Same here except I read the blurb the next second, and even if it all made me think about the validity of "News for nerds" etc. it all passed as I realized the enormous potential for jokes & ridicule:)
-- this additional sig includes a portrait of Mohammed in support of freedom of expression, feel free to reproduce it
And people wonder about the existence of crazed fundamentalists in the middle east? We have the exact same kind of mentally unbalanced (or damaged) people in the west as presented on behalf of Webster Griffin Tarpley by the Anonymous Coward parent poster.
"The Mohammed cartoons are a transparent provocation by NATO intelligence through a Danish right wing newspaper of limited circulation." I'm sure that makes much more sense to the conspiracists than the issue as put forward by both the original publisher (making a point against self-censorship by the media on muslim issues) as well as the outbursts of support by other newspapers and magazines all over europe (and even in Jordan and Egypt!) and international press organisations correctly coming to the defence of freedom of speech.
If people like Webster Griffin Tarpley had a few more firing synapses they would instead speculate about the following peculiarities: - the original publishing happened last year in september, there was zero international outcry at that point in time (only local danish discussion on the topic between civilized muslims and the rest) - yesterdays burning of embassies in Syria is extremely unlikely to have happened without the approval of the brutal Syrian Baath-party dictatorship. Violent destruction of embassies would normally be regarded as a declaration of war as it's the sovereign domain of whatever country the embassy belongs to - todays attacks on embassies in Beirut, Lebanon was in all likelihood initiated by people who ideologically are extremely closely related to Syria, if not also directly related to them (Hamas-supporters) - the Beirut attacks very quickly shifted focus onto attacks on Lebanese christians and christian churches, so quickly as to make it likely that the inital attacks were a cover for trying to reinflame the unrest in Lebanon - Norwegian imams as well as other western islamic representatives are urging for calm, non-violence, as well as against the hijacking of the issue by islamic extremists (most muslims are intelligent rational people and have nothing in common with the extremist rabble) - there has been next to none, or at least extremely small levels, of muslim outcry on the issue in Norway (I'm a norwegian btw). In general I would say norwegian muslims are better integrated into society (through no small effort of the muslims themselves as should be expected) than danish ones although we of course have issues in Norway too. I live next door to the oldest mosque in Norway (and a very pretty one imo) and have had enough muslim friends and aquaintances both in Norway and South East Asia to feel confident in saying this - respect for the prophet Mohammed is one thing, the prohibition against depiction in Islam actually isn't specifically about the prophet Mohammed but about all living things and intended to discourage idolatory! (might want to read http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/46782 20.stm). By the logic of the extremist pseudo-muslims any picture or photograph should be equally protested but instead they actually break the intentions of Islam in their idolatry of the prophet Mohammed and sadly as such (in my personal opinon) showing how Islam is falling into the same trap as those "christians" who idolate Jesus Christ as a replacement of God.
But no, instead of all the above Webster Griffin Tarpley concocts paranoid delusions based on ignorance of how NATO even works and is structured (all NATO decisions are made by unanimous approval of all members). The level of idiocy required to hold the opinions of the AC is the same as that which is required to claim Denmark and other scandinavian countries are ruled by "Zionists" as some middle east government representators have said... lol
-- this additional sig includes a portrait of Mohammed in support of freedom of expression, feel free to reproduce it
"I was pointing out his employement as a patent examiner as an explanation of why he might not know all that much about general relativity, but I just now realized how ironic that is."
And in other news it's discovered how come so many poor patent applications are approved...:)
(apologies to A. F. Mayer as I have no reason to suspect he's not good at his job, but if they're all vying to be the next Einstein it does explain things)
-- this additional sig includes a portrait of Mohammed in support of freedom of expression, feel free to reproduce it
IANAP but I agree with you, these are interesting ideas and I think too many of the other posters are too quick to judge the merits of them (so far I've only read the introduction myself, needed a break before attempting lecture one lol).
His ideas/modifications should be fairly easy to test extensively as he proposes them as solutions to a whole lot of current problems and datasets. I'm fairly confident he has done that to his own satisfaction already (anything else would be academic suicide). Not only that but from my limited understanding the ideas/modifications seem to provide possible solutions in a very elegant manner (yet without outright breaking established science, only correcting/expanding upon it) which is usually a very good indication of someone being onto something. I'm going to keep an eye on this, if it is independently verified and gets accepted by the scientific community it will be Nobel Prize contender material.
