Actually, NASA's own study of space elevators concluded that a working prototype initial space elevator could be built in 10 - 15 years for $15 billion.
I'm not sure about you, but I'd rather have 12 space elevators than our current mess in Iraq.
Just because it's a large undertaking, doesn't mean it isn't worth starting.
Yeah, and there is all sorts of off the shelf ATM software that just works after running setup.exe...
You make it sound like they chose Microsoft so they could be done by the following afternoon, whereas using Linux would have taken years and billions of dollars.
The fact is, embedded Linux is very mature and is used in all sorts of products. Maybe the companies that made the decision to go with Embedded XP would be stupid enough to just dump Red Hat 7 on there, but that isn't the case for most industrial grade embedded installations of Linux.
I think that Linux is not only a viable option for ATM's, I think it's an optimal solution.
I think the point is that Burt Rutan and Scaled did something that few thought possible, and more importantly they did it using an ingenious design and with incredible efficiency.
More important still is the rate at which they made, and continue to make, progress.
Burt already has plans made for a 7 man orbital rocket, and even space station for the common man.
I think the trend is far more important than where we are in the trend. And if you follow the trend out 10 or 20 years, I think you'll see groups and companies surpassing NASA and other governments in terms of complexity, success, usefulness, and efficiency.
While I agree completely with you, we would be giving up far more than you may realize.
The internet, for instance, couldn't have been done without the governments of the world, and the American government in particular.
GPS, OnStar, satellite TV, any many other technological and medical advancements are the direct result of government spending. It could be argued that all or most of these would have come about eventually, but it may have been a very long wait.
But the principle that government should only do what can only be done by the government is sound, and I stand behind it.
When I see the vast waste in the government, and the huge amounts of handouts, it really makes me dislike taxes...
I can't figure out why these companies insist on using an insecure, unstable OS that requires license fees and a draconian EULA.
At least Yamaha gets it. We just got in the newest Disklavier Player Piano, and it runs Linux! So does the remote control, which is a Sharp Zaurus with a clamshell keyboard. Very cool setup, and of course very stable.
That is a fair question, fairly asked. Two things you don't see much on Slashdot.
The answer is pretty simple. I'm old fashioned.
I personally feel that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that sex belongs in marriage, not out.
I believe in being faithful to my wife.
I believe that pornography desensitizes a person and stirs up emotions in them that will grow to the point that, left unchecked, will lead to an increased chance of committing a crime such as rape or molestation.
And, in direct answer to your question, I believe in avoiding the appearance of evil. So while these pictures were tastefully done, there are far more uplifting things that I can display on my desktop.
Hopefully there is still some place in this world for an old fashioned guy that loves technology. I think there is.
I hate to break it to you, but networking and the internet are different things.
I'm sure that will come as a surprise to you.
And NFS has exactly NOTHING to do with the internet, either.
And "@sun.com" came out in 1994, not 1984. 10 years makes a very big difference in this conversation.
So, if you would like to know "the real story", why don't you try using the internet, instead of just pulling stuff out of your butt to defend your flawed position that Gore had nothing to do with it.
Believe me, it's not that I think Kerry ought to be president. I have never in my life voted anything but Republican. I'd rather be able to stick with that this time around, and in fact I am voting straight Republican in all but the presidential election.
But I honestly believe that Bush is a danger to the American way of life. His actions are based solely on ideology in spite of any facts.
Worse, by far, was it utter, total, and complete lack of any action in the months leading up to 9/11. I could easily say he had done the best with the information he had if he had taken some action and later a better option came up. Hindsight is 20/20. But he had overwhelming amounts of evidence and did absolutely nothing.
I disagree strongly with the democrats view of most money and social issues. But in the end, I am voting because I think Kerry will do less damage in the next 4 years than Bush will.
But I don't think it is irresponsible to attack Bush's foreign policy in the middle of the war. I'm not sure there is any consistent, tangible policy to even attack.
Hmm, lets go down the list of opportunities Bush had to stop 9/11 while he was in office:
1) The CIA repeatedly came to him with direct, credible reports of an unusually high increase in chatter by Al Qeada (Note: Not Iraq). Not only were these warnings completely ignored, they grew steadily in urgency and frequency until the Bush administration literally said STOP BOTHERING US WITH THIS.
