We need to get rid of the government monopoly on space, and we need to reduce our spending to get ready for the looming disaster - Social Security.
And by "Social Security", you mean Medicare, right? IIRC, Medicare is actually in a worse situation than Social Security, but it hasn't had nearly the same level of media coverage.
This doesn't cut off all funding for human space exploration. It doesn't say anything about canceling NASA's space shuttle replacement. It doesn't even prohibit NASA from planning moon bases. This isn't the end of American space exploration. All this amendment says is that perhaps its a bit premature to be planning for Mars when we can't even get out of low Earth orbit.
Personally, I'd like to see NASA start putting people back on the moon before they start looking at putting people on Mars.
I don't think its wise to go to Mars without first learning to survive in an extra-terrestrial environment. The closest extra-terrestrial environment is the Moon. If you compare it to camping, building a moon base first before going to Mars is like camping out in your backyard before going on the week-long camping trip far from home. It lets you sort out your equipment and make sure that you've packed everything. And, if anything goes wrong, your house (Earth) is a quick walk (3 days) rather than a long drive (3 months) away.
Of course the analogy isn't completely correct, as the Moon is actually more hostile than Mars, but I think that only serves to reinforce my point. If we can build a self-sustaining colony on the Moon, then we can definitely set up a colony on Mars.
According to the article, NASA "has too much on its plate" and needs to focus. Given the fact that there are many problems in the low Earth orbit area (aging weather satellites, and Hubble to name just two), should NASA be diverting valuable manpower and time to Mars mission planning?
I know I'd rather have NASA put up replacements for aging weather satellites before putting up manned missions to Mars.
The price of ink is so clearly out of control that there HAS to be price fixing/agreement between the manufacturers. There's like, five major manufacturers but there's [b]no way[/b] this is a competitive market - they're all as bad as each other.
I could apply the same argument to other non-monopoly markets. Look at video games. All video games come out at either a $50 or $60 (in the case of newer consoles) price point. Why hasn't the justice department sued Sony?
As in, once detected, it could lead to serious HARM.
Yeah, you have a good point there. However, it brings up another question. Presumably, these little robots will have soldiers nearby (otherwise, what's the point). So what's preventing the enemy from homing in on the radio signals emitted by these things when they're looking to ambush some GIs?
By your arguement, nobody should expect privacy when talking on the phone since they didn't take steps to encrypt their phonecalls
Your analogy doesn't fit. When I make a phone call, I'm expecting a point-to-point connection, with no intermediaries to intercept or look at my communication. When I send an e-mail, I know that it will be stored and transferred across many server, and that those servers may have logging software that will store a copy of my e-mail.
However, with packet-switched phone networks replacing traditional circuit switching, that distinction is becoming more blurred.
I don't use MythTV, and so I was surprised to see that it relies on a private third-party source for TV listings. Isn't there any way to obtain this information in an "open-source" manner?
That may not be a good idea, since enemy forces could just then grab the abandoned droids, and use them to listen in or jam our communications. A better idea would be a self-destruct mechanism of some kind, to prevent capture.
Also, does anyone else think that these LANDroids sound a lot like the Probe Droids from Empire Strikes Back?
2- New MS games DX-10 exclusive games. If they make games so good only 10% of the windows PC users can use them, you definitely should be part of that elite.
Ok, but how many publishers are going to make DX-10 exclusive games, given that the market for those games is much smaller than the market for PC gaming as a whole? Of the games that I've got my eye on, only one (Unreal Tournament 2007) is likely to be DX-10 exclusive.
If you're going to just drop a canned troll, at least put in the effort of a find/replace (or regexp) to make sure that the thing you're trolling against is actually the topic of the article/discussion.
Try to pair sessionID with IP number of accessing PC.
Two things wrong with that argument:
Dynamic IP addressing. Dial-up users, and DSL users often sit behind a pool of IP addresses that are handed out dynamically. This means that the user's IP could change during the middle of a session.
IP address spoofing. When you get the user to connect to your "evil" site for the cross site scripting vulnerability, you can record their IP address as well, allowing you to duplicate their signature by using an IP address spoofing tool.
If you look at the reelection rates in the US, you'll find that they're north of 90% in most years, dropping to about 85% in "contested" years. The vast majority of legislators in the House of Representatives and the Senate have been there for decades. These people know that they're *not* going to be voted out.
Who said they're collapsing the other wings? The latest mission was to add a second set of panels to the ISS, so that there's enough power for later additions.
The grandparent's point was that DRM doesn't have to eliminate piracy, only reduce it. My point is that even with that relaxed standard, DRM fails. Its like comparing the rate of theft with no enforcement of property rights vs with enforcement of property rights and finding out that enforcing property rights did nothing to curb theft.
Because as a developer we can always choose. GPL2, 3, BSD, Mozilla, MIT whatever we want. We are the ones in control. It's the users that can get annoyed when a package they could normally use can't after a license shift.