And for those who haven't; please at least read the introduction (also available as PDF) before posting comments. Oh and for the incurable sceptics ("occupational hazard" of Slashdot lol) crackpots seldom present their papers at American Physical Society or American Geophysical Union meetings: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=176275 &cid=14644444 -- well not that kind of crackpots at least:)
-- this additional sig includes a portrait of Mohammed in support of freedom of expression, feel free to reproduce it
"Since there are no reasonably permanent irregularities such as hills and valleys on the oceans"
Sorry, I apologize in advance because I do agree with you but that statement triggered the nitpick in me *can't resist*:)
You (and other Slashdotters) might very well be aware of the following and it is not in any way intended as any form of criticism. I sincerely apologize for any wrongful or lacking details (should be plenty of those), I am not an oceanographer and do feel free to correct me if wrong.
It's funny since there actually are hills and if not exactly valleys then at least depressions on the oceans due to both varying gravitational influences both internal (reasonably permanent) and external (cyclic) as well as differing precipitation and evaporation rates (fairly permanent though sometimes irregular and/or cyclic).
So the ancients would actually be right in thinking like you say although at least somewhat wrong as well (but as you mention they had other methods anyway http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth).
But you are completely correct. Once again sorry I just had to get it out of my system lol:) *hangs head in shame*
-- this additional sig includes a portrait of Mohammed in support of freedom of expression, feel free to reproduce it
...although not strictly true, it's just too good of an Ask Slashdot motto to pass up:)
Ask Slashdot: impossible questions with impossible answers!
Ref: "I need to create an ultra-stable, crash-free application in C++" "...due to reasons of efficiency and availability of core libraries." "...but should be portable to Windows without much difficulty."
Lots of posts with interesting advice though so best of luck! Would make for an interesting Slashback entry when/if you make it succeed (and possibly even if you don't).
-- this additional sig includes a portrait of Mohammed in support of freedom of expression, feel free to reproduce it
Heard about the Stardust mission right? They collected particle samples in aerofoam and then slammed it into earth on the return without disturbing/destroying said particles.
So make your slug of metal hollow, insulate the rover with as much aerogel and shockabsorbing devices as possible (like airbags with timed deflation). Make the slug in such a way that it will crack open in a controlled manner when hitting the comet (most bullets do this). Launch. Hit. Drive rover out of destroyed open slug.
Might not be the most practical or cheapest way to go about it but it has a certain elegance imo:)
Btw the timing of everything could be controlled/timed by an impact fuse & physics in just the same way ordinary armorpiecing rockets work, although not to the same effect of course... I'm sure this would make for a fun lunchbreak napkin sketch & diagram for some NASA wizard:)
You're completely clueless as to how the U.S. government actually works. Luckily for you the information is easily attainable, I suggest you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_budget_ process and I hope you can actually understand that the president does not have the final say on budgetary issues (well at least since the time of Nixon's post-budget hacks). If wikipedia doesn't do it for you there's a ton of information elsewhere, google or visit a library.
You need someone to blame don't you? If you actually think blame helps solve anything you should look no further than page one of the article you linked to find candidates: "Politically, both parties on Capitol Hill displayed a lack of enthusiasm. Democrats said Mr. Bush had opposed foreign oil reduction targets in last year's energy bill, and Republicans questioned the practicality of relying on ethanol and other alternatives." Those are the same groups of people responsible for the DoE cuts, I'm spelling it out for you in case your horrible reading comprehension didn't grasp that the congress and senate actually debate and eventually decide the budget. Your abundant arrogance is their shield.
I consider you a troll because you haven't made a single coherent argument, I know there are people as dimwitted as you portray yourself to be but I don't really care except that you're a waste of time. After the small conversation we've had I wouldn't even be surprised if you've created those fake insulting UIDs yourself to troll for sympathy.
If you're actually earnest I recommend you educate yourself and stop being pathetically simplistic. I won't bother replying further, feel free to continue your bizarre attempts at insults: you'll get the last word.
I'm not aiming for Mars but it doesn't bother me that some do, it's not like it's an either-or situation, both will happen:) I also think you're right about the Antarctic comparison. But then I also think that you're wrong but it depends a lot on point of view and opinion. Not entirely sure if the presently proposed NASA rockets will be that important but they might well be (something powerful will surely be needed for Mars).
Imo the first semi-continuous presense on the moon is exactly as yours, and the diversity of raw materials on the moon is pretty limited (but not non-existent and there is probably a lot of purer metal if you go deep enough). I'm not sure 3He-mining on the moon will be practical (especially if rocket use is too frequent which will create a small but complicating atmosphere) but I think there are other more important aspects of a presense on the moon.
I do think that the moon is important as a more cautious approach towards Mars but my dream/preference is 1g space habitats for which the moon is even better as an intermediary step.
