I'm not trying to tell NASA what to do, I'm simply stating a fact that we aren't in Kansas anymore. This is not some little rock with 10 % of the earth's gravity, and unless I missed some major advancements in the past 40 years, the basic physics behind gravity still applies here.
I need to emphasize that I don't think GETTING to Mars is going to be a problem, I think getting OFF Mars will be a problem. Regardless of whether we have some low-orbit module that will break our orbit from Mars and get us back home, we still need to shoot that lander from the surface into a low-Martian orbit. This is where I think the real problem lies.
Look at the size of the rockets we need, and the supporting infrastructure to build, and launch even a 1 ton payload. Granted they won't need to be that large to get them off the surface of Mars, but they will need to be significantly larger and more effecient that what was used on the Mooon.
I do give NASA alot of faith, but it seems that either through budget cuts, poor administration, or confusing the Metric System with the English system, they have raised some doubts in my mind.
I know I've posted this before, but the major problem in going to Mars, and to me one which is the most significant problem which we did not have with moon missions, is that Mars, unlike our only natural satellite, has a gravity about 75% that of earth. Meaning that the escape velocity is significantly higher on Mars than on the moon and that some tiny fire-cracker punch won't get you into orbit.
So, getting to Mars may not be a problem, but getting off, with enough feul to make it back will be.
In fact, I would guess that you'd need to construct a fairly significant lauch vehicle on Mars just to get off the planet.
I know that this is mildly off-topic, but here goes nothing.
This is all well and good that the President wants to send a person to Mars and back, but the problem which exists, and to me is the most significant problem which we did not have with moon missions, is that Mars, unlike our only natural satellite, has a gravity about 75% that of earth. Meaning that the escape velocity is significantly higher on Mars than on the moon and that some tiny fire-cracker puch won't get you into orbit.
So, getting to Mars may not be a problem, but getting off, with enough feul to make it back will be.
In fact, I would guess that you'd need to construct a fairly significant lauch vehicle on Mars just to get off the planet.
I can't say enough how disappointed I am with Comcast right now. I have been on their 3 for $99 plan where I got digital cable, phone, and High Speed internet for $99 / month. Of couse that doesn't include the BS fees, and taxes, which make it about $125 / month. But still,for the three services, I feel that was not too unreasonable.
That is until yesterday. They just sent me a letter saying that thier raising it to $125 / month (+ taxes and BS fees). Now, my question is, how can they justify this? Their response, "We now offer more programs, faster connection, and better support".
More Programs? What's that Bull shit! More premium programs which I still have to pay more. I don't get more for the simple $125 plan.
Faster Connection: Hmm, I didn't ask for the 1.5 MB -> 3.0 MB connection, put me back, I don't need it.
Better support: Too subjective and meaningless.
It's not like they have a huge increase in expenses. I'm starting to see what the Satelite companies mean by "Stop feeding the cable pig". An inflationary increase is understandable, 5 - 10 times inflation is not.
Just tried google for a SSN search as well. Same thing, you get a list of results within that social security number range, along with names, and addresses.
I just can't figure out why people would be victim to identity theft.
My question is, was this person still on library property? I don't know about this particular library, but many of the ones I visit have an outside area to sit and read the books you just checked out. So, if he was still on the library's property, isn't he still "in the library"?
And another thought (random as it may be) doesn't he, as a taxpaying citizen (yes church folk still have taxes) have a right to use a public access wiFi connection? After all, it's offered as a free service to the public, not just some of the public.
Now if he was doing something malicious (hacking their server, sending spam), perhaps the police have a point, but for general use, I don't see how simply accessing a public connection is a problem.
Doesn't it make sense that a low turnover is correlated to a low wage growth?
I don't think it's common place to get big increases in salaries without moving on to a different job. Seems to me that most employers sqwauk at giving out even miniscule inflation raises (2 - 3%) where as, often times I find hiring employers are willing to pay more "for the right person", who will usually only leave their job if they get a better deal.
I don't know many people who would leave for a lower paying job, unless there is some esoteric reason, or much better overall compenstation package (i.e. health benefits, private yacht, etc).
Which gets back to my point, the only way to get large raises is to move around. Remain stagnant, and your raises will too.
I'm guessing this means that they'll be using some implementation of NTFS with longhorn. Could be good news to all those dual-boot people out there that like to be able to access their Windows files from Linux.
Just as they're making some progress with mounting NTFS filesystems under linux, MS changes the FS. Something which surely would cause problems in Linux.
Looks liks we'll be able to keep dual boots with Longhorn after all.
Never used gnumeric, but I'm definelty going to check it out.
