There are some people, myself included, who believe that artists should be able to reap the fruits of their work, and retain full rights to them
If by "artist" you mean "recording label", and by "fruits" you mean "monopoly driven price fixed screw the artist i need to buy a yaht obscene prices" then I agree with you
I don't think we're being petty, I think it is you who are missing my point, rather than the otherway around.
Regardless of wheather or not you're ever going to buy a new car or not, at some point you're very likely to buy a car. Say your choices are a '99 Chevy Malibu, a '99 Toyota Camry, or a '99 Hundai Elantra (all with 65,000 miles) all for $5,500. (disclaimer: I made these numbers up for the sake of argument they are likely not acurate market values) I don't know about you but I'm not buying the Hundai. This increases the value of the car for the original owner, so he's more likely to spend more when he bought it the first time. Guess what advertising worked.
I the point is whether or not you think you are being affected by advertising you are. You want stuff, some of that stuff you probably don't need. How are you supposed to know what stuff you want, but don't need if not for advertising? Say Sony decided it was just going to go ahead and release the PSP without any advertising campaigns or fanfair. How many units would it have moved?
Hate to break it to you, but advertising has always been both crap you probably don't want to buy, and that stuff you might buy anyway. Like another poster said, its not just about making a sale, its about brand awareness. No mater how good your product is if you don't get your name out your buisness will fail.
I noticed you're not planning on buying a Kia or Deawoo, could you fill us in on why? How exactly did Ford and Chevy jump to the top of the pack? What could Suzuki do to be mentioned in the same phrase? If not advertising then what?
It seems to me that doubleclick.net is in trouble because they've annoyed so many people that someone else has decided to do something about it. Opening up my adblock black list, I can see that doubleclick.net is the very first entry.
What free sites need to do is find a marketing firm taht doesn't have obnoxious ads, then they'll stay in buisness, because people won't block what isn't annoying.
Case in point: Just for shits and giggles I opened up the article in IE, and what do you know there's an delightful to look at marque add promenently displayed at the top of the page (provided by doubleclick no less.)
When advertisers realise that people visit websites because of the content, not to look at ads maybe they'll place less obtrusive, non-flash ads that don't encroach on the content.
When that happens maybe I'll stop blocking ads, or maybe the damage has already been done.
Phew for a moment there I thought I slipped into some kind of alternate universe where slashdot was not ruled by geeks. What with everyone talking about getting married and all...
Well I haven't seen the cartoons, but with all this talk of them, I kinda wonder why Lucas didn't replace the mind numbing first half of RotS with this material which sounds much more interesting
Well I'm not an economist, but Isn't our current (relative) proserity driven at least in part by the rampent consumer (consumption) culture?
There are no easy fixes in economics, if we encourage savings and investment companies who make cars and washing machines will suffer, and they'll pass their hardship along.
I agree. Last year was the first time I wasn't considered a dependent under my parents, so it was also the first time I did my taxes.
I was thinking, hey I'm fiarly computer savvy, I bet theres an online form and I can get this done in an hour or so. Well I went to www.irs.gov and started hunting around for e-file. I found this statement
NOTE: IRS cannot compete with private enterprise and does not offer free e-file software or direct filing. A number of companies, tested and approved by the IRS, do offer free use of their software and free filing, while others will charge nominal fees. Terms and conditions vary among companies and you are advised to review the information on each company's web site and choose for yourself the product that is right for you.
Which seems a little strange to me because the 2 state taxes i filed were free and offered by the government.
Well anyway it was about 5 minutes after I read that statement that I printed out the paper form and started filling it out by hand *sigh* if I'm gong to fill out my taxes myself I'm sure as hell not going to pay someone to file em.
Oh p.s. the cheep e-file companies don't like it if you've earned money in more than one state in the past year...
Enigine noise is much more a problem for the people living in houses near the airport. Then they lobby the city who puts restricions on noise.
Then its much more a problem for the airlines because they have noise restrictions that they have to follow because someone decided that that cheap land next to the airport would be a great place to build a sub-division.
Then its much more a problem for the aircraft builders because they have to build planes that the airliners will buy, and the airliners will only buy planes that they can fly out of the airport with all the expensive houses next to it.
Then its much more a problem for the jet engine manufacturers because they have to build an engine that the aircraft manufacturers will buy etc. etc. etc.
We should all follow the lead of the illustrious former mayor of my home city Carty Finkbeiner Who suggested that we should move deaf people near the airport.
I'd like some more information on how exactly they plan on reducing engine noise and improving fuel efficiency...