Some good things about the moon imo: - a very shallow gravity well which among other things means that importing a lot of asteroid material is both feasible as well as low cost (setting up an oxygen farm (or similar) in a small enclosed crater using imported carbon etc. and bacteria should almost be trivial) - infrastructure or construction foundation that requires no positional energy and of course a lot less work to create any "foundation" compared to Lagrange points - all the shielding material you could want (i.e. "spacefaring cavedwellers"), I speculate 5 to 10 meters of regolith should be more than enough (compressed, melted or sintered - if necessary) for a reasonable level of radiation safety of those on the moon (Earth-comparable levels). If I'm wrong one can always dig deeper - half of each month has nearly free energy and/or there's always extreme ease of energy delivery from orbiting/remote solar panel stations since there is practically no atmosphere (something like a few millimeters afaik) - a solar panel substrate has already been theoretically "manufactured" using only lunar ingredients iirc, I think it will be possible to make the panels themselves as well from purely lunar material (not that it's strictly necessary) - low-gravity silicate products like fiberoptics are higher-grade than Earth (or Mars) made ones. The final production would/should happen in zero-g but the initial refinement could happen on the moon where silicates are plentiful. The same might apply for aerogels. Combined two such products might even make it economically profitable to export such products to Earth and Mars
In short I think the moon will fill a valuable role in the expansion/growth of increasingly sophisticated near-earth objects which will eventually reach to selfsustaining habitats, mostly as a kind of staging area for land-intensive manufacture/refinement. I'm sure there are plenty more opportunities than those I've mentioned and even more to come.
"One thing about this analogy though; if you imagine an infinite number of animals on the free range then the return per animal is more than enough to make up the difference. Digital distribution allows for infinite 'free-range animals'."
I was going to reply but you put it perfectly right there: it's the one primary point that escapes the cartels. Diversity of products increases overall consumption. The cartels are stuck applying meat-space economics (in which the cost of diversity sometimes doesn't increase overall profits) to mostly "virtual" products (creativity, skill, distribution) which is a big money-losing mistake.
I've got to add that in my opinon a "Master Puppet of Hotel California" mash-up would be even more unique than either of the original songs:) (someone please feel free to make it).
"In particular, the gov. really should fund t/spaces access to the moon and LEO. They are looking for 1/2 billion. That is nothing for a probable cheap access. More importantly, we need an alternative in case NASA fails."
Amen! t/Space might beat NASA to the moon even without a small handout but it would be nice if it got more government support (which they might actually get considering their success & speed so far).
Barring that if Virgin Galactic works out (which is likely), and/or if Bigelow Aerospace ("Transhab") works out, it will probably open up plenty of doors for cash infusions into t/Space.
A dream of privatly held moonbases by 2040 might be much less farfetched than it initially sounds:)
The only thing I disagree with is the lynch mob because we simply don't need it, society already does something much more effective: blatantly ignoring misconstrued laws. It's not even civil disobedience simply the aggregate of common sense. Imho RIAA lost close to a decade ago and have since been involved in a protracted harakiri as they continue to sue willy-nilly while not managing to follow their own rules and seeing major artists publicly state their support for ordinary filesharing.
I know it's little comfort for those unlucky enough to be affected by the death throes of RIAA. I know the justice system and most politicians are lagging at least 20 years behind society but that has always been the case and isn't any kind of surprise. If one tries to speed things up one should be very wary of doing more harm than good.
Rant warning!
RIAA really had/has no reason to fear individuals filesharing and should have jumped at this gratis opportunity for broad artist exposure and recognize the market for high-quality reasonably priced unobstructive digital formats. Instead of their centralized campaigns for a handful of artists they could have taken advantage of everyone promoting everyone for free and let the naturally popular artists rise instead of trying to manufacture them. If they had any business sense they would be actively promoting filesharing, making it easy for fans and casual listeners alike to support & pay those they enjoy, making it easy for artists and consumers alike to find each other and create communities. If they did all that they would be doing their job which boils down to having a living thriving music industry, as it is they're doing the opposite. They could still change course but they wont because they do not understand anything about their customers or the market. Businesses that have no clue about their own market disappear over time, I doubt the RIAA will exist in their present form come 2016.
Wow I've got to add a rant warning at the beginning lol:)
MPAA has tried to learn from RIAAs fiasco but the whole bizarre strategy of DRM, DCMA etc. is so fundamentally flawed that they can't have learned much. At the least they have not understood that the only people they punish with such strategies are their lawabiding customers and as such they're in practice fighting for "piracy" even if that's not their intent.
RIAA & MPAA shooting themselves in the foot is too much of a mild description; they're repeatedly stabbing themselves in the chest and have been doing so for years -- noone survives that but luckily it has nothing to do with the continued existense of great music and movies as eventually the cash flows will just end up being rerouted around them.
