you get better at fixing them. That's really why we're out there after all. We're gaining experience that can only be gained the real way.
I have heard the ISS being criticized as having outlived it's usefulness, but I disagree primarily for the reason you stated. Sure the science experiments are nice, but the real experiment is the station itself, maintaining that thing is the best current path towards ever setting foot on Mars or getting significant numbers of humans in space. That said I have to wonder if the ISS could be bumped into a lower maintenance orbit and used as a hub for a bolo style rotating space station. I think we need to work on taking steps towards autonomous space stations and vehicles. Rather than a trip to the moon, I would be far more excited to hear about an ISS greenhouse that does all of the air and water maintenance (keeping the machines for backup) and supplies a large portion of the food. Not as flashy but more a useful learning experience IMHO.
Its amazing how paranoid the government is becoming
"Paranoid" would imply that they actually believe that these background checks have anything to do with real security. It's all for show. It works under the simple logic of: JPL is both high profile and mysterious to the average Joe. It is good if people see "measures are being taken." This will not inconvenience the voters as much as something like stopping the purchase of Saudi oil. Which would undercut the funding of much terrorist activity. It allows for the further militarization/control of Space. If you make rocket science a high-security job, it will shut down the budding private sector space travel industry.
Your statement would be more accurate if it read: "It's amazing how gullible,fearful and stupid the American people have become."
Do we wait until they have nuclear tipped rockets that can reach the US?
Under your logic, Iran should launch any nukes it has, right now. Because, we are most definitely gearing up to bomb Tehran into rubble.
Do we do nothing until NY glows in the dark?
Short answer, Yes. We shouldn't attack another country until they have at least tried to attack us first. To reframe the whole idea: imagine going into your neighbor's house and shooting him dead, because your neighbor owned a shot gun and was a jerk. I'm sure the judge would see how that was self defense on your part.
plenty of reasons to stockpile an exorbitant amount of the staple items (save for later, take more than they would ever use and sell it, etc).
Those reasons largely go away when it's widely available and free. Yes there would be an initial bit of stockpiling until people got used to the idea. Why would you take more than one 20-lbs bag of rice if you know that you can go get another free one anytime you like? I never see people filling up 5 gallon buckets from water fountains because at least for the moment water is non-scarce.
Rather than stealing I think this is a very interesting glimpse into a post-scarcity economy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_scarcity The most interesting thing about this is that while 60% of the people paid nothing, the band still made more than they would have under the old method. Perhaps we could do this with the food we currently pay farmers not to grow, give away staples like rice and flour for "pay what you want".
I'm gonna disagree with you on the cellphone not also being a great candidate for an ultra-cap. As I understand it you wouldn't need a transformer between the wall outlet and your ultra-capacitor when you are charging. No more cellphone charger. Your phone could have two prongs that fold out of the back and plug straight into the wall for 20 secs for a recharge. How often do you go 24 hours without seeing a wall outlet? The only time I can personally think of is when I'm camping, and my phone is turned off then anyhow.
Hmmm, that's an expensive myth for professional cabinet makers, carpenters and other trades that use cordless screwguns on a daily basis. I personally go through an pair of 18v batteries every 6 months, even with tricks like blowing a fan across the charging battery to air cool it. Of course on a busy day I will run each battery through two charge cycles.
she's now guilty of whatever charge Indiana has on its books for escaping from prison...
This case brings into question the whole purpose of prison. The criminal escape charges should be dropped if the idea behind prison is actually to reform the prisoner. It sounds like this lady lead a mainstream productive life, which should be the point of prison. Now if the real purpose of prison is a juvenile sense of revenge or to support the prison industrial complex, then by all means let's throw her back in and her new husband too, after all he was harboring a fugitive.