Both are most definately non-trival problems. Loads and loads of money have been spent by both commercial interests and DARPA on reducing jet noise. I know at the university I went to there was a pretty serious contingent of profs in the Mech Eng department working on this problem.
The sonic boom thing is basically a non-solvable problem, you just have to be high enough and far enough from a city before you jump to super-sonic speeds. Jest noise on the other hand could be mitigated. The primary source of jet noise is turbulent mixing at the edge of the exhaust stream, and it is a very very difficult problem.
Re:I'm all for science/technology/astronomy but...
on
Back to Moon in 2015?
·
· Score: 1
How in the hell are you going to get that much steel into orbit?
Re:I'm all for science/technology/astronomy but...
on
Back to Moon in 2015?
·
· Score: 1
Re:I'm all for science/technology/astronomy but...
on
Back to Moon in 2015?
·
· Score: 1
1. The reaction I was refering to was the fission, not the heating of the workign fuel (which technically isn't a reaction at all.) Sorry if I was unclear
2. While not a nuclear engineer I do have some knowledge of how a nuclear reaction proceeds, and I know that it doesn't take a whole lot of fuel for a reactor to run for a very long time. The working fluid is your coolant/propelent, can you carry enough of that to keep your reactor cool if your spewing it out the back end to make your ship go?
3. Ok yes you can turn off the chain reaction to decrease power, but you cannot ever cut coolant or the heat released from normal decomp will cause your reactor to melt down. This point was hastily formulated in my mind, so maybe its not that big of an issue, unless you use all you working fluid up.
4. I don't know what the differnce in mass of the nuclear material between a RTG and a fission reactor are, but I suspect that your going to have more radioactive material in the rocket than the RTG. Wheather this ia a problem or not I don't know. Also I dont' think the US has ever lost a nuclear vessle. The soviets have, and just ask the Sweedes how they feel about the sunken reactors in the Baltic.
It seems to me like "the industry" should be the airline industy. The Boeings and Airbuses of the world already have a piece of the requisite knowledge, and they stand to gain from implementing orbital technology.
IMHO the motivation will only increase as the gas prices rise and the traveling population increases.
If you can build a vehicle that takes off and lands on a conventional runway, and can reach orbit you are able to burn much less fuel for extended flights. I've heard the analogy of a plane that skips on the atmosphere like a stone skipping on the pond. The only time you need to burn fuel is to take off, and when you need a little boost to avoid re-entereing prematurely. This could dramatically lower the fuel needed to fly around the world.
Space Ship One will do alot to advance this, But I think what we really need is a single vessle, thats scalable to dozens or scores of passangers, and one that doesn't need a piggy-back.
Once we have commercial semi-orbital flight, it won't be much of a leap to orbital commerce.
I wouldn't count on the government to do it though, my money is on commercial interests.
Re:I'm all for science/technology/astronomy but...
on
Back to Moon in 2015?
·
· Score: 1
I don't think we're going to be landing on anything with an atmopsphere anytime in the forseable future.
Landing on the moon might be good practice for landing on Mars though.
As far as solid places with atmospheres about the only candidated in our Solar System are Venus and Europa. Both of which are particularly nasty.
Re:I'm all for science/technology/astronomy but...
on
Back to Moon in 2015?
·
· Score: 1
Ok I read the wiki article, and it was interesting, although for me it raised more questions than it answered.
1. When is the reaction initiated? Sometime before the rocket is ready to leave? In that case what happens to the working fluid that is heated before we're ready to go?
2. It sounds to me like the working fluid doubles as coolant, so what happens when you run out? Will you be able to carry enough working fluid with you to last long enough for an inter-planetary journey?
3. What happens when you want to stop or slow down? You can't just turn off the reaction, and you also can't cut the coolant.
4. What if there's an accident? Is it possible to adequately shield a Nuclear Thermal Rocket to allow for uncontrolled re-entry? Since the minimum amount of Pu-238 necessary to power a reactor is ~10kg the rocket would have to be designed to maintain integrety even if there were a disaster. How much weight would adequate shielding and reinforcing add? Would it still be capable of achieving the required thrust? The Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators used to power the voyager craft and other satellites seem much simpler to me, and hence simpler to shield and reinforce.
Now I'm not one to run scared at the mention of anything nuclear, but I also don't sneeze at the potential problems radiation can cause. The biggest problem I see is that I can't imagine that it would be possible to carry enough working fuel to constantly cool the reactor and provide thrust as a by-product for the long time scales necessary in inter-planetary travel.
