You'd have been foolish to, there's nothing insightful there in the slightest, there's absolutely nothing constructive there at all, it's saying "hey guys, stop talking about this space ship for a moment, we have bigger problems to deal with, we should be making cleaner power", and then talks about various problems we have here on earth. If changing the topic isn't the very definition of being off topic, then... no, there is no then, there's no if, no hypothetical, it just is.
Are you really telling me you've never thought about anything that's covered in that post? You've never heard anyone go off on one of those spiels about how we shouldn't be wasteful when we need to be looking after out planet? I'd struggle to believe that, I have to say. There's more people out there that talk than anything else. You must've come into contact with one.
"It baffles me that we are discussing building a fusion spaceship when it seems that very little is being done to get fusion working for making our energy here on earth"
Absolutely. You get started on that right away, I'll be right behind you.
"It amazes me there is not a more strong and powerful call from scientists globally to rapidly expand fusion research adn development"
Why does it? Scientists are like... people... they have things they wanna do, their own calling, they're not servants of mankind. Is fusion technology the thing that you're donating your life to developing? Or is it just what these mystical "the scientists" should be doing?
You know if they did start doing that, some cancer research/charity dude or someone who's lost someone from their family, would start commenting on the fact we're putting all this money into energy, just so we can all run our plasma TV's, high end computers, and flood our night sky with city lighting. People are dying here, that money should be going towards aiming for a world where cancer's no longer causing the devistation it can do now, not just fueling peoples laziness that leaves them wanting machines to wash their clothes 'n dishes. Prioritise!
And then of course some dude comes over from a famine stricken country who points out there are tens, hundreds of thousands of people, children, dying of starvation, and the amount of money that gets spent in the west treating a single person with cancer, treatment that might not even work, could put food into thousands of bellies, and actually save many many lives.
You might be able to see where this is going. Someone pops up, complaining that while we're all doing this stuff that's making everyone live longer, no one's putting any research into where all this extra population's gonna live, where we're going to go as we run out of space and resources on this planet. We can't afford to wait any longer, if anything happens to this planet, for the human race to survive, we need to get off it, and that's not a job we can turn around in a few weeks.
We have an awful lot to get done, and our best bet's gonna be from splitting up and tacking different areas of where we have problems each. We're a lot more effective when we're following our calling. I'm sure you'll try and make the world a better place in your own way. Personally, I write software. Does that make the world a better place? Yeah it does, because I'm good, I see someone spending a lot of time doing something I can automate, and all of a sudden they have that bit extra time to spend with their families. Is that not what we're fighting for?
Not to mention the radiation thrown into the atmosphere during the launch (unless you decide to launch conventionally, and only use the nukes when you get far enough out). The other problem with the Orion of course was the err... slightly sensitive issue with russia around the time, esp regarding anything slightly nukey, the political calls to shut down the program weren't small and discreet.
They'd have to wait four years to find out who we voted out of the ship at the end of each week... and we'd have eight years to wait before we finally see them space the guy who was really annoying in the first week of the show... who we've since come to realise is just a bit misunderstood and is an excellent addition to the team, but that annoying girl... she ain't as sweet as she makes out. But... too late to do anything about it now.
You're missing the point I think. Even if you do transmit every day, and back home receives every day, you're still going to have to wait 8 years to hear anything back on anything that you transmit. There could be a constant stream of data, but with an 8 year gap for responses, it's not like you can have any kind of semblance of a conversation, for all intense and purposes, you're pretty cut off... even high latency TCP isn't gonna be enough to give you an internet connection:-p
"Your "conclusion" is that as it was said by The Register, then its wrong."
You're just making stuff up. I take it you didn't do that going back and reading it thing? My conclusion was that as it's written by the register, it's over sensationalised. I said they often don't bother checking their facts, which means that they're not a reliable source, as there is a high chance that you'll be reading something that hasn't been verified, which means a greater chance of errors being published, which means a greater chance of you reading something that is wrong. You seem to not understand basic logic. 'Often', and 'increased chance of', does not say that anything is always that thing. Of course you can find examples of things they've said that are correct. That does *not* invalidate a claim of 'often' to the inverted claim.