I'm eagerly avaiting the day a senators or congressmembers child/familymember is hauled in to court by the RIAA or MPAA, they share too. Hell, I'm pro-Bush but I'm sure there's at least one track on his beloved iPod that's "pirated" lol:)
Actually since the turnout was somewhere close to 50% only about 25% did not vote for Bush, and of course, only about 25% voted for him (I would have if I was an american). Those are not the actual statistics but close enough to make the point.
As for those europeans proclaiming americans to be stupid it just goes to show that stupidity is rife everywhere:)
From your first link: "What the president meant, they said in a conference call with reporters, was that alternative fuels could displace an amount of oil imports equivalent to most of what America is expected to import from the Middle East in 2025."
I don't think anyone interpreted the president as saying he would cut out oil without alternatives. What he did stress was the need for those alternatives; hence the increased funding of alternative energy research. So, surprise surprise, it's the same as the WH is detailing and the reporters who didn't get that just points out the sade state of the media.
" "This was purely an example," Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said.
He said the broad goal was to displace foreign oil imports, from anywhere, with domestic alternatives. He acknowledged that oil is a freely traded commodity bought and sold globally by private firms. Consequently, it would be very difficult to reduce imports from any single region, especially the most oil-rich region on Earth."
All I have to say is: of course. I do wonder how you (or anyone else) manages to make these quotes into a negation of anything Bush said because it is no such negation it is just common sense. Or are you thinking that the domestic alternatives would be exlusively oil as well? You do know that the US has no such oil reserves right? It has by necessity to be replaced with alternative fuels.
And you know what? It doesn't matter what opinion polls says: the need to ween the US from relying almost completely on oil is there no matter who says it, who donates funds to it, or who actually sits in office the days it's done (and Bush knows very well that he won't be in office in 2025).
I really would take a long hard look at your own posts and reasoning if I were you because I don't think you're doing yourself any favours.
I think he has already done lots to do that; the initiatives from last years SotUA which increased funds for research towards the hydrogen economy, this years initiatives both towards wind, solar, ethanol and nuclear (a bit disappointed that biodiesel wasn't mentioned by name though, however biodiesel is happily puttering on under it's own steam (puns galore lol)). Clean coal also got mentioned but is more difficult than the rest, however if/when it is made economocially selfsustaining the potential payoff is staggering. Personally I hope that the DoE sees fit to use a little bit of the money on sponsoring Focus Fusion.
Oil companies know the present profits are unsustainable any which way you look at it and the smart ones (all actually) are spending their profits on developing replacements to base their business on - and have been doing so for years. There was a good issue of Wired not that long ago which looked into a few of the possibilities. The oil companies won't disappear simply because oil no longer is the dominant energy use, neither will their profits if they're wise.
If you want a paranoid/conspiratorial spin on it you could claim that Bush is using the taxpayers money on subsidizing the oil industrys R&D into oil replacements. Which sounds absolutely horrible unless you realize that you and everybody else needs it as well.
Bush is asking Congress to limit pharmaco's abilities for patenting human genes. He isn't allowed to make that into law by himself, he has to ask and as such it is up to congress to agree on details and actually do it. That's true for most things and perhaps something most people simply don't want to remember.
Paranoia != rationality, by definition, but I get the gist of what you're saying although I think you're jumping to specific conclusions whether or not they're correct for you. No problem really, just remember that democracy is based on people voluntary cooperating on those things they actually are more or less in agreement about. If one doesn't do that and instead throws up bulwarks because "it's them" one only hurts oneself (and the others) in the long term. That last part goes out to anyone (myself included) no matter what their opinons are.
Pluto & Charon do together dominate their area; they've captured two moons at some point in time. Yes the area is small so that definition makes it a debate about arbitrary scale again.
Very large asteroids are increasingly spherical unless they've recently broken up -- being speherical is a property of mass/gravity and as such a natural border of classification which will hold in any solar system or outside for that matter.
Slashdot Mirror
Same here except I read the blurb the next second, and even if it all made me think about the validity of "News for nerds" etc. it all passed as I realized the enormous potential for jokes & ridicule :)
--
this additional sig includes a portrait of Mohammed in support of freedom of expression, feel free to reproduce it
First you don't want to provide the camel and now you want to get his goat!? *shock*
:)
My oh my life must be hard in Prince World (formerly known as lala-land)
--
this additional sig includes a portrait of Mohammed in support of freedom of expression, feel free to reproduce it
And people wonder about the existence of crazed fundamentalists in the middle east? We have the exact same kind of mentally unbalanced (or damaged) people in the west as presented on behalf of Webster Griffin Tarpley by the Anonymous Coward parent poster.
2 20.stm). By the logic of the extremist pseudo-muslims any picture or photograph should be equally protested but instead they actually break the intentions of Islam in their idolatry of the prophet Mohammed and sadly as such (in my personal opinon) showing how Islam is falling into the same trap as those "christians" who idolate Jesus Christ as a replacement of God.
