1 fanboys! Mod me down for clarifying the discussion for this idiot. mod him up, even though he speaks misinformation. I guess even Truth can't come between a slashdot mod and the blind love for google.
I'm the idiot when you are claiming it is perfectly ok to shoot someone for taking a picture. Get a grip.
In August 2004, O'Keefe requested the Goddard Space Flight Center to prepare a detailed proposal for a robotic service mission. These plans were later canceled, the robotic mission being described as "not feasible [washingtonpost.com]".
Just goes to show you cannot believe everything you read.
In reality, the robotic system was in manufacturing when it was 'canceled'. Goddard continued to fund a scaled back Hubble repair, but only a demo using a mockup robot and the hardware in Goddards full scale Hubble simulation labs. The demos finished as planned and were a complete success. Many of the operations were shown to perform better with robotics than with astronauts (like sliding out the instrument trays).
The planned body of the hubble repair robot is now the SPDM robot on the international space station. That robot already existed and hadn't yet flown to the space station due to the grounding of the shuttles at the time. Since the robot existed, the schedule, capabilities and cost were all feasible.
The robotics mission was canceled because Griffin didn't like the head of MDA (the robotics company contracted to build the robot portion of hte mission) as they had a rivalry when they both worked at Orbital. The whole 'unfeasible' story is a complete fabrication.
The problem isn't that the debris might be heading to Hubble's orbit. The problem is that the debris cloud is between us and Hubble, and it's getting larger.
No, Hubble is below the orbit that the satellites collided in by about 150Km.
Eh, no. Its practically dead. Thats why every delay to this service mission is so critical - if another couple of gyros go, it won't even be able to orient itself well enough to allow the astronauts to get up close. As it is, most of its main instruments are currently out of action.
Well if Griffin didn't cancel the robotic repair mission that was not only planned but mostly built and tested, it would have been repaired by now.
For people not aware; the satellites that collided were on the low end of LEO. Hubble is considerably higher.
No the satellite collision happened in upper LEO, not lower. Both Hubble and the space station are below the collision orbit.
Hubble is at 560Km, the space station is at 350Km and the collision was at 705Km.
So what you are saying is that your privacy is an absolute and you have the right to absolute privacy. Black and white - no middle ground.
Next time I see a tourist taking pictures that I happen to be in, I guess I'll just go beat the shit out of him and shoot him to boot. That'll learn 'em for violating my privacy.
Going to shoot every security camera I see too. How dare they record where I am and what I am doing. According to you I have the right to absolute privacy in everything I do.