People used to think the Alps and England's Lake District were wild and ugly and unpleasant, and now they're major tourist attractions,
One of the funny things about natural tourist attractions is that they still have to have an infrastructure. Ya know, some place for the tourists to sleep and eat and a gift shop and places for all of the employees to live. How exactly do you propose to get an infrastructure built on the moon without a real industry to pay for it. No, space tourism isn't ever going to be a big enough industry to foot that kind of bill, energy is already that big of an industry. If you want your grand children to be able to go camping at the edge of the Sea of Tranquility, you had best hope that there is an economically viable, non-military, reason for humans to make regular trips to the moon.
the current situation is preciseley because the government does not fear the people.
As popular and rousing a line of thought as that is, I would like to point out that the reason our government is becoming ever more controlling is because they are afraid. If your freedom is maintained by fear, then you will be free alone. If you wish to live in a free society then a common bond of trust among the members of that society are essential. I cannot trust you and fear you at the same time.
I do not think we are in such disagreement as to the eventual violent restructuring of our failing democracy, I think that the individuals who have broken the trust given to them by the people are traitors. I believe traitors are usually executed. Where we disagree is in the foundations of what would come next. Every country that has violent revolution as it's primary form of regime change is doomed to be a military dictatorship. This could have easily been the case here in America if George Washington hadn't purposefully stepped down from the Presidency. He didn't step down because he was afraid of the populace, he stepped down because he had faith in the ideas and institutions that had been put forth in the Constitution.
It's a fantastic lie and pretty much always has been. Democracy, as practiced in the real world, isn't a way to give power to the people. It's a way to give token power to the people,
Don't forget it essential companion lie: "The pen is mightier than the sword." Writing angry op-ed letters and having unarmed protests are wonderful ways for people to express their outrage without actually having any real effect.
a saying regarding governance "By the people, for the people"
Unfortunately, that was a statement written by well educated wealthy landowners, for well educated landowners. Originally only white men who owned land could vote.
The reason we see such an erosion of our freedoms is that Freedom and Trust go hand in hand. Some of that trust is to be responsible (gun safety), and some of that trust is to respect life and civil society (not a terrorist). That trust is gone, not only between the government and the people, but between neighbors. We wouldn't need all of this "think of the children" shit, if neighbors actually knew and trusted each other. We wouldn't have the highest prison population in the world if the government trusted the people.
If enough people voted for candidate A, and B won.. people would then search and see the popular vote was indeed for A. If the margin was high enough, all hell would break loose
I seem to recall almost that exact scenario happening in November 2000. But Al Gore isn't stupid, so he didn't make a big stink, he made a concession speach. Why? Because all-hell-breaking-loose is going to result in a reorganization of this country's power structure, and anyone with enough clout to get their name on the ballot has a vested interest in maintaining that power structure. Most everyone else in the country who: owns a house and has kids in public school and likes spending weekends in the mall or watching sports; also has a vested interest in maintaining the incumbent power structure. A government can be as corrupt and self-serving as it wants as long as the people are comfortable. That is why you will never see gas any electricity rationing to meet Kyoto protocols, because the people would be roused out of their comfort zone. That is why educational standards are allowed steadily slip, because uninformed people are easier to placate. That is why terrorism scares the hell out of the government, not for the actual lives or property destroyed, but because it makes everyone less comfortable and complacent.
knowingly supporting a company involved in corruption
You say that as if there is any other kind of corporation. Seriously, if you were to opt out of the services of every corporation that has politicians in it's pocket you would be so alienated from society as to be unable to affect any change with-in society. To put it in concrete terms, how are you going to have a house without a bank account? How are you going to have a job without any telephone number? How are you going to vote when you are an unemployed homeless person?
Corruption is one of the prices we pay for having such a large society. Even if all corporations and government entities had wonderful transparency there would be an unfeasible amount of oversight needed to prevent corruption. Here is an excerpt from an article that explains "Why big things fail":
there are upper limits to the size of animals on earth, and it's hard not to notice that the very biggest animals--mammoths, elephants whales, rhinoceri--are extinct or likely endangered. And obviously, very large organisms are at all times vastly more rare than very small ones.
A 2000 academic paper from a Swiss zoologist summarizes the reasons that this