[...] then why did the Chinese government start an investigation after suicide 6?
Perhaps for the same reason as above--competitiveness.
Much like meat, I want to see the pretty display in the supermarket. I don't want to see the slaughterhouse that gets it to me. I'd prefer to believe that animals are killed humanely and I might feel uncomfortable if I discovered that they weren't. I might even feel uncomfortable enough to not buy that meet from a store. If enough people feel this way, the stores are going to stop ordering meat from the slaughterhouse.
In a similar vein, I might reconsider buying teh new shiny from Apple, Dell, Sony, or HP if I discovered that the people who made it were mistreated. After all, I like to believe that the people who made teh new shiny had as much fun putting it together as I have using it. This might convince Apple, Dell, Sony, and HP to find someone else to make it--after all, they don't want the bad press.
It's somewhat worse in the government's mind because what happens in one factory can relate to all of China. Look through the postings here and you will see that it is generally assumed that labor conditions throughout China are miserable. I don't know if they are or are not. Because, as the GP put it, "Market competitiveness is very important to them," they'll look into anything that will affect their market competitiveness.
It's not so much that there might be something "wrong." It's that there might be something "wrong" that could make China--as a whole--look bad. That's why you see an investigation.
Actually, I like the idea of assassinating the president with counterfeit money. Like drop a bunch of bills on him.
But seriously, what you're saying is that because 0.0001% may use remote wipe to hide evidence of a crime, the other 99.9999% of the people should not be able to remote wipe their phones?
Here's a better idea: When the Secret Service gets your phone, have them perform one of the following tasks:
Remove the SIM card.
Remove the battery
Bring a box with appropriate shielding and place cell phone in the box
If they can't handle doing one of those three things, then they probably aren't very good police officers. Perhaps we need some new ones.
Well, this isn't quite as serious as Bank Trojans, but Storm8 is infamous for stealing phone numbers from their customers. And this is with the all-mighty App Store in place.
According to my Texas High School textbook, there was no President John Adams. There was a John Quincy Adams, but he would obviously never say anything so foolish.
It's obvious that cuts will have to be made, serious cuts to a lot of pointless government agencies [...]
Ah, but now we have to ask "What is a pointless government agency?"
Way back when Ronald Reagan was elected, his big idea was "smaller government and smaller taxes." He cut taxes, and everybody liked that. Then he said "Let's cut Government" and everybody went, "Whoa! Hold on! You can't cut down the EPA! You can't cut down the Department of Education! You can't cut down the Department of Health and Human Services! You can't cut down the Department of Housing and Urban Development! You can't cut down Military Spending! (Actually, I don't think he wanted to) You can't cut down..." and on and on and on.
I remember when Reagan left and George Bush was elected. Somebody wrote a wonderful letter in to U.S. World and News Report. I wish I could remember the name of the person who wrote it, because he nailed it on the head when he said, "The American People are not stupid. We elected a Congress that said, 'You can have all the social programs you want!' And we elected a President that said, 'And you're not going to have to pay for them!' That sounds like a pretty good deal to me."
Heck, here in California it's currently the same thing. It's very simple, really: We want it all and we don't want to have to pay for it. And, by God, we're going to keep sending the same people up to Sacramento until they figure out how to do this!
I just don't think NASA, who's ~20 billion budget which less than 1% of the GDP of the US, should be cut.
I don't disagree with you, but I'm sure there are others who do. 20 billion dollars would fund a lot of homeless shelters. 20 billion dollars would pay for lots of infrastructure repair. 20 billion dollars could extend unemployment benefits to thousands of unemployed Americans, or train them in new fields. 20 billion dollars could be a 50 dollar tax break for all Americans. Whichever side of the political aisle you lean, having an extra 20 billion dollars could fund any number of projects which some Americans would not find as "pointless" as sending probes to Mars or men into orbit.
As has been pointed out, the distances that Spirit or Opportunity have covered on Mars could be walked by a human being in a few hours. So you'd probably know more about Mars by putting a couple of human beings on Mars for 5 years than you have learned from Spirit and Opportunity.
As you say, though, putting a couple of human beings on Mars for five years would be extremely expensive. So it comes down to the question of whether it's better to spend a lot of money for a lot of science or a little bit of money for a little bit of science. When you don't have a lot of money, there's only one answer, of course. Which is why we do it the way we do. But I'm not sure that it's more efficient--it's merely what we're left with. It's that or wait around until we possibly have the money to do it.
somebody beat them to it without anyone knowing and stole the evidence that has already been seen by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and other countries' observations
Explain how not getting out of LEO gives us a better chance of getting out of LEO.
I'll give it a shot.
Currently, a large amount of NASA's budget is spent getting equipment and people into LEO. This limits NASA's ability to do other things. Reducing the expense of sending people and equipment into LEO will free up money yet still give Americans the ability to do research on the International Space Station.