I have tried the Word -> OOo deal several times. (but not the other way). Mostly to convert.doc files to.pdf. I love the fact that I can convert.doc files to pdf, which my phb seems to think we HAVE to use for the web (HTML anyone?) and won't pay for Acrobat. Go figure
Oh I agree completly, most of the features in Word are absolutly useless. Sure, if you're creating a nice 500 page manual, the style guides, auto-track and other features are pretty handy. But in most business environs, people use word to write a one or two page summary report.
On the other hand, a large portion of the spreadsheets I see (anecdotal I know) usually contain some incarnation of a chart. Which seem to be the problem going from OOo to Excel and vice-versa.
Any talk about the importance of a single office application really should revolve around the question: "Is there a viable alternative to office?"
The first question any manager will ask when given the OOo option as a replacement for word is if there is an alternative to Excel, Powerpoint, etc. Although OOo does have those options, some of the features, namely creating charts and graphs, do not port well. Just try making a chart in Excel, and open it in OOo. Usually quite an experience.
Although I believe OOo's got a great suite of products, MS does have the upper hand, and until a comparable spreadsheet product is available, I don't see OOo making headway. At least not the way Mozilla is on the IE market.
For some reason, I just picture this owl on a tree being asked "How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop" and the Owl replies:
I hope they can come up with a way to effectively "auto-focus" your new digital eyes. I'm always putzing with my camera's autofocus and it seems to take forever somtimes (note: forever = >.5 seconds). There seems to be a big problems whenever I'm trying to take action shots. The AF can't accuratley predict what I want to focus on.
I just hope that we are able to develop an autofocus system to go with this that 1) can focus as fast as a human eye and 2) can focus on the needed subject.
So let me get this straight. Microsoft determines that virii / worms / (insert other bad stuff here) use the internet to infect other computers. So, to make Windows more secure they shut down TCP/IP?
Isn't that overkill? I mean really, I don't shoot my kids when they get a cold just because he might infect someone else!
Slashdot Mirror
That as I read this article and post this message, I am innundated with ads from SUN which give my business the "REAL-TIME ADVANTAGE"!
ZFS, the Last Word in File Systems?
Of course it's the last word. It starts with "Z"!
Oh wait, I suppose ZZFS could be the last word
Or maybe ZZZZZZZZZZFS
One that I've been frequenting, thought I don't agree with his political beliefs, is electionprojection.com Lot's of state by state information.
And here's the link... http://amesnews.arc.nasa.gov/erc/HowBig/diameter.h tm
Holy Crap, I didn't realize I was off by that much.
Interesting link for those interested in the Mass / Volume / Diameter / Gravity information of the planets.
I'll got back to wearing my dunce cap now.
I'm not trying to tell NASA what to do, I'm simply stating a fact that we aren't in Kansas anymore. This is not some little rock with 10 % of the earth's gravity, and unless I missed some major advancements in the past 40 years, the basic physics behind gravity still applies here.
I need to emphasize that I don't think GETTING to Mars is going to be a problem, I think getting OFF Mars will be a problem. Regardless of whether we have some low-orbit module that will break our orbit from Mars and get us back home, we still need to shoot that lander from the surface into a low-Martian orbit. This is where I think the real problem lies.
Look at the size of the rockets we need, and the supporting infrastructure to build, and launch even a 1 ton payload. Granted they won't need to be that large to get them off the surface of Mars, but they will need to be significantly larger and more effecient that what was used on the Mooon.
I do give NASA alot of faith, but it seems that either through budget cuts, poor administration, or confusing the Metric System with the English system, they have raised some doubts in my mind.
I know I've posted this before, but the major problem in going to Mars, and to me one which is the most significant problem which we did not have with moon missions, is that Mars, unlike our only natural satellite, has a gravity about 75% that of earth. Meaning that the escape velocity is significantly higher on Mars than on the moon and that some tiny fire-cracker punch won't get you into orbit. So, getting to Mars may not be a problem, but getting off, with enough feul to make it back will be. In fact, I would guess that you'd need to construct a fairly significant lauch vehicle on Mars just to get off the planet.
I know that this is mildly off-topic, but here goes nothing.
This is all well and good that the President wants to send a person to Mars and back, but the problem which exists, and to me is the most significant problem which we did not have with moon missions, is that Mars, unlike our only natural satellite, has a gravity about 75% that of earth. Meaning that the escape velocity is significantly higher on Mars than on the moon and that some tiny fire-cracker puch won't get you into orbit.
So, getting to Mars may not be a problem, but getting off, with enough feul to make it back will be.
In fact, I would guess that you'd need to construct a fairly significant lauch vehicle on Mars just to get off the planet.
I can't say enough how disappointed I am with Comcast right now. I have been on their 3 for $99 plan where I got digital cable, phone, and High Speed internet for $99 / month. Of couse that doesn't include the BS fees, and taxes, which make it about $125 / month. But still ,for the three services, I feel that was not too unreasonable.