"The Mohammed cartoons are a transparent provocation by NATO intelligence through a Danish right wing newspaper of limited circulation."
I'm sure that makes much more sense to the conspiracists than the issue as put forward by both the original publisher (making a point against self-censorship by the media on muslim issues) as well as the outbursts of support by other newspapers and magazines all over europe (and even in Jordan and Egypt!) and international press organisations correctly coming to the defence of freedom of speech.
If people like Webster Griffin Tarpley had a few more firing synapses they would instead speculate about the following peculiarities:
- the original publishing happened last year in september, there was zero international outcry at that point in time (only local danish discussion on the topic between civilized muslims and the rest)
- yesterdays burning of embassies in Syria is extremely unlikely to have happened without the approval of the brutal Syrian Baath-party dictatorship. Violent destruction of embassies would normally be regarded as a declaration of war as it's the sovereign domain of whatever country the embassy belongs to
- todays attacks on embassies in Beirut, Lebanon was in all likelihood initiated by people who ideologically are extremely closely related to Syria, if not also directly related to them (Hamas-supporters)
- the Beirut attacks very quickly shifted focus onto attacks on Lebanese christians and christian churches, so quickly as to make it likely that the inital attacks were a cover for trying to reinflame the unrest in Lebanon
- Norwegian imams as well as other western islamic representatives are urging for calm, non-violence, as well as against the hijacking of the issue by islamic extremists (most muslims are intelligent rational people and have nothing in common with the extremist rabble)
- there has been next to none, or at least extremely small levels, of muslim outcry on the issue in Norway (I'm a norwegian btw). In general I would say norwegian muslims are better integrated into society (through no small effort of the muslims themselves as should be expected) than danish ones although we of course have issues in Norway too. I live next door to the oldest mosque in Norway (and a very pretty one imo) and have had enough muslim friends and aquaintances both in Norway and South East Asia to feel confident in saying this
- respect for the prophet Mohammed is one thing, the prohibition against depiction in Islam actually isn't specifically about the prophet Mohammed but about all living things and intended to discourage idolatory! (might want to read http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4678
But no, instead of all the above Webster Griffin Tarpley concocts paranoid delusions based on ignorance of how NATO even works and is structured (all NATO decisions are made by unanimous approval of all members). The level of idiocy required to hold the opinions of the AC is the same as that which is required to claim Denmark and other scandinavian countries are ruled by "Zionists" as some middle east government representators have said... lol
--
this additional sig includes a portrait of Mohammed in support of freedom of expression, feel free to reproduce it
"I was pointing out his employement as a patent examiner as an explanation of why he might not know all that much about general relativity, but I just now realized how ironic that is."
:)
And in other news it's discovered how come so many poor patent applications are approved...
(apologies to A. F. Mayer as I have no reason to suspect he's not good at his job, but if they're all vying to be the next Einstein it does explain things)
--
this additional sig includes a portrait of Mohammed in support of freedom of expression, feel free to reproduce it
IANAP but I agree with you, these are interesting ideas and I think too many of the other posters are too quick to judge the merits of them (so far I've only read the introduction myself, needed a break before attempting lecture one lol).
5 &cid=14644444 -- well not that kind of crackpots at least :)
His ideas/modifications should be fairly easy to test extensively as he proposes them as solutions to a whole lot of current problems and datasets. I'm fairly confident he has done that to his own satisfaction already (anything else would be academic suicide). Not only that but from my limited understanding the ideas/modifications seem to provide possible solutions in a very elegant manner (yet without outright breaking established science, only correcting/expanding upon it) which is usually a very good indication of someone being onto something. I'm going to keep an eye on this, if it is independently verified and gets accepted by the scientific community it will be Nobel Prize contender material.
And for those who haven't; please at least read the introduction (also available as PDF) before posting comments. Oh and for the incurable sceptics ("occupational hazard" of Slashdot lol) crackpots seldom present their papers at American Physical Society or American Geophysical Union meetings: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=17627
--
this additional sig includes a portrait of Mohammed in support of freedom of expression, feel free to reproduce it
"Since there are no reasonably permanent irregularities such as hills and valleys on the oceans"
:)
:) *hangs head in shame*
Sorry, I apologize in advance because I do agree with you but that statement triggered the nitpick in me *can't resist*
You (and other Slashdotters) might very well be aware of the following and it is not in any way intended as any form of criticism. I sincerely apologize for any wrongful or lacking details (should be plenty of those), I am not an oceanographer and do feel free to correct me if wrong.