Now, NASA doesn't really have a great track record of spending less money. The Space Shuttle was supposed to reduce the cost of getting into orbit, but the concept was based on the idea that "We're going anyway, so give us some money and we'll drop your satellite off while we're there." I think NASA could probably design a lower-cost system for lifting payload and people into LEO, but why should they? There are plenty of companies that want the job lifting payload and people into LEO and they're not spending my tax dollars to design this lower-cost system.
With the money saved, NASA can spend more money designing a heavy-lift vehicle to get us out of LEO.
While I'm not sure I agree with Obama regarding what we should do and where we should go outside of LEO, I agree wholeheartedly that NASA should not be frittering it's time and money away in LEO.
Actually, I think it's highest was 360 miles (594 kilometers) on STS-82.
But again, is it just the Shuttle's inability to get there (ie, it can't carry enough fuel to get up there and get back)? Or is there more (eg radiation shielding, etc.)?
Apollo would have been the ideal vehicle for the job because it had legs in the sense that you could send it practically anywhere and it could aerobrake to a safe landing.
Well, except for the "retrieval" part. And the "repair" part, without the Canadarm, would probably be kinda tricky, too.
But at least the Apollo capsule could have gotten astronauts there and humans can be pretty ingenious...
Just out of curiosity, I understand the Shuttle is not designed to go to Geosynchronous orbit. Is it merely a matter of thrust that keeps it Low-Earth Orbit or are there other issues as well?
Why on earth wouldn't paying $500 for a goof-off device be a good thing? It's just the right size for some idle browsing or watching movies, and small and light enough to be an easy carry. $500 bucks may be a lot if you're shopping for a netbook or a light laptop, but remember that not too long ago we paid this much for rather crappy portable dvd players.
It's a good point, but it still seems a bit pricey to me.
I drive or bike to work. So I can't really use one on my commute. I fly usually two or three times a year. One or two of those flights may be cross-country. That's usually my big "sitting down with nothing to do" time. Otherwise, I'm working or biking or doing errands around the house. Furthermore, I have an iPhone, so if I want to play a game while waiting at the car repair shop, I can do so. If I want to veg-out, I can sit on the couch and watch the TV or sit at my computer and surf the web. So, sure, having a computer while I veg-out on the couch might be fun.
But $500 to be able to sit on the couch and surf the web? At the risk of sounding like a curmudgeon, "I'm not so lazy that I can't get up off the couch and walk over to the computer." It seems like the device would just end up sitting on the coffee table in front of the couch and never get used. And, frankly, I can think of much better things to spend $500 on than a tablet that will probably live it's life on a coffee table or in a stand showing pictures.
[...] one of the reasons to buy a netbook (with the OS that the main PC has) instead of the iPad is so I can "run the same types of applications as you main machine", but have them on a portable device. I want to browse the internet? OK, I can have Firefox with various extensions (noscript/abp...) installed on both devices. I want to watch a movie? OK, the same player and the same codecs on both devices, so I know that if it plays on my main PC and it is not in HD then it will also play on the portable device.
Miscellaneous aside, being the honest person I am, I'd also point out that I don't have to buy the same applications twice--once for a desktop and once for a tablet.
iWork for the Mac: $49 Pages for the iPad: $9.99 Numbers for the iPad: $9.99 Keynote for the iPad: $9.99
So to use the same applications on your iPad that you use on your desktop, you have to shell out another $29.97.
In the end the user wants to play his Facebook games and Apple says 'you can't on My iPhone or iPad' and they say 'okay' and play on their computer instead. Do they ditch the iPhone or iPad? Nope..... They go buy another one! When the general public actually decides to grow a pair things will change.
I wouldn't necessarily put it that way.
I paid $199 for my iPhone and I can't play Facebook games? Well, I guess that's just the way it is. At least until my best buddy starts doing it with his Android/WebOS/Symbian phone. When I see someone in my peer group doing that, that's when I'll say, "Wow! I know what my next phone is going to be!"
Kind of like the Mac and Windows--you'll see one person switch and show off what they can do. That'll inspire someone else. That'll inspire a few more people. And so on and so on.
Slashdot Mirror
[...] then why did the Chinese government start an investigation after suicide 6?
Perhaps for the same reason as above--competitiveness.
Much like meat, I want to see the pretty display in the supermarket. I don't want to see the slaughterhouse that gets it to me. I'd prefer to believe that animals are killed humanely and I might feel uncomfortable if I discovered that they weren't. I might even feel uncomfortable enough to not buy that meet from a store. If enough people feel this way, the stores are going to stop ordering meat from the slaughterhouse.