You're throwing around terms like 'straw man' because you're hoping that the meaning and connotations attached to such terms can help prove your point, where they don't, they are merely erronous conclusions based of faulty observations.
My original post was obviously a post about the quality of the opinions posed as facts in the register. Anyone who goes to that site should know that they're not a reliable source and additional verification is required... or you could just skip the register step, and go straight to where you'd've been verifying the facts and get them first hand, not twisted to fit the panic drive they use in their reports.
Please don't repeat yourself with this made up claim I'm saying that it must be wrong if it's the register, it just demonstrates your ignorance, and I don't think I can explain how what I'm saying isn't that any clearer. If you cannot respond to reason, then there's no point me saying anything other than "you're wrong", as you'd have proven that you will read what you want to read rather than what is written, anything further would be futile.
Absolutely, I'm not suggesting a completely automated system where a request is made into the system that automatically sends them the results and bills them. That said, anywhere you have a human checking it is a point of vulnerability as a potential privacy issue or corruption. I don't particulary think that having someone at the ISP go through the records and using their best judgement of what should or shouldn't be handed over as opposed to someone at the destination agency looking through it makes much difference. Either way, it's still human.
Dude. Even weaker. No wonder you like the register, you do the whole over sensationalisationing-thing yourself! First of all, you say I construct a straw man argument... I think that's you making that up, I didn't construct an argument at all, I merely skipped to the conclusion. You can either see how they over sensationalise things yourself, or you can't, that's not gonna be something I can particularly train peoples eyes to spot in the time I have available.
Niether did I say that everything they say is wrong, I said I regularly hit spots where they obviously haven't bothered to check their facts, and you finding one thing they've said that's true doesn't invalidate that, and it certainly doesn't invalidate the fact that you can say something that's true in a way that sounds panicy simply because you omit chunks of the story.
You hear me saying something against the register, which you obviously hail to, and thus assume that I must be wrong, and therefore twist my words in the exact way the register does, to make them fit your opinion.
Perhaps you should read what I have said again, and realise how your own narrow mind has shaped it, before making such comments. Or, apply for a job with them, you seem perfect for the job.
Dude. Weak. The Register?! You may as well be referencing Fox News, I've never read anything in the register that wasn't bleeding of oversensationalisation and regularly hit spots where they obviously haven't even made a slight attempt at verifying their story elements. The Register isn't a reliable source of anything, please don't spread their panic stories, you can do so much better I promise you.
mmm that's some of the nicest stuff i've ever had the good fortune to smoke. Where do you live, how can I get some off ya?:-p (just kiddin, by the comments about UVB it's obviously nowhere near me!)
So you'd rather pay the BBC more money to roll out more bandwidth to everywhere that may or may not need it, than pay your ISP a smaller amount to give you the bandwidth right where it's needed? The BBC aren't being stupid here, they're trying to push the media as close to the end user as possible to save pushing all the streams for everyone watching in a certain area across greater distances overloading the internet backbone. Their proposal makes sense. Your objection of who you want to hand the money over to doesn't.
"who wouldn't want to watch a film at 1000 frames per second if they were given the option"
That'd be a complete waste; your eye just can't see that. The advantage of a camera that can record that is in capturing high speed events and replaying them slowly at a decent frame rate at eye speeds, so you can do stuff like watch a frog snap a fly out the air, watch what happens in an explosion, things where you need a higher time resolution because something's happening very quickly. I don't think there's any point in increasing video display framerate. Look at the experiments done with subliminal advertising and messaging in video. Inserting single message frames into a video makes it unnoticed by the conscious mind, and only by doing it repeatedly can you push the image into the subconscious mind. If the conscious mind can't detect single frames that run for that timelength, what's the point in adding more frames for even smaller timelengths?
If multiple video channels are sent over a link, then yes, as TV becomes more HD and the number of channels increases, you need more bandwidth. But with IP based TV, only the channel you're watching needs to be streamed, and with the increasing quality of audio/video compression, the bandwidth coming into your home to provide it need not be as much as you suggest, with a 10Mbps connection being more than sufficient.