It's funny since there actually are hills and if not exactly valleys then at least depressions on the oceans due to both varying gravitational influences both internal (reasonably permanent) and external (cyclic) as well as differing precipitation and evaporation rates (fairly permanent though sometimes irregular and/or cyclic).
So the ancients would actually be right in thinking like you say although at least somewhat wrong as well (but as you mention they had other methods anyway http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth).
But you are completely correct. Once again sorry I just had to get it out of my system lol
--
this additional sig includes a portrait of Mohammed in support of freedom of expression, feel free to reproduce it
...although not strictly true, it's just too good of an Ask Slashdot motto to pass up :)
Ask Slashdot: impossible questions with impossible answers!
Ref:
"I need to create an ultra-stable, crash-free application in C++"
"...due to reasons of efficiency and availability of core libraries."
"...but should be portable to Windows without much difficulty."
Lots of posts with interesting advice though so best of luck! Would make for an interesting Slashback entry when/if you make it succeed (and possibly even if you don't).
--
this additional sig includes a portrait of Mohammed in support of freedom of expression, feel free to reproduce it
Not sure exactly what your opinon is but there's so many people who think it was a non-issue and in that case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y2k#Reported_errors
h ecy) be it viruses or anything else bad :)
It's a puny list which doesn't surprise me as most of the failure cases I know of are covered by confidentiality agreements.
Three cheers for self-defeating prohecies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defeating_prop
Let me try to solve your mental anguish j/k :)
:)
:)
Heard about the Stardust mission right? They collected particle samples in aerofoam and then slammed it into earth on the return without disturbing/destroying said particles.
So make your slug of metal hollow, insulate the rover with as much aerogel and shockabsorbing devices as possible (like airbags with timed deflation). Make the slug in such a way that it will crack open in a controlled manner when hitting the comet (most bullets do this). Launch. Hit. Drive rover out of destroyed open slug.
Might not be the most practical or cheapest way to go about it but it has a certain elegance imo
Btw the timing of everything could be controlled/timed by an impact fuse & physics in just the same way ordinary armorpiecing rockets work, although not to the same effect of course... I'm sure this would make for a fun lunchbreak napkin sketch & diagram for some NASA wizard
You're completely clueless as to how the U.S. government actually works. Luckily for you the information is easily attainable, I suggest you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_budget_ process and I hope you can actually understand that the president does not have the final say on budgetary issues (well at least since the time of Nixon's post-budget hacks). If wikipedia doesn't do it for you there's a ton of information elsewhere, google or visit a library.
You need someone to blame don't you? If you actually think blame helps solve anything you should look no further than page one of the article you linked to find candidates:
"Politically, both parties on Capitol Hill displayed a lack of enthusiasm. Democrats said Mr. Bush had opposed foreign oil reduction targets in last year's energy bill, and Republicans questioned the practicality of relying on ethanol and other alternatives."
Those are the same groups of people responsible for the DoE cuts, I'm spelling it out for you in case your horrible reading comprehension didn't grasp that the congress and senate actually debate and eventually decide the budget. Your abundant arrogance is their shield.
I consider you a troll because you haven't made a single coherent argument, I know there are people as dimwitted as you portray yourself to be but I don't really care except that you're a waste of time. After the small conversation we've had I wouldn't even be surprised if you've created those fake insulting UIDs yourself to troll for sympathy.
If you're actually earnest I recommend you educate yourself and stop being pathetically simplistic. I won't bother replying further, feel free to continue your bizarre attempts at insults: you'll get the last word.
I think you're simultaneously right and wrong :)
:) I also think you're right about the Antarctic comparison. But then I also think that you're wrong but it depends a lot on point of view and opinion. Not entirely sure if the presently proposed NASA rockets will be that important but they might well be (something powerful will surely be needed for Mars).
I'm not aiming for Mars but it doesn't bother me that some do, it's not like it's an either-or situation, both will happen
Imo the first semi-continuous presense on the moon is exactly as yours, and the diversity of raw materials on the moon is pretty limited (but not non-existent and there is probably a lot of purer metal if you go deep enough). I'm not sure 3He-mining on the moon will be practical (especially if rocket use is too frequent which will create a small but complicating atmosphere) but I think there are other more important aspects of a presense on the moon.
I do think that the moon is important as a more cautious approach towards Mars but my dream/preference is 1g space habitats for which the moon is even better as an intermediary step.