In a similar vein, I might reconsider buying teh new shiny from Apple, Dell, Sony, or HP if I discovered that the people who made it were mistreated. After all, I like to believe that the people who made teh new shiny had as much fun putting it together as I have using it. This might convince Apple, Dell, Sony, and HP to find someone else to make it--after all, they don't want the bad press.
It's somewhat worse in the government's mind because what happens in one factory can relate to all of China. Look through the postings here and you will see that it is generally assumed that labor conditions throughout China are miserable. I don't know if they are or are not. Because, as the GP put it, "Market competitiveness is very important to them," they'll look into anything that will affect their market competitiveness.
It's not so much that there might be something "wrong." It's that there might be something "wrong" that could make China--as a whole--look bad. That's why you see an investigation.
"Visualize Open-Source Users"
*shudder*
I'm reminded of the old platitude: Men use love to get sex. Women use sex to get love.
Dear God, won't somebody think of the children?!
Actually, I like the idea of assassinating the president with counterfeit money. Like drop a bunch of bills on him.
But seriously, what you're saying is that because 0.0001% may use remote wipe to hide evidence of a crime, the other 99.9999% of the people should not be able to remote wipe their phones?
Here's a better idea: When the Secret Service gets your phone, have them perform one of the following tasks:
If they can't handle doing one of those three things, then they probably aren't very good police officers. Perhaps we need some new ones.
Well, this isn't quite as serious as Bank Trojans, but Storm8 is infamous for stealing phone numbers from their customers. And this is with the all-mighty App Store in place.
I think the complaint is more that in twenty-four years, fuel economy has gone up a little more than 10%.
Of course, he neglects to mention that the 2010 Honda Accord has a bigger engine...
most really long flights are going to be trips like LA to Tokyo, LA to Beijing, LA to Sydney, NYC to London, NYC to Paris, etc.
But what about LA to London, LA to Paris, NYC to Tokyo, or NYC to Beijing?
According to my Texas High School textbook, there was no President John Adams. There was a John Quincy Adams, but he would obviously never say anything so foolish.
Worse yet--Google knows you drive a Chevy!
My car has a "Check Engine" light. It came on, so I looked and the engine was still there.
It's just a scam to get you into the dealer. I know I'll have no problems on that three-hundred mile trip I have planned for next weekend...
I guess I'm old. I remember that there was no human spaceflight between 1975 and 1981. Somehow our international standing survived.
It's obvious that cuts will have to be made, serious cuts to a lot of pointless government agencies [...]
Ah, but now we have to ask "What is a pointless government agency?"
Way back when Ronald Reagan was elected, his big idea was "smaller government and smaller taxes." He cut taxes, and everybody liked that. Then he said "Let's cut Government" and everybody went, "Whoa! Hold on! You can't cut down the EPA! You can't cut down the Department of Education! You can't cut down the Department of Health and Human Services! You can't cut down the Department of Housing and Urban Development! You can't cut down Military Spending! (Actually, I don't think he wanted to) You can't cut down..." and on and on and on.
I remember when Reagan left and George Bush was elected. Somebody wrote a wonderful letter in to U.S. World and News Report. I wish I could remember the name of the person who wrote it, because he nailed it on the head when he said, "The American People are not stupid. We elected a Congress that said, 'You can have all the social programs you want!' And we elected a President that said, 'And you're not going to have to pay for them!' That sounds like a pretty good deal to me."
Heck, here in California it's currently the same thing. It's very simple, really: We want it all and we don't want to have to pay for it. And, by God, we're going to keep sending the same people up to Sacramento until they figure out how to do this!
I just don't think NASA, who's ~20 billion budget which less than 1% of the GDP of the US, should be cut.
I don't disagree with you, but I'm sure there are others who do. 20 billion dollars would fund a lot of homeless shelters. 20 billion dollars would pay for lots of infrastructure repair. 20 billion dollars could extend unemployment benefits to thousands of unemployed Americans, or train them in new fields. 20 billion dollars could be a 50 dollar tax break for all Americans. Whichever side of the political aisle you lean, having an extra 20 billion dollars could fund any number of projects which some Americans would not find as "pointless" as sending probes to Mars or men into orbit.
Efficient science? Yes.
Actually, I wonder about that one.
As has been pointed out, the distances that Spirit or Opportunity have covered on Mars could be walked by a human being in a few hours. So you'd probably know more about Mars by putting a couple of human beings on Mars for 5 years than you have learned from Spirit and Opportunity.
As you say, though, putting a couple of human beings on Mars for five years would be extremely expensive. So it comes down to the question of whether it's better to spend a lot of money for a lot of science or a little bit of money for a little bit of science. When you don't have a lot of money, there's only one answer, of course. Which is why we do it the way we do. But I'm not sure that it's more efficient--it's merely what we're left with. It's that or wait around until we possibly have the money to do it.
somebody beat them to it without anyone knowing and stole the evidence that has already been seen by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and other countries' observations
Damn you, Andy Griffith!