Insightful? WTF? That's like saying "I pay my license fee so I can watch BBC content, I shouldn't have to pay for a TV as well". You put money into the BBC, which they can put together with other monies to create new content, research, and create and maintain broadcast and distribution networks. The idea that paying TV license gives you carte blanche to have anything you want is ludicrous. Different things cost different amounts of money. If you want ultra high def TV on demand over IP, the network has to be paid for. If you're satisfied with lower quality images, then you don't have to pay anything extra, as the network's already in place and being paid for. If you only have black/white TV, you can get a further discount (at least this always used to be the case). In return we get a fairly respectable organisation that can broadcast what they want without having to bow to the pressures of advertisers threatening to cut funding if the wrong thing gets reported. It's really not a bad deal.
Erm... I don't think anyone was laying fault at your door.
"Until the current ISPs and telcos provide fiber in the end mile as they have in Japan since 2000 and before"
I don't think the whole of Japan have 100meg lines, but sure, in more densely populated areas, rolling out higher bandwidth pipes is more viable. This simply isn't true everywhere.
"I really do NOT want to hear their excuses"
Nope, can read them in less bandwidth, def don't need an audio file... and if you don't even wanna read it, you can just save even more bandwidth by not clicking on related stories/articles huh!
"Give us what we have been paying for"
I get what I'm paying for... but I'm with cable not BT, but I just won't go with BT. It's a simple solution I know, but basically, if you're not getting what you're paying for, stop paying. You'll find in this world that if you give someone money, they will take it.
"Add to the fact that soon Japan will have 1TB up and 1 TB down"
Sounds like you have japanenvy. 1TB? Do you mean per second? What harddrive's capable of delivering that much to one person, let alone um... more than one person? For backbone speed maybe, but into peoples homes, that's just silly. Who's saying they're going to offer 1TB lines? I'm quite interested in what they're saying they're offering it for.
"The problem with that argument is you can use it to justify anything"
Anything that you can think of. I can think of things where you can't use that argument against... such as any argument that doesn't include "all knowing" claims like your "no public benefit" claim.
"NASA uses billions of dollars to launch Paper Airplanes"
And here we have the answer... of course you can't think of any public benefits if you only know about *one* thing that they've done, which is launching a paper airplane. (hint: they've done more than one thing!)
What?!! You think building pyramids will get people to space?
When you say "no public benefit", I think you forgot to finish the sentence properly, you missed out the "that I know of" bit. It's a very narrow mind that assumes nothing exists beyond it's own knowledge. I would say that kind of mind doesn't serve the public one bit, but thinking about it, I've been to macdonalds.
These actually sound exactly like the kinds of things he'd go for. Slashing launch/supply costs, improving the domestic commercial space sector, not just shipping it all out to russia? I'm sure he'd see that as a win/win/win.
I think if your server consolidation guy can't configure the virtual server software, you probably wanna swap him out for another.
NAT is a decent default for desktop users, who are perhaps sitting on a single IP broadband internet connection, and are using virtualisation for platform shifting to run an application on the OS of choice of the developers, on their own OS of choice. Expecting them to change the default network setup to a NAT setup so the internet works from their virtual machine is expecting a lot more than expecting a server engineer to be able to switch to bridged.
Whilst I obviously can't comment on your particular case, I must say that my (granted fairly limited) experience leaves me feeling it's more a management issue, based around the issue of the length of shifts that people in hospitals have to work. 12-18hr shifts with just a couple of 20minute breaks for air destroys a person, no matter how well you want to do, no matter how much you care for your patients, when you're pushed beyond your capability to exhuastion, you're just not going to be able to perform, I've seen it happen to the best of us. Why this is so common place is beyond me. More frequent staff rotation does of course mean more change overs, which can increase errors due to things not being communicated between shifts, but not having a hospital full of people who are slowly shattered surely must make up for it.
Few will make it far in nursing without wanting to do some good; when you see those not taking the simple actions that would achieve that good, like those who didn't respond to your wife's BP alarm, as difficult as it is, bare in mind that these people have already been broken. A faulty design can render even the most perfect of components useless.
Slashdot Mirror
You'd have been foolish to, there's nothing insightful there in the slightest, there's absolutely nothing constructive there at all, it's saying "hey guys, stop talking about this space ship for a moment, we have bigger problems to deal with, we should be making cleaner power", and then talks about various problems we have here on earth. If changing the topic isn't the very definition of being off topic, then... no, there is no then, there's no if, no hypothetical, it just is.