How much of the moon can be fashoned into something useful?
It's not a lump of refined metal that self assembles into struts and bulkheads...
How easy is it to get fuel from the moon? I think that would be the most valubal lunar comodity. Once you're on the moon is a moon rock really worth anything? (of course if we could build a giant lunar trebuchet for launching space craft then we might be on to something;))
Re:I'm all for science/technology/astronomy but...
on
Back to Moon in 2015?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I was under the impression that the reason we don't currently have nuclear outfitted space technology (not counting decay powered satelites i.e voyager) was that if the Challenger/Columbia thing happens again it sprays the planet with refined nuclear material.
Aside from that how exactly would you use a technology that doesn't rely on combustion to produce the needed thrust to enter orbit.
Not saying that it couldn't be done but it seems like it would still be easier to burn something to get into orbit. Once you're clear of the atmosphere you either need to expel a gas (combustion rocket for speed or pressurised gas for fine orientation) or you rely on impact (solar sails). If you had a nuclear powered vehicle you would have plenty of power but I can't think of any way to direct it. Unless you could derive thrust from a neutron stream?
If anyone knows of a way to get thrust from fission I'd love to hear it.
Yeah I know porn when I see it, and so do you, but try to define it in any meaningful way.
There's a famous quote to that end somewhere.
The problem is that there is a lot of grey area in art and theatre especially that might contain nudity, even suggestive nudity but has cultural or artistic value. Its really, really hard to catch that stuff in words. It also might be impossible to reach any kind of consensus.
An example that just came to mind is that there is currently a touring group that puts on a show called "Puppetry of the Penis." If your not familiar its basically a couple of Australian guys playing with their Johnsons for however long the show runs.
I'm not even sure if I consider that porn or theatre... How is a group to decide?
I think that we need to develop some common lingo here so that these mistakes won't continue to be made.
I submit that I am impartial because I am neither a member of the "rabid right" nor the "non-rabid right," nor the libertarians.
I think that the phrases "Traditional Conservative," "Rich Conservative," Filthy Rich Conservative," and "Get-Your-Stinking-Hands-Off-Me-You-Damned-Dirty-G overnment Conservative" adequately describe the one camp.
Since the term has already been coined my I suggest "religious right", "fanatic religious right", "nut-job religious right," "White Trash Conservative," or "Zealot" to represent those who are republican, advocate increased government control, and have at some time in their lives donated money to Pat Robertson.
Slashdot Mirror
If by "artist" you mean "recording label", and by "fruits" you mean "monopoly driven price fixed screw the artist i need to buy a yaht obscene prices" then I agree with you
I don't have a problem with ads. I have a problem with obtrusive ads that disrupt the content.
If no one can develop a buisness model that will make money without annoying the hall out of me then I won't be sad to see the internet go.
If my daily print paper made buzzing noises when I opened it and urged me to swat the fly when I opened it I would stop subscribing to that as well.If ads didn't annoy the hell out of people no one would dounload adblock
I don't think we're being petty, I think it is you who are missing my point, rather than the otherway around.
Regardless of wheather or not you're ever going to buy a new car or not, at some point you're very likely to buy a car. Say your choices are a '99 Chevy Malibu, a '99 Toyota Camry, or a '99 Hundai Elantra (all with 65,000 miles) all for $5,500. (disclaimer: I made these numbers up for the sake of argument they are likely not acurate market values) I don't know about you but I'm not buying the Hundai. This increases the value of the car for the original owner, so he's more likely to spend more when he bought it the first time. Guess what advertising worked.
I the point is whether or not you think you are being affected by advertising you are. You want stuff, some of that stuff you probably don't need. How are you supposed to know what stuff you want, but don't need if not for advertising? Say Sony decided it was just going to go ahead and release the PSP without any advertising campaigns or fanfair. How many units would it have moved?
Hate to break it to you, but advertising has always been both crap you probably don't want to buy, and that stuff you might buy anyway. Like another poster said, its not just about making a sale, its about brand awareness. No mater how good your product is if you don't get your name out your buisness will fail.
I noticed you're not planning on buying a Kia or Deawoo, could you fill us in on why? How exactly did Ford and Chevy jump to the top of the pack? What could Suzuki do to be mentioned in the same phrase? If not advertising then what?
I love my adblock, and my flashblock.
It seems to me that doubleclick.net is in trouble because they've annoyed so many people that someone else has decided to do something about it. Opening up my adblock black list, I can see that doubleclick.net is the very first entry.