2) The FBI did the same as #1 above, and recieved the same [lack of] response.
3) Both the CIA and FBI were told, and passed onto the Bush administration, that there were specific middle eastern individuals on known watch-lists that were learning to fly 747's but had no interest in learning to land. Again, exactly zero action was taken.
4) A memo, cryptically titled "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S." so it is understandable that they missed it, was given to the Bush administration and was, suprise, surprise, completely ignored.
5) All of this was going on while Bush was spending nearly half of his time on vacation.
I would call this an utter disregard for national security. And apparently, Bush was pretty ashamed of it, too. He and his administration completely opposed the 9/11 Commission until they had absolutely no other choice but to go along with it, and even then their answers were embarrassingly stupid and vague, and the president refused to testify under oath or on record.
Furthermore, anyone who had warned Bush of the serious threat of terrorism, or spoke out on the subject afterward was promptly fired.
No, I do not excuse Clinton and his lack of action with regard to Al Qaeda. But the fact remains, Bush did have the power to stop 9/11 and repeatedly chose to pass up that opportunity, and any action that was taken was contrary to the evidence at hand (a theme he has stuck with his entire time in office, and is covered thoroughly in the article I mentioned, which I doubt you've read).
And yes, I do believe Gore would have acted on that information instead of supressed it. He may not have gone to war with Iraq, but I view that as intelligence rather than weakness.
Yeah, in the article I referenced Gore pointed out a clear flaw in Bush: He constantly makes decisions based solely on ideology, and almost always in spite of evidence to the contrary.
It would seem most of his followers proscribe to the same [lack of] logic.
Cerf and Kahn, who invented the internet, give Gore a lot of credit for giving it broad funding (which led to you and I having access to the internet instead of just university labs).
They were there. It was their baby. If they give props and thanks to Gore, then so do I.
Gore NEVER claimed to "invent the internet". His exact words were "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.", and while it may have been a poor choice of words, when taken to mean the widespread system that 250 million people enjoy today is pretty accurate. The funding Gore spearheaded took the internet out of university labs and into public usage by millions.
The invention of the protocols that govern the internet, and the funding that brings them to the masses are two entirely separate issues.
We have the technology, right now today, to have electric, hybrid, and hydrogen cars brought to the masses. But we have an administration committed to oil.
Again, disagreeing with Cerf and Kahn on this issue seems pretty foolhardy to me (so if you're a Bush supporter, it's probably exactly what you'll continue to do: make your decisions based on ideology instead of facts presented by experts). Cerf and Kahn were there. According to them, Gore was the doctor that delivered their baby to the masses (analogy mine).
The founding protocols for the internet, stuck in some university lab, do no one any good. The internet simply could not have existed without broad government funding, and that was brought about by Gore. End of story.
I agree that Kerry is WAY less than ideal as a president. In fact, the ONLY reason I am voting for him is to stop Bush. I resent that I have to vote for Kerry, but my conscience will not let me vote any other way.
Bush is a man of words, and a man of action. Unfortunately, his words and his actions seldom have anything in common.
Bush's decisions, over and over again, have been made by his ideology IN SPITE OF the evidence at hand, evidence given by his own experts.
Over and over again the FBI and the CIA begged the Bush administration to pay attention to the massive amount of chatter and the repeated discoveries of terrorists learning to fly 747's with no desire to learn how to land.
The fact that we were so caught with our pants down on 9/11 is completely Bush's fault. He created an environment full of informed experts, and refused to listen to them. His top leaders actually asked people to stop reporting to them about all the chatter and evidence that a strike was EMINENT.
Kerry is bad, Bush is WAY, WAY worse. He has proven it time and time again by his actions, in spite of his words.
I hope you're right. I fear what Bush would do with his remaining last 4 years with nothing to lose. He already promised a group of neo-conservatives that he would hit the ground running after he is re-elected and hold nothing back.
There have been 32 newspapers that have switched from supporting Bush in 2000 to supporting Kerry in 2004, and only 2 that did the opposite.
I'm with you, I hope Bush is defeated. He talks the talk but does NOT walk the walk. His actions are very contrary to his words, and even more contrary to the evidence by his own experts.