Explain how not getting out of LEO gives us a better chance of getting out of LEO.
I'll give it a shot.
Currently, a large amount of NASA's budget is spent getting equipment and people into LEO. This limits NASA's ability to do other things. Reducing the expense of sending people and equipment into LEO will free up money yet still give Americans the ability to do research on the International Space Station.
Now, NASA doesn't really have a great track record of spending less money. The Space Shuttle was supposed to reduce the cost of getting into orbit, but the concept was based on the idea that "We're going anyway, so give us some money and we'll drop your satellite off while we're there." I think NASA could probably design a lower-cost system for lifting payload and people into LEO, but why should they? There are plenty of companies that want the job lifting payload and people into LEO and they're not spending my tax dollars to design this lower-cost system.
With the money saved, NASA can spend more money designing a heavy-lift vehicle to get us out of LEO.
While I'm not sure I agree with Obama regarding what we should do and where we should go outside of LEO, I agree wholeheartedly that NASA should not be frittering it's time and money away in LEO.
Using sunlight rather than electricity [...]
What happens if I run out of hydrogen at night?
Actually, I think it's highest was 360 miles (594 kilometers) on STS-82.
But again, is it just the Shuttle's inability to get there (ie, it can't carry enough fuel to get up there and get back)? Or is there more (eg radiation shielding, etc.)?
Apollo would have been the ideal vehicle for the job because it had legs in the sense that you could send it practically anywhere and it could aerobrake to a safe landing.
Well, except for the "retrieval" part. And the "repair" part, without the Canadarm, would probably be kinda tricky, too.
But at least the Apollo capsule could have gotten astronauts there and humans can be pretty ingenious...
Just out of curiosity, I understand the Shuttle is not designed to go to Geosynchronous orbit. Is it merely a matter of thrust that keeps it Low-Earth Orbit or are there other issues as well?
Why on earth wouldn't paying $500 for a goof-off device be a good thing? It's just the right size for some idle browsing or watching movies, and small and light enough to be an easy carry. $500 bucks may be a lot if you're shopping for a netbook or a light laptop, but remember that not too long ago we paid this much for rather crappy portable dvd players.
It's a good point, but it still seems a bit pricey to me.
I drive or bike to work. So I can't really use one on my commute. I fly usually two or three times a year. One or two of those flights may be cross-country. That's usually my big "sitting down with nothing to do" time. Otherwise, I'm working or biking or doing errands around the house. Furthermore, I have an iPhone, so if I want to play a game while waiting at the car repair shop, I can do so. If I want to veg-out, I can sit on the couch and watch the TV or sit at my computer and surf the web. So, sure, having a computer while I veg-out on the couch might be fun.
But $500 to be able to sit on the couch and surf the web? At the risk of sounding like a curmudgeon, "I'm not so lazy that I can't get up off the couch and walk over to the computer." It seems like the device would just end up sitting on the coffee table in front of the couch and never get used. And, frankly, I can think of much better things to spend $500 on than a tablet that will probably live it's life on a coffee table or in a stand showing pictures.
[...] one of the reasons to buy a netbook (with the OS that the main PC has) instead of the iPad is so I can "run the same types of applications as you main machine", but have them on a portable device. I want to browse the internet? OK, I can have Firefox with various extensions (noscript/abp...) installed on both devices. I want to watch a movie? OK, the same player and the same codecs on both devices, so I know that if it plays on my main PC and it is not in HD then it will also play on the portable device.
Miscellaneous aside, being the honest person I am, I'd also point out that I don't have to buy the same applications twice--once for a desktop and once for a tablet.
iWork for the Mac: $49
Pages for the iPad: $9.99
Numbers for the iPad: $9.99
Keynote for the iPad: $9.99
So to use the same applications on your iPad that you use on your desktop, you have to shell out another $29.97.
"No TV and No Beer Make Voyager" something something...
It also appears to only be for certain documents.
In the end the user wants to play his Facebook games and Apple says 'you can't on My iPhone or iPad' and they say 'okay' and play on their computer instead.
Do they ditch the iPhone or iPad? Nope..... They go buy another one!
When the general public actually decides to grow a pair things will change.
I wouldn't necessarily put it that way.
I paid $199 for my iPhone and I can't play Facebook games? Well, I guess that's just the way it is. At least until my best buddy starts doing it with his Android/WebOS/Symbian phone. When I see someone in my peer group doing that, that's when I'll say, "Wow! I know what my next phone is going to be!"
Kind of like the Mac and Windows--you'll see one person switch and show off what they can do. That'll inspire someone else. That'll inspire a few more people. And so on and so on.
Besides, Steve has said that, "we strongly believe that all standards pertaining to the web should be open." There's no way that Steve would go against his word!
(Yes, this is sarcasm.)