What free sites need to do is find a marketing firm taht doesn't have obnoxious ads, then they'll stay in buisness, because people won't block what isn't annoying.
Case in point: Just for shits and giggles I opened up the article in IE, and what do you know there's an delightful to look at marque add promenently displayed at the top of the page (provided by doubleclick no less.)
When advertisers realise that people visit websites because of the content, not to look at ads maybe they'll place less obtrusive, non-flash ads that don't encroach on the content.
When that happens maybe I'll stop blocking ads, or maybe the damage has already been done.
Well I haven't seen the cartoons, but with all this talk of them, I kinda wonder why Lucas didn't replace the mind numbing first half of RotS with this material which sounds much more interesting
Funny, I thought the pizza failed because it was disgusting...
Well I'm not an economist, but Isn't our current (relative) proserity driven at least in part by the rampent consumer (consumption) culture?
There are no easy fixes in economics, if we encourage savings and investment companies who make cars and washing machines will suffer, and they'll pass their hardship along.
I was thinking, hey I'm fiarly computer savvy, I bet theres an online form and I can get this done in an hour or so. Well I went to www.irs.gov and started hunting around for e-file. I found this statement
Which seems a little strange to me because the 2 state taxes i filed were free and offered by the government.
Well anyway it was about 5 minutes after I read that statement that I printed out the paper form and started filling it out by hand *sigh* if I'm gong to fill out my taxes myself I'm sure as hell not going to pay someone to file em.
Oh p.s. the cheep e-file companies don't like it if you've earned money in more than one state in the past year...
Enigine noise is much more a problem for the people living in houses near the airport. Then they lobby the city who puts restricions on noise.
Then its much more a problem for the airlines because they have noise restrictions that they have to follow because someone decided that that cheap land next to the airport would be a great place to build a sub-division.
Then its much more a problem for the aircraft builders because they have to build planes that the airliners will buy, and the airliners will only buy planes that they can fly out of the airport with all the expensive houses next to it.
Then its much more a problem for the jet engine manufacturers because they have to build an engine that the aircraft manufacturers will buy etc. etc. etc.
We should all follow the lead of the illustrious former mayor of my home city Carty Finkbeiner Who suggested that we should move deaf people near the airport.
I'd like some more information on how exactly they plan on reducing engine noise and improving fuel efficiency...
Both are most definately non-trival problems. Loads and loads of money have been spent by both commercial interests and DARPA on reducing jet noise. I know at the university I went to there was a pretty serious contingent of profs in the Mech Eng department working on this problem.
The sonic boom thing is basically a non-solvable problem, you just have to be high enough and far enough from a city before you jump to super-sonic speeds. Jest noise on the other hand could be mitigated. The primary source of jet noise is turbulent mixing at the edge of the exhaust stream, and it is a very very difficult problem.
How in the hell are you going to get that much steel into orbit?
Well I stand corrected.
mmmmmmm mollusks and cephalopods
1. The reaction I was refering to was the fission, not the heating of the workign fuel (which technically isn't a reaction at all.) Sorry if I was unclear
2. While not a nuclear engineer I do have some knowledge of how a nuclear reaction proceeds, and I know that it doesn't take a whole lot of fuel for a reactor to run for a very long time. The working fluid is your coolant/propelent, can you carry enough of that to keep your reactor cool if your spewing it out the back end to make your ship go?
3. Ok yes you can turn off the chain reaction to decrease power, but you cannot ever cut coolant or the heat released from normal decomp will cause your reactor to melt down. This point was hastily formulated in my mind, so maybe its not that big of an issue, unless you use all you working fluid up.
4. I don't know what the differnce in mass of the nuclear material between a RTG and a fission reactor are, but I suspect that your going to have more radioactive material in the rocket than the RTG. Wheather this ia a problem or not I don't know. Also I dont' think the US has ever lost a nuclear vessle. The soviets have, and just ask the Sweedes how they feel about the sunken reactors in the Baltic.
It seems to me like "the industry" should be the airline industy. The Boeings and Airbuses of the world already have a piece of the requisite knowledge, and they stand to gain from implementing orbital technology.
IMHO the motivation will only increase as the gas prices rise and the traveling population increases.
If you can build a vehicle that takes off and lands on a conventional runway, and can reach orbit you are able to burn much less fuel for extended flights. I've heard the analogy of a plane that skips on the atmosphere like a stone skipping on the pond. The only time you need to burn fuel is to take off, and when you need a little boost to avoid re-entereing prematurely. This could dramatically lower the fuel needed to fly around the world.