Some good things about the moon imo:
- a very shallow gravity well which among other things means that importing a lot of asteroid material is both feasible as well as low cost (setting up an oxygen farm (or similar) in a small enclosed crater using imported carbon etc. and bacteria should almost be trivial)
- infrastructure or construction foundation that requires no positional energy and of course a lot less work to create any "foundation" compared to Lagrange points
- all the shielding material you could want (i.e. "spacefaring cavedwellers"), I speculate 5 to 10 meters of regolith should be more than enough (compressed, melted or sintered - if necessary) for a reasonable level of radiation safety of those on the moon (Earth-comparable levels). If I'm wrong one can always dig deeper
- half of each month has nearly free energy and/or there's always extreme ease of energy delivery from orbiting/remote solar panel stations since there is practically no atmosphere (something like a few millimeters afaik)
- a solar panel substrate has already been theoretically "manufactured" using only lunar ingredients iirc, I think it will be possible to make the panels themselves as well from purely lunar material (not that it's strictly necessary)
- low-gravity silicate products like fiberoptics are higher-grade than Earth (or Mars) made ones. The final production would/should happen in zero-g but the initial refinement could happen on the moon where silicates are plentiful. The same might apply for aerogels. Combined two such products might even make it economically profitable to export such products to Earth and Mars
In short I think the moon will fill a valuable role in the expansion/growth of increasingly sophisticated near-earth objects which will eventually reach to selfsustaining habitats, mostly as a kind of staging area for land-intensive manufacture/refinement. I'm sure there are plenty more opportunities than those I've mentioned and even more to come.
"One thing about this analogy though; if you imagine an infinite number of animals on the free range then the return per animal is more than enough to make up the difference. Digital distribution allows for infinite 'free-range animals'."
:) (someone please feel free to make it).
I was going to reply but you put it perfectly right there: it's the one primary point that escapes the cartels. Diversity of products increases overall consumption. The cartels are stuck applying meat-space economics (in which the cost of diversity sometimes doesn't increase overall profits) to mostly "virtual" products (creativity, skill, distribution) which is a big money-losing mistake.
I've got to add that in my opinon a "Master Puppet of Hotel California" mash-up would be even more unique than either of the original songs
"In particular, the gov. really should fund t/spaces access to the moon and LEO. They are looking for 1/2 billion. That is nothing for a probable cheap access. More importantly, we need an alternative in case NASA fails."
:)
Amen! t/Space might beat NASA to the moon even without a small handout but it would be nice if it got more government support (which they might actually get considering their success & speed so far).
Barring that if Virgin Galactic works out (which is likely), and/or if Bigelow Aerospace ("Transhab") works out, it will probably open up plenty of doors for cash infusions into t/Space.
A dream of privatly held moonbases by 2040 might be much less farfetched than it initially sounds
According to RIAA lawyers she was spotted with a big black hat and a parrot on her shoulder. They didn't say if she had a moustache as well :)
Good illustration with the pipe bomb example.
:)
:)
The only thing I disagree with is the lynch mob because we simply don't need it, society already does something much more effective: blatantly ignoring misconstrued laws. It's not even civil disobedience simply the aggregate of common sense. Imho RIAA lost close to a decade ago and have since been involved in a protracted harakiri as they continue to sue willy-nilly while not managing to follow their own rules and seeing major artists publicly state their support for ordinary filesharing.
I know it's little comfort for those unlucky enough to be affected by the death throes of RIAA. I know the justice system and most politicians are lagging at least 20 years behind society but that has always been the case and isn't any kind of surprise. If one tries to speed things up one should be very wary of doing more harm than good.
Rant warning!
RIAA really had/has no reason to fear individuals filesharing and should have jumped at this gratis opportunity for broad artist exposure and recognize the market for high-quality reasonably priced unobstructive digital formats. Instead of their centralized campaigns for a handful of artists they could have taken advantage of everyone promoting everyone for free and let the naturally popular artists rise instead of trying to manufacture them. If they had any business sense they would be actively promoting filesharing, making it easy for fans and casual listeners alike to support & pay those they enjoy, making it easy for artists and consumers alike to find each other and create communities. If they did all that they would be doing their job which boils down to having a living thriving music industry, as it is they're doing the opposite. They could still change course but they wont because they do not understand anything about their customers or the market. Businesses that have no clue about their own market disappear over time, I doubt the RIAA will exist in their present form come 2016.
Wow I've got to add a rant warning at the beginning lol
MPAA has tried to learn from RIAAs fiasco but the whole bizarre strategy of DRM, DCMA etc. is so fundamentally flawed that they can't have learned much. At the least they have not understood that the only people they punish with such strategies are their lawabiding customers and as such they're in practice fighting for "piracy" even if that's not their intent.
RIAA & MPAA shooting themselves in the foot is too much of a mild description; they're repeatedly stabbing themselves in the chest and have been doing so for years -- noone survives that but luckily it has nothing to do with the continued existense of great music and movies as eventually the cash flows will just end up being rerouted around them.