That is until yesterday. They just sent me a letter saying that thier raising it to $125 / month (+ taxes and BS fees). Now, my question is, how can they justify this? Their response, "We now offer more programs, faster connection, and better support".
More Programs? What's that Bull shit! More premium programs which I still have to pay more. I don't get more for the simple $125 plan.
Faster Connection: Hmm, I didn't ask for the 1.5 MB -> 3.0 MB connection, put me back, I don't need it.
Better support: Too subjective and meaningless.
It's not like they have a huge increase in expenses. I'm starting to see what the Satelite companies mean by "Stop feeding the cable pig". An inflationary increase is understandable, 5 - 10 times inflation is not.
Just tried google for a SSN search as well. Same thing, you get a list of results within that social security number range, along with names, and addresses.
I just can't figure out why people would be victim to identity theft.
My question is, was this person still on library property? I don't know about this particular library, but many of the ones I visit have an outside area to sit and read the books you just checked out. So, if he was still on the library's property, isn't he still "in the library"?
And another thought (random as it may be) doesn't he, as a taxpaying citizen (yes church folk still have taxes) have a right to use a public access wiFi connection? After all, it's offered as a free service to the public, not just some of the public.
Now if he was doing something malicious (hacking their server, sending spam), perhaps the police have a point, but for general use, I don't see how simply accessing a public connection is a problem.
Just curious, does anybody know how many of the ST:TOS actors have hollywood stars? I don't recall Shatner having one, but I could be way off.
Since I just visited the site (rncdelegates.com), I suppose I can expect a visit from the NSA / Secret Service / CIA / FBI any sec........
Doesn't it make sense that a low turnover is correlated to a low wage growth?
I don't think it's common place to get big increases in salaries without moving on to a different job. Seems to me that most employers sqwauk at giving out even miniscule inflation raises (2 - 3%) where as, often times I find hiring employers are willing to pay more "for the right person", who will usually only leave their job if they get a better deal.
I don't know many people who would leave for a lower paying job, unless there is some esoteric reason, or much better overall compenstation package (i.e. health benefits, private yacht, etc).
Which gets back to my point, the only way to get large raises is to move around. Remain stagnant, and your raises will too.
I'm guessing this means that they'll be using some implementation of NTFS with longhorn. Could be good news to all those dual-boot people out there that like to be able to access their Windows files from Linux.
Just as they're making some progress with mounting NTFS filesystems under linux, MS changes the FS. Something which surely would cause problems in Linux.
Looks liks we'll be able to keep dual boots with Longhorn after all.
Never used gnumeric, but I'm definelty going to check it out.
.doc files to .pdf. I love the fact that I can convert .doc files to pdf, which my phb seems to think we HAVE to use for the web (HTML anyone?) and won't pay for Acrobat. Go figure
I have tried the Word -> OOo deal several times. (but not the other way). Mostly to convert
Oh I agree completly, most of the features in Word are absolutly useless. Sure, if you're creating a nice 500 page manual, the style guides, auto-track and other features are pretty handy. But in most business environs, people use word to write a one or two page summary report.
On the other hand, a large portion of the spreadsheets I see (anecdotal I know) usually contain some incarnation of a chart. Which seem to be the problem going from OOo to Excel and vice-versa.
Any talk about the importance of a single office application really should revolve around the question: "Is there a viable alternative to office?"
The first question any manager will ask when given the OOo option as a replacement for word is if there is an alternative to Excel, Powerpoint, etc. Although OOo does have those options, some of the features, namely creating charts and graphs, do not port well. Just try making a chart in Excel, and open it in OOo. Usually quite an experience.
Although I believe OOo's got a great suite of products, MS does have the upper hand, and until a comparable spreadsheet product is available, I don't see OOo making headway. At least not the way Mozilla is on the IE market.
For some reason, I just picture this owl on a tree being asked "How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop" and the Owl replies:
"One, two, many. Crunch, many"
I hope they can come up with a way to effectively "auto-focus" your new digital eyes. I'm always putzing with my camera's autofocus and it seems to take forever somtimes (note: forever = >.5 seconds). There seems to be a big problems whenever I'm trying to take action shots. The AF can't accuratley predict what I want to focus on.
I just hope that we are able to develop an autofocus system to go with this that 1) can focus as fast as a human eye and 2) can focus on the needed subject.
Interesting development though.
So let me get this straight. Microsoft determines that virii / worms / (insert other bad stuff here) use the internet to infect other computers. So, to make Windows more secure they shut down TCP/IP? Isn't that overkill? I mean really, I don't shoot my kids when they get a cold just because he might infect someone else!
Here's a sneak preview of the OS... Windows RG (Warning - requires flash)