Or, maybe he is a citizen of the United States of America who has free speech rights and is choosing to exercise them to try and limit the damage George W. Bush can do to this nation, and prevent him from having another 4 years in office.
Yes, it's from Al Gore, but don't let that fool you. Al Gore isn't who he came across as during the 2000 debates. He is very, very intelligent and educated.
This speech is right on the money when it comes to why Bush is such a threat to America and Americans.
I've never voted anything but Republican my whole life (including voting for Bush in 2000), but I cannot in good conscience vote for Bush now. He has shown his true colors by his actions in office.
And before you go off about Gore being a liar and claiming to invent the internet, realize that his comment was completely spun by the Bush campaign. He never claimed to invent the internet. He claimed to have been the sole senator responsible for the funding that led to its invention, which is completely accurate, and supported by those who actually did invent the internet.
While they are tastefully done and pleasing to look at, I wouldn't want them on my desktop, and would certainly be embarrased if I had just done an install and a friend or family member walked in before I had the theme changed.
So I respect the fact that you don't have a problem with them and want them to stay, just as I would hope you respect the fact that I don't mind them as an option, but think they are inappropriate for the default.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, NASA's own study of space elevators concluded that a working prototype initial space elevator could be built in 10 - 15 years for $15 billion.
I'm not sure about you, but I'd rather have 12 space elevators than our current mess in Iraq.
Just because it's a large undertaking, doesn't mean it isn't worth starting.
Yeah, and there is all sorts of off the shelf ATM software that just works after running setup.exe...
You make it sound like they chose Microsoft so they could be done by the following afternoon, whereas using Linux would have taken years and billions of dollars.
The fact is, embedded Linux is very mature and is used in all sorts of products. Maybe the companies that made the decision to go with Embedded XP would be stupid enough to just dump Red Hat 7 on there, but that isn't the case for most industrial grade embedded installations of Linux.
I think that Linux is not only a viable option for ATM's, I think it's an optimal solution.
I don't think it is safe to assume he won't be the person who builds the first private orbital spaceship.
He already has plans for it, and now that there is a $50M purse up for grabs to the winner, I doubt he's just going to dissappear from the scene.
Don't underestimate Burt Rutan. The Ansari's did and it cost them $10M...
I think the point is that Burt Rutan and Scaled did something that few thought possible, and more importantly they did it using an ingenious design and with incredible efficiency.
More important still is the rate at which they made, and continue to make, progress.
Burt already has plans made for a 7 man orbital rocket, and even space station for the common man.
I think the trend is far more important than where we are in the trend. And if you follow the trend out 10 or 20 years, I think you'll see groups and companies surpassing NASA and other governments in terms of complexity, success, usefulness, and efficiency.
While I agree completely with you, we would be giving up far more than you may realize.
The internet, for instance, couldn't have been done without the governments of the world, and the American government in particular.
GPS, OnStar, satellite TV, any many other technological and medical advancements are the direct result of government spending. It could be argued that all or most of these would have come about eventually, but it may have been a very long wait.
But the principle that government should only do what can only be done by the government is sound, and I stand behind it.
When I see the vast waste in the government, and the huge amounts of handouts, it really makes me dislike taxes...
I'd put his record against NASA's anytime!
He has built something along the lines of 300 aircraft designs, 39 of which have been completely unique designs from the ground up.
He's never lost a craft or a pilot.
NASA has a similar resume (although orbit and the moon are an order of magnitude more complex), and have "blown the f*ck" out of quite a few people.
This is, of course, and apples and oranges comparison, because it simply isn't possible to compare the two any other way.
But to say he has been "spectacularly lucky" is just plain horse crap.
I'd much rather my tax dollars were spent with Burt Rutan and Scaled Composites...
I can't figure out why these companies insist on using an insecure, unstable OS that requires license fees and a draconian EULA.
At least Yamaha gets it. We just got in the newest Disklavier Player Piano, and it runs Linux! So does the remote control, which is a Sharp Zaurus with a clamshell keyboard. Very cool setup, and of course very stable.
Yamaha: Smart.
Banking Industry: Stupid.
I spent 4 hours last week removing over 800 spyware files and registry settings last week on my in-laws computer.
So yeah, I'm scared. I ought to send an invoice to Microsoft for my time...