Space Ship One will do alot to advance this, But I think what we really need is a single vessle, thats scalable to dozens or scores of passangers, and one that doesn't need a piggy-back.
Once we have commercial semi-orbital flight, it won't be much of a leap to orbital commerce.
I wouldn't count on the government to do it though, my money is on commercial interests.
I don't think we're going to be landing on anything with an atmopsphere anytime in the forseable future.
Landing on the moon might be good practice for landing on Mars though.
As far as solid places with atmospheres about the only candidated in our Solar System are Venus and Europa. Both of which are particularly nasty.
Ok I read the wiki article, and it was interesting, although for me it raised more questions than it answered.
1. When is the reaction initiated? Sometime before the rocket is ready to leave? In that case what happens to the working fluid that is heated before we're ready to go?
2. It sounds to me like the working fluid doubles as coolant, so what happens when you run out? Will you be able to carry enough working fluid with you to last long enough for an inter-planetary journey?
3. What happens when you want to stop or slow down? You can't just turn off the reaction, and you also can't cut the coolant.
4. What if there's an accident? Is it possible to adequately shield a Nuclear Thermal Rocket to allow for uncontrolled re-entry? Since the minimum amount of Pu-238 necessary to power a reactor is ~10kg the rocket would have to be designed to maintain integrety even if there were a disaster. How much weight would adequate shielding and reinforcing add? Would it still be capable of achieving the required thrust? The Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators used to power the voyager craft and other satellites seem much simpler to me, and hence simpler to shield and reinforce.
Now I'm not one to run scared at the mention of anything nuclear, but I also don't sneeze at the potential problems radiation can cause. The biggest problem I see is that I can't imagine that it would be possible to carry enough working fuel to constantly cool the reactor and provide thrust as a by-product for the long time scales necessary in inter-planetary travel.
How much of the moon can be fashoned into something useful?
;))
It's not a lump of refined metal that self assembles into struts and bulkheads...
How easy is it to get fuel from the moon? I think that would be the most valubal lunar comodity. Once you're on the moon is a moon rock really worth anything? (of course if we could build a giant lunar trebuchet for launching space craft then we might be on to something
I was under the impression that the reason we don't currently have nuclear outfitted space technology (not counting decay powered satelites i.e voyager) was that if the Challenger/Columbia thing happens again it sprays the planet with refined nuclear material.
Aside from that how exactly would you use a technology that doesn't rely on combustion to produce the needed thrust to enter orbit.
Not saying that it couldn't be done but it seems like it would still be easier to burn something to get into orbit. Once you're clear of the atmosphere you either need to expel a gas (combustion rocket for speed or pressurised gas for fine orientation) or you rely on impact (solar sails). If you had a nuclear powered vehicle you would have plenty of power but I can't think of any way to direct it. Unless you could derive thrust from a neutron stream?
If anyone knows of a way to get thrust from fission I'd love to hear it.
No, Its just south of Hawaii right? Although sometimes its closer to Cuba...
I think those map makers need to get their act together because I don't think that It keeps moving around...
Wouldn't it be destroyed Libraries of Alexandria?
Yeah I know porn when I see it, and so do you, but try to define it in any meaningful way.
There's a famous quote to that end somewhere.
The problem is that there is a lot of grey area in art and theatre especially that might contain nudity, even suggestive nudity but has cultural or artistic value. Its really, really hard to catch that stuff in words. It also might be impossible to reach any kind of consensus.
An example that just came to mind is that there is currently a touring group that puts on a show called "Puppetry of the Penis." If your not familiar its basically a couple of Australian guys playing with their Johnsons for however long the show runs.
I'm not even sure if I consider that porn or theatre... How is a group to decide?
I think that we need to develop some common lingo here so that these mistakes won't continue to be made.
G overnment Conservative" adequately describe the one camp.
I submit that I am impartial because I am neither a member of the "rabid right" nor the "non-rabid right," nor the libertarians.
I think that the phrases "Traditional Conservative," "Rich Conservative," Filthy Rich Conservative," and "Get-Your-Stinking-Hands-Off-Me-You-Damned-Dirty-
Since the term has already been coined my I suggest "religious right", "fanatic religious right", "nut-job religious right," "White Trash Conservative," or "Zealot" to represent those who are republican, advocate increased government control, and have at some time in their lives donated money to Pat Robertson.
Flame on (this post brought to you in jest)
P.S.
And Libertarian speaks for itself...