That's true only as long as you don't link to any other libraries or use any other programs as part of your work. As soon as you link your software to other software on the system, you are affected by the licenses on the other software. So, unless you're developing truly standalone software (like assembly code for an embedded device), you are affected by other licenses.
As a hobbyist developer, I see problems with GPL v3 in the sense that it is not compatible with GPL v2. Therefore, if I wanted to release code under GPL v2, I could not link to any libraries or programs that ware licensed under v3. That's not too much of an issue now (since the license has not been released) but it could turn into an issue if adoption of v3 becomes widespread.
For DRM to "work", it's not necessary that it make piracy impossible, only that it reduce it to sufficiently low levels that the production of the work is still profitable.
Even by that standard, DRM doesn't work. If you look at studies of Internet traffic, you'll see that traffic on peer-to-peer networks has increased, regardless of DRM policies.
Examples of this in your genre might include: sniper rifles in an FPS, powerslides in a racing game, minigames in a Wii title, healing crates, bosses, rocket jumps, or any other big or small element.
I believe Unreal Tournament 2003 tried out the "no sniper rifles" concept. Result: the game flopped like a dying carp, and sniper rifles were reintroduced in UT2004.
Its true that air superiority prevents the enemy from concentrating. However, in Iraq and Afghanistan we're fighting an enemy that wouldn't have concentrated even under clear skies. Conventional ground forces can almost always beat insurgents in concentrated engagements, air cover or not.
Also, I should mention that cruise missiles are preferred over ballistic missiles because of accuracy and the ability to fly at extremely low altitude.
1. Accuracy doesn't matter much when you're dropping nukes.
2. As I stated above, the advantage of low altitude flights is disappearing with the increasing sophistication of radar systems around the world.
B) The Virginia Class sub (replacement for the Seawolf) was designed with a VLS [wikipedia.org], which can be used for launching Tomahawks (although they can also be launched via torpedo tubes).
C) Tomahawks can deliver multiple payloads, including the TLAM-A and TLAM-N [wikipedia.org], which are nuclear.
As I stated, Tomahawks are cruise missiles, and are of limited utility given the increasing sophistication of air defense systems. As compared to ballistic missiles, cruise missiles are slow. Their advantage comes from their small size (small size == small radar profile) but as air defense systems become more sophisticated, that advantage goes away.
Aside from that, the missiles launched against Afghanistan in 1998 (in response to the embassy bombings) were launched from -- you guessed it -- a sub.
You mean the million dollar missiles that destroyed $60 tents? There are many cheaper and more effective ways of attacking terrorist camps, like with a Predator or Global Hawk drone.
Additionally, subs play a large role in Mutually Assured Destruction
These new subs aren't ballistic missile boats, they're fast attack subs intended as an update to the Los Angeles class. Therefore, the role the play in our strategic nuclear deterrent is rather small. They can carry nuclear cruise missiles, but nuclear strike is not their primary mission. These subs are designed to hunt down other submarines - namely Soviet submarines in case the USSR should ever decide to contest the North Atlantic. Despite the design revisions, these are "blue water" subs that are of limited utility in the shallow water operations essential to delivering special forces.
Slashdot Mirror
We need to get rid of the government monopoly on space, and we need to reduce our spending to get ready for the looming disaster - Social Security.
And by "Social Security", you mean Medicare, right? IIRC, Medicare is actually in a worse situation than Social Security, but it hasn't had nearly the same level of media coverage.
i say colonize Mars first...then think about Mars
Huh? Do you mean "colonize the Moon first, then think about Mars..." ?
This doesn't cut off all funding for human space exploration. It doesn't say anything about canceling NASA's space shuttle replacement. It doesn't even prohibit NASA from planning moon bases. This isn't the end of American space exploration. All this amendment says is that perhaps its a bit premature to be planning for Mars when we can't even get out of low Earth orbit.
Personally, I'd like to see NASA start putting people back on the moon before they start looking at putting people on Mars.
I don't think its wise to go to Mars without first learning to survive in an extra-terrestrial environment. The closest extra-terrestrial environment is the Moon. If you compare it to camping, building a moon base first before going to Mars is like camping out in your backyard before going on the week-long camping trip far from home. It lets you sort out your equipment and make sure that you've packed everything. And, if anything goes wrong, your house (Earth) is a quick walk (3 days) rather than a long drive (3 months) away.
Of course the analogy isn't completely correct, as the Moon is actually more hostile than Mars, but I think that only serves to reinforce my point. If we can build a self-sustaining colony on the Moon, then we can definitely set up a colony on Mars.
According to the article, NASA "has too much on its plate" and needs to focus. Given the fact that there are many problems in the low Earth orbit area (aging weather satellites, and Hubble to name just two), should NASA be diverting valuable manpower and time to Mars mission planning?
I know I'd rather have NASA put up replacements for aging weather satellites before putting up manned missions to Mars.