Don't worry, things are warming up down there.
Soon it will be a great summer resort with swimming and water skiing. The winter vacations will be spent in Cancun.
That is a fair question, fairly asked. Two things you don't see much on Slashdot.
The answer is pretty simple. I'm old fashioned.
I personally feel that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that sex belongs in marriage, not out.
I believe in being faithful to my wife.
I believe that pornography desensitizes a person and stirs up emotions in them that will grow to the point that, left unchecked, will lead to an increased chance of committing a crime such as rape or molestation.
And, in direct answer to your question, I believe in avoiding the appearance of evil. So while these pictures were tastefully done, there are far more uplifting things that I can display on my desktop.
Hopefully there is still some place in this world for an old fashioned guy that loves technology. I think there is.
I hate to break it to you, but networking and the internet are different things.
I'm sure that will come as a surprise to you.
And NFS has exactly NOTHING to do with the internet, either.
And "@sun.com" came out in 1994, not 1984. 10 years makes a very big difference in this conversation.
So, if you would like to know "the real story", why don't you try using the internet, instead of just pulling stuff out of your butt to defend your flawed position that Gore had nothing to do with it.
See Sun's own website for more information.
Believe me, it's not that I think Kerry ought to be president. I have never in my life voted anything but Republican. I'd rather be able to stick with that this time around, and in fact I am voting straight Republican in all but the presidential election.
But I honestly believe that Bush is a danger to the American way of life. His actions are based solely on ideology in spite of any facts.
Worse, by far, was it utter, total, and complete lack of any action in the months leading up to 9/11. I could easily say he had done the best with the information he had if he had taken some action and later a better option came up. Hindsight is 20/20. But he had overwhelming amounts of evidence and did absolutely nothing.
I disagree strongly with the democrats view of most money and social issues. But in the end, I am voting because I think Kerry will do less damage in the next 4 years than Bush will.
But I don't think it is irresponsible to attack Bush's foreign policy in the middle of the war. I'm not sure there is any consistent, tangible policy to even attack.
Hmm, lets go down the list of opportunities Bush had to stop 9/11 while he was in office:
1) The CIA repeatedly came to him with direct, credible reports of an unusually high increase in chatter by Al Qeada (Note: Not Iraq). Not only were these warnings completely ignored, they grew steadily in urgency and frequency until the Bush administration literally said STOP BOTHERING US WITH THIS.
2) The FBI did the same as #1 above, and recieved the same [lack of] response.
3) Both the CIA and FBI were told, and passed onto the Bush administration, that there were specific middle eastern individuals on known watch-lists that were learning to fly 747's but had no interest in learning to land. Again, exactly zero action was taken.
4) A memo, cryptically titled "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S." so it is understandable that they missed it, was given to the Bush administration and was, suprise, surprise, completely ignored.
5) All of this was going on while Bush was spending nearly half of his time on vacation.
I would call this an utter disregard for national security. And apparently, Bush was pretty ashamed of it, too. He and his administration completely opposed the 9/11 Commission until they had absolutely no other choice but to go along with it, and even then their answers were embarrassingly stupid and vague, and the president refused to testify under oath or on record.
Furthermore, anyone who had warned Bush of the serious threat of terrorism, or spoke out on the subject afterward was promptly fired.
No, I do not excuse Clinton and his lack of action with regard to Al Qaeda. But the fact remains, Bush did have the power to stop 9/11 and repeatedly chose to pass up that opportunity, and any action that was taken was contrary to the evidence at hand (a theme he has stuck with his entire time in office, and is covered thoroughly in the article I mentioned, which I doubt you've read).
And yes, I do believe Gore would have acted on that information instead of supressed it. He may not have gone to war with Iraq, but I view that as intelligence rather than weakness.
Yeah, in the article I referenced Gore pointed out a clear flaw in Bush: He constantly makes decisions based solely on ideology, and almost always in spite of evidence to the contrary.
It would seem most of his followers proscribe to the same [lack of] logic.
Cerf and Kahn, who invented the internet, give Gore a lot of credit for giving it broad funding (which led to you and I having access to the internet instead of just university labs).
They were there. It was their baby. If they give props and thanks to Gore, then so do I.
Gore NEVER claimed to "invent the internet". His exact words were "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.", and while it may have been a poor choice of words, when taken to mean the widespread system that 250 million people enjoy today is pretty accurate. The funding Gore spearheaded took the internet out of university labs and into public usage by millions.
The invention of the protocols that govern the internet, and the funding that brings them to the masses are two entirely separate issues.
We have the technology, right now today, to have electric, hybrid, and hydrogen cars brought to the masses. But we have an administration committed to oil.
Again, disagreeing with Cerf and Kahn on this issue seems pretty foolhardy to me (so if you're a Bush supporter, it's probably exactly what you'll continue to do: make your decisions based on ideology instead of facts presented by experts). Cerf and Kahn were there. According to them, Gore was the doctor that delivered their baby to the masses (analogy mine).
The founding protocols for the internet, stuck in some university lab, do no one any good. The internet simply could not have existed without broad government funding, and that was brought about by Gore. End of story.
I agree that Kerry is WAY less than ideal as a president. In fact, the ONLY reason I am voting for him is to stop Bush. I resent that I have to vote for Kerry, but my conscience will not let me vote any other way.
Bush is a man of words, and a man of action. Unfortunately, his words and his actions seldom have anything in common.
Bush's decisions, over and over again, have been made by his ideology IN SPITE OF the evidence at hand, evidence given by his own experts.
Over and over again the FBI and the CIA begged the Bush administration to pay attention to the massive amount of chatter and the repeated discoveries of terrorists learning to fly 747's with no desire to learn how to land.
The fact that we were so caught with our pants down on 9/11 is completely Bush's fault. He created an environment full of informed experts, and refused to listen to them. His top leaders actually asked people to stop reporting to them about all the chatter and evidence that a strike was EMINENT.
Kerry is bad, Bush is WAY, WAY worse. He has proven it time and time again by his actions, in spite of his words.
I hope you're right. I fear what Bush would do with his remaining last 4 years with nothing to lose. He already promised a group of neo-conservatives that he would hit the ground running after he is re-elected and hold nothing back.
There have been 32 newspapers that have switched from supporting Bush in 2000 to supporting Kerry in 2004, and only 2 that did the opposite.
I'm with you, I hope Bush is defeated. He talks the talk but does NOT walk the walk. His actions are very contrary to his words, and even more contrary to the evidence by his own experts.
As opposed to going to war with no supporting evidence?
I think he painted an accurate picture of Bush, and one consistent with the 9/11 commissions findings.
Who is more likely to right on this issue, you or THE PEOPLE WHO DID INVENT THE INTERNET?
Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf both give Al Gore credit for taking the initiative to provide funding that led to the creation of the internet.
I'll side with them, thank you very much.
I didn't say the FUD was created by the Bush campaign. It was spun by them, and repeated over and over.
In much the same way Bush twisted Kerry's words about a "global test". And then repeated that over and over and over.
Or, maybe he is a citizen of the United States of America who has free speech rights and is choosing to exercise them to try and limit the damage George W. Bush can do to this nation, and prevent him from having another 4 years in office.
Everyone should read this before voting for Bush, or if they need help telling their friends why they shouldn't vote for Bush:
y A.shtml.
http://www.algore04.com/news/gnn/EpAlEukuZEoWoQli
Yes, it's from Al Gore, but don't let that fool you. Al Gore isn't who he came across as during the 2000 debates. He is very, very intelligent and educated.
This speech is right on the money when it comes to why Bush is such a threat to America and Americans.
I've never voted anything but Republican my whole life (including voting for Bush in 2000), but I cannot in good conscience vote for Bush now. He has shown his true colors by his actions in office.
And before you go off about Gore being a liar and claiming to invent the internet, realize that his comment was completely spun by the Bush campaign. He never claimed to invent the internet. He claimed to have been the sole senator responsible for the funding that led to its invention, which is completely accurate, and supported by those who actually did invent the internet.
While they are tastefully done and pleasing to look at, I wouldn't want them on my desktop, and would certainly be embarrased if I had just done an install and a friend or family member walked in before I had the theme changed.
So I respect the fact that you don't have a problem with them and want them to stay, just as I would hope you respect the fact that I don't mind them as an option, but think they are inappropriate for the default.