I'm eagerly avaiting the day a senators or congressmembers child/familymember is hauled in to court by the RIAA or MPAA, they share too. Hell, I'm pro-Bush but I'm sure there's at least one track on his beloved iPod that's "pirated" lol
"Doesn't this prove something about the RIAA's investigative methods?"
:)
1. Rip pages out of telephone directory
2. Pin to wall as darts target
3. Throw dart
4. Sue based on the result
5. Profit!!!
(6. Repeat)
A tried and true business method
Lol I think we did but just try again: it updated now (at least in Europe).
Might have been relevant to include a link to the organisation making the statements in the news snippet?
c us/
c us/Members/
Here it is:
http://lantos.house.gov/HoR/CA12/Human+Rights+Cau
And here is their member list:
http://lantos.house.gov/HoR/CA12/Human+Rights+Cau
Yeah we can all goggle but why not add a bit of value?
I'm not surprised you feel like you're talking to yourself because it seems you haven't understood anything I wrote, nor the article you linked.
Actually since the turnout was somewhere close to 50% only about 25% did not vote for Bush, and of course, only about 25% voted for him (I would have if I was an american). Those are not the actual statistics but close enough to make the point.
:)
As for those europeans proclaiming americans to be stupid it just goes to show that stupidity is rife everywhere
I would have replied if not for the fact that I actually support Bush (and the policies for the most part) :S :)
From your first link:
"What the president meant, they said in a conference call with reporters, was that alternative fuels could displace an amount of oil imports equivalent to most of what America is expected to import from the Middle East in 2025."
I don't think anyone interpreted the president as saying he would cut out oil without alternatives. What he did stress was the need for those alternatives; hence the increased funding of alternative energy research. So, surprise surprise, it's the same as the WH is detailing and the reporters who didn't get that just points out the sade state of the media.
" "This was purely an example," Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said.
He said the broad goal was to displace foreign oil imports, from anywhere, with domestic alternatives. He acknowledged that oil is a freely traded commodity bought and sold globally by private firms. Consequently, it would be very difficult to reduce imports from any single region, especially the most oil-rich region on Earth."
All I have to say is: of course. I do wonder how you (or anyone else) manages to make these quotes into a negation of anything Bush said because it is no such negation it is just common sense. Or are you thinking that the domestic alternatives would be exlusively oil as well? You do know that the US has no such oil reserves right? It has by necessity to be replaced with alternative fuels.
And you know what? It doesn't matter what opinion polls says: the need to ween the US from relying almost completely on oil is there no matter who says it, who donates funds to it, or who actually sits in office the days it's done (and Bush knows very well that he won't be in office in 2025).
I really would take a long hard look at your own posts and reasoning if I were you because I don't think you're doing yourself any favours.
I think he has already done lots to do that; the initiatives from last years SotUA which increased funds for research towards the hydrogen economy, this years initiatives both towards wind, solar, ethanol and nuclear (a bit disappointed that biodiesel wasn't mentioned by name though, however biodiesel is happily puttering on under it's own steam (puns galore lol)). Clean coal also got mentioned but is more difficult than the rest, however if/when it is made economocially selfsustaining the potential payoff is staggering. Personally I hope that the DoE sees fit to use a little bit of the money on sponsoring Focus Fusion.
Oil companies know the present profits are unsustainable any which way you look at it and the smart ones (all actually) are spending their profits on developing replacements to base their business on - and have been doing so for years. There was a good issue of Wired not that long ago which looked into a few of the possibilities. The oil companies won't disappear simply because oil no longer is the dominant energy use, neither will their profits if they're wise.
If you want a paranoid/conspiratorial spin on it you could claim that Bush is using the taxpayers money on subsidizing the oil industrys R&D into oil replacements. Which sounds absolutely horrible unless you realize that you and everybody else needs it as well.
Bush is asking Congress to limit pharmaco's abilities for patenting human genes. He isn't allowed to make that into law by himself, he has to ask and as such it is up to congress to agree on details and actually do it. That's true for most things and perhaps something most people simply don't want to remember.
Paranoia != rationality, by definition, but I get the gist of what you're saying although I think you're jumping to specific conclusions whether or not they're correct for you. No problem really, just remember that democracy is based on people voluntary cooperating on those things they actually are more or less in agreement about. If one doesn't do that and instead throws up bulwarks because "it's them" one only hurts oneself (and the others) in the long term. That last part goes out to anyone (myself included) no matter what their opinons are.
Hmm I think you're in trouble whether or not your a physicist lol :)
Pluto & Charon do together dominate their area; they've captured two moons at some point in time. Yes the area is small so that definition makes it a debate about arbitrary scale again.
Very large asteroids are increasingly spherical unless they've recently broken up -- being speherical is a property of mass/gravity and as such a natural border of classification which will hold in any solar system or outside for that matter.