Are you really telling me you've never thought about anything that's covered in that post? You've never heard anyone go off on one of those spiels about how we shouldn't be wasteful when we need to be looking after out planet? I'd struggle to believe that, I have to say. There's more people out there that talk than anything else. You must've come into contact with one.
"It baffles me that we are discussing building a fusion spaceship when it seems that very little is being done to get fusion working for making our energy here on earth"
Absolutely. You get started on that right away, I'll be right behind you.
"It amazes me there is not a more strong and powerful call from scientists globally to rapidly expand fusion research adn development"
Why does it? Scientists are like... people... they have things they wanna do, their own calling, they're not servants of mankind. Is fusion technology the thing that you're donating your life to developing? Or is it just what these mystical "the scientists" should be doing?
You know if they did start doing that, some cancer research/charity dude or someone who's lost someone from their family, would start commenting on the fact we're putting all this money into energy, just so we can all run our plasma TV's, high end computers, and flood our night sky with city lighting. People are dying here, that money should be going towards aiming for a world where cancer's no longer causing the devistation it can do now, not just fueling peoples laziness that leaves them wanting machines to wash their clothes 'n dishes. Prioritise!
And then of course some dude comes over from a famine stricken country who points out there are tens, hundreds of thousands of people, children, dying of starvation, and the amount of money that gets spent in the west treating a single person with cancer, treatment that might not even work, could put food into thousands of bellies, and actually save many many lives.
You might be able to see where this is going. Someone pops up, complaining that while we're all doing this stuff that's making everyone live longer, no one's putting any research into where all this extra population's gonna live, where we're going to go as we run out of space and resources on this planet. We can't afford to wait any longer, if anything happens to this planet, for the human race to survive, we need to get off it, and that's not a job we can turn around in a few weeks.
We have an awful lot to get done, and our best bet's gonna be from splitting up and tacking different areas of where we have problems each. We're a lot more effective when we're following our calling. I'm sure you'll try and make the world a better place in your own way. Personally, I write software. Does that make the world a better place? Yeah it does, because I'm good, I see someone spending a lot of time doing something I can automate, and all of a sudden they have that bit extra time to spend with their families. Is that not what we're fighting for?
"The six years it would take to receive information from the post, and for it to receive commands, would be a pain in the ass though"
They're using Vista for training; help 'em get used to it.
Not to mention the radiation thrown into the atmosphere during the launch (unless you decide to launch conventionally, and only use the nukes when you get far enough out). The other problem with the Orion of course was the err... slightly sensitive issue with russia around the time, esp regarding anything slightly nukey, the political calls to shut down the program weren't small and discreet.
They'd have to wait four years to find out who we voted out of the ship at the end of each week... and we'd have eight years to wait before we finally see them space the guy who was really annoying in the first week of the show... who we've since come to realise is just a bit misunderstood and is an excellent addition to the team, but that annoying girl... she ain't as sweet as she makes out. But... too late to do anything about it now.
You're missing the point I think. Even if you do transmit every day, and back home receives every day, you're still going to have to wait 8 years to hear anything back on anything that you transmit. There could be a constant stream of data, but with an 8 year gap for responses, it's not like you can have any kind of semblance of a conversation, for all intense and purposes, you're pretty cut off... even high latency TCP isn't gonna be enough to give you an internet connection :-p
Protons and photons are different tho. I doubt your torch has a proton beam.
"Your "conclusion" is that as it was said by The Register, then its wrong."
You're just making stuff up. I take it you didn't do that going back and reading it thing? My conclusion was that as it's written by the register, it's over sensationalised. I said they often don't bother checking their facts, which means that they're not a reliable source, as there is a high chance that you'll be reading something that hasn't been verified, which means a greater chance of errors being published, which means a greater chance of you reading something that is wrong. You seem to not understand basic logic. 'Often', and 'increased chance of', does not say that anything is always that thing. Of course you can find examples of things they've said that are correct. That does *not* invalidate a claim of 'often' to the inverted claim.
You're throwing around terms like 'straw man' because you're hoping that the meaning and connotations attached to such terms can help prove your point, where they don't, they are merely erronous conclusions based of faulty observations.
My original post was obviously a post about the quality of the opinions posed as facts in the register. Anyone who goes to that site should know that they're not a reliable source and additional verification is required... or you could just skip the register step, and go straight to where you'd've been verifying the facts and get them first hand, not twisted to fit the panic drive they use in their reports.
Please don't repeat yourself with this made up claim I'm saying that it must be wrong if it's the register, it just demonstrates your ignorance, and I don't think I can explain how what I'm saying isn't that any clearer. If you cannot respond to reason, then there's no point me saying anything other than "you're wrong", as you'd have proven that you will read what you want to read rather than what is written, anything further would be futile.
Absolutely, I'm not suggesting a completely automated system where a request is made into the system that automatically sends them the results and bills them. That said, anywhere you have a human checking it is a point of vulnerability as a potential privacy issue or corruption. I don't particulary think that having someone at the ISP go through the records and using their best judgement of what should or shouldn't be handed over as opposed to someone at the destination agency looking through it makes much difference. Either way, it's still human.
Dude. Even weaker. No wonder you like the register, you do the whole over sensationalisationing-thing yourself! First of all, you say I construct a straw man argument... I think that's you making that up, I didn't construct an argument at all, I merely skipped to the conclusion. You can either see how they over sensationalise things yourself, or you can't, that's not gonna be something I can particularly train peoples eyes to spot in the time I have available.
Niether did I say that everything they say is wrong, I said I regularly hit spots where they obviously haven't bothered to check their facts, and you finding one thing they've said that's true doesn't invalidate that, and it certainly doesn't invalidate the fact that you can say something that's true in a way that sounds panicy simply because you omit chunks of the story.
You hear me saying something against the register, which you obviously hail to, and thus assume that I must be wrong, and therefore twist my words in the exact way the register does, to make them fit your opinion.
Perhaps you should read what I have said again, and realise how your own narrow mind has shaped it, before making such comments. Or, apply for a job with them, you seem perfect for the job.
I'd think if you were a large ISP and getting that many requests, you'd just write a script (or collection of) to automate the process.
Dude. Weak. The Register?! You may as well be referencing Fox News, I've never read anything in the register that wasn't bleeding of oversensationalisation and regularly hit spots where they obviously haven't even made a slight attempt at verifying their story elements. The Register isn't a reliable source of anything, please don't spread their panic stories, you can do so much better I promise you.
mmm that's some of the nicest stuff i've ever had the good fortune to smoke. Where do you live, how can I get some off ya? :-p (just kiddin, by the comments about UVB it's obviously nowhere near me!)
*lol* fantastic
So you'd rather pay the BBC more money to roll out more bandwidth to everywhere that may or may not need it, than pay your ISP a smaller amount to give you the bandwidth right where it's needed? The BBC aren't being stupid here, they're trying to push the media as close to the end user as possible to save pushing all the streams for everyone watching in a certain area across greater distances overloading the internet backbone. Their proposal makes sense. Your objection of who you want to hand the money over to doesn't.
"who wouldn't want to watch a film at 1000 frames per second if they were given the option"
That'd be a complete waste; your eye just can't see that. The advantage of a camera that can record that is in capturing high speed events and replaying them slowly at a decent frame rate at eye speeds, so you can do stuff like watch a frog snap a fly out the air, watch what happens in an explosion, things where you need a higher time resolution because something's happening very quickly. I don't think there's any point in increasing video display framerate. Look at the experiments done with subliminal advertising and messaging in video. Inserting single message frames into a video makes it unnoticed by the conscious mind, and only by doing it repeatedly can you push the image into the subconscious mind. If the conscious mind can't detect single frames that run for that timelength, what's the point in adding more frames for even smaller timelengths?
If multiple video channels are sent over a link, then yes, as TV becomes more HD and the number of channels increases, you need more bandwidth. But with IP based TV, only the channel you're watching needs to be streamed, and with the increasing quality of audio/video compression, the bandwidth coming into your home to provide it need not be as much as you suggest, with a 10Mbps connection being more than sufficient.
Insightful? WTF? That's like saying "I pay my license fee so I can watch BBC content, I shouldn't have to pay for a TV as well". You put money into the BBC, which they can put together with other monies to create new content, research, and create and maintain broadcast and distribution networks. The idea that paying TV license gives you carte blanche to have anything you want is ludicrous. Different things cost different amounts of money. If you want ultra high def TV on demand over IP, the network has to be paid for. If you're satisfied with lower quality images, then you don't have to pay anything extra, as the network's already in place and being paid for. If you only have black/white TV, you can get a further discount (at least this always used to be the case). In return we get a fairly respectable organisation that can broadcast what they want without having to bow to the pressures of advertisers threatening to cut funding if the wrong thing gets reported. It's really not a bad deal.
"And this is my fault why?"
Erm... I don't think anyone was laying fault at your door.
"Until the current ISPs and telcos provide fiber in the end mile as they have in Japan since 2000 and before"
I don't think the whole of Japan have 100meg lines, but sure, in more densely populated areas, rolling out higher bandwidth pipes is more viable. This simply isn't true everywhere.
"I really do NOT want to hear their excuses"
Nope, can read them in less bandwidth, def don't need an audio file... and if you don't even wanna read it, you can just save even more bandwidth by not clicking on related stories/articles huh!
"Give us what we have been paying for"
I get what I'm paying for... but I'm with cable not BT, but I just won't go with BT. It's a simple solution I know, but basically, if you're not getting what you're paying for, stop paying. You'll find in this world that if you give someone money, they will take it.
"Add to the fact that soon Japan will have 1TB up and 1 TB down"
Sounds like you have japanenvy. 1TB? Do you mean per second? What harddrive's capable of delivering that much to one person, let alone um... more than one person? For backbone speed maybe, but into peoples homes, that's just silly. Who's saying they're going to offer 1TB lines? I'm quite interested in what they're saying they're offering it for.
"The problem with that argument is you can use it to justify anything"
Anything that you can think of. I can think of things where you can't use that argument against... such as any argument that doesn't include "all knowing" claims like your "no public benefit" claim.
"NASA uses billions of dollars to launch Paper Airplanes"
And here we have the answer... of course you can't think of any public benefits if you only know about *one* thing that they've done, which is launching a paper airplane. (hint: they've done more than one thing!)
What?!! You think building pyramids will get people to space?
When you say "no public benefit", I think you forgot to finish the sentence properly, you missed out the "that I know of" bit. It's a very narrow mind that assumes nothing exists beyond it's own knowledge. I would say that kind of mind doesn't serve the public one bit, but thinking about it, I've been to macdonalds.
These actually sound exactly like the kinds of things he'd go for. Slashing launch/supply costs, improving the domestic commercial space sector, not just shipping it all out to russia? I'm sure he'd see that as a win/win/win.
Riiiight... because no scientist would ever take a taxi to their lab, or call out for a pizza?
"something more akin to a "suitcase nuke" than a full ICBM"
A snuke?! Better start investing more in sniffer pigs!
I think if your server consolidation guy can't configure the virtual server software, you probably wanna swap him out for another.
NAT is a decent default for desktop users, who are perhaps sitting on a single IP broadband internet connection, and are using virtualisation for platform shifting to run an application on the OS of choice of the developers, on their own OS of choice. Expecting them to change the default network setup to a NAT setup so the internet works from their virtual machine is expecting a lot more than expecting a server engineer to be able to switch to bridged.
Whilst I obviously can't comment on your particular case, I must say that my (granted fairly limited) experience leaves me feeling it's more a management issue, based around the issue of the length of shifts that people in hospitals have to work. 12-18hr shifts with just a couple of 20minute breaks for air destroys a person, no matter how well you want to do, no matter how much you care for your patients, when you're pushed beyond your capability to exhuastion, you're just not going to be able to perform, I've seen it happen to the best of us. Why this is so common place is beyond me. More frequent staff rotation does of course mean more change overs, which can increase errors due to things not being communicated between shifts, but not having a hospital full of people who are slowly shattered surely must make up for it.
Few will make it far in nursing without wanting to do some good; when you see those not taking the simple actions that would achieve that good, like those who didn't respond to your wife's BP alarm, as difficult as it is, bare in mind that these people have already been broken. A faulty design can render even the most perfect of components useless.