The price of ink is so clearly out of control that there HAS to be price fixing/agreement between the manufacturers. There's like, five major manufacturers but there's [b]no way[/b] this is a competitive market - they're all as bad as each other.
I could apply the same argument to other non-monopoly markets. Look at video games. All video games come out at either a $50 or $60 (in the case of newer consoles) price point. Why hasn't the justice department sued Sony?
As in, once detected, it could lead to serious HARM.
Yeah, you have a good point there. However, it brings up another question. Presumably, these little robots will have soldiers nearby (otherwise, what's the point). So what's preventing the enemy from homing in on the radio signals emitted by these things when they're looking to ambush some GIs?
By your arguement, nobody should expect privacy when talking on the phone since they didn't take steps to encrypt their phonecalls
Your analogy doesn't fit. When I make a phone call, I'm expecting a point-to-point connection, with no intermediaries to intercept or look at my communication. When I send an e-mail, I know that it will be stored and transferred across many server, and that those servers may have logging software that will store a copy of my e-mail.
However, with packet-switched phone networks replacing traditional circuit switching, that distinction is becoming more blurred.
I don't use MythTV, and so I was surprised to see that it relies on a private third-party source for TV listings. Isn't there any way to obtain this information in an "open-source" manner?
just abandon them in place afterwards.
That may not be a good idea, since enemy forces could just then grab the abandoned droids, and use them to listen in or jam our communications. A better idea would be a self-destruct mechanism of some kind, to prevent capture.
Also, does anyone else think that these LANDroids sound a lot like the Probe Droids from Empire Strikes Back?
Ok, but how many publishers are going to make DX-10 exclusive games, given that the market for those games is much smaller than the market for PC gaming as a whole? Of the games that I've got my eye on, only one (Unreal Tournament 2007) is likely to be DX-10 exclusive.
Nope. I didn't realize there was a GP, as I was browsing @ +1.
If you're going to just drop a canned troll, at least put in the effort of a find/replace (or regexp) to make sure that the thing you're trolling against is actually the topic of the article/discussion.
Two things wrong with that argument:
If you look at the reelection rates in the US, you'll find that they're north of 90% in most years, dropping to about 85% in "contested" years. The vast majority of legislators in the House of Representatives and the Senate have been there for decades. These people know that they're *not* going to be voted out.
Who said they're collapsing the other wings? The latest mission was to add a second set of panels to the ISS, so that there's enough power for later additions.
The grandparent's point was that DRM doesn't have to eliminate piracy, only reduce it. My point is that even with that relaxed standard, DRM fails. Its like comparing the rate of theft with no enforcement of property rights vs with enforcement of property rights and finding out that enforcing property rights did nothing to curb theft.
That's true only as long as you don't link to any other libraries or use any other programs as part of your work. As soon as you link your software to other software on the system, you are affected by the licenses on the other software. So, unless you're developing truly standalone software (like assembly code for an embedded device), you are affected by other licenses.
As a hobbyist developer, I see problems with GPL v3 in the sense that it is not compatible with GPL v2. Therefore, if I wanted to release code under GPL v2, I could not link to any libraries or programs that ware licensed under v3. That's not too much of an issue now (since the license has not been released) but it could turn into an issue if adoption of v3 becomes widespread.
Even by that standard, DRM doesn't work. If you look at studies of Internet traffic, you'll see that traffic on peer-to-peer networks has increased, regardless of DRM policies.
I believe Unreal Tournament 2003 tried out the "no sniper rifles" concept. Result: the game flopped like a dying carp, and sniper rifles were reintroduced in UT2004.
Its true that air superiority prevents the enemy from concentrating. However, in Iraq and Afghanistan we're fighting an enemy that wouldn't have concentrated even under clear skies. Conventional ground forces can almost always beat insurgents in concentrated engagements, air cover or not.
1. Accuracy doesn't matter much when you're dropping nukes.
2. As I stated above, the advantage of low altitude flights is disappearing with the increasing sophistication of radar systems around the world.
As I stated, Tomahawks are cruise missiles, and are of limited utility given the increasing sophistication of air defense systems. As compared to ballistic missiles, cruise missiles are slow. Their advantage comes from their small size (small size == small radar profile) but as air defense systems become more sophisticated, that advantage goes away.
I can't believe I just referred to the USSR in the present tense...
You mean the million dollar missiles that destroyed $60 tents? There are many cheaper and more effective ways of attacking terrorist camps, like with a Predator or Global Hawk drone.
These new subs aren't ballistic missile boats, they're fast attack subs intended as an update to the Los Angeles class. Therefore, the role the play in our strategic nuclear deterrent is rather small. They can carry nuclear cruise missiles, but nuclear strike is not their primary mission. These subs are designed to hunt down other submarines - namely Soviet submarines in case the USSR should ever decide to contest the North Atlantic. Despite the design revisions, these are "blue water" subs that are of limited utility in the shallow water operations essential to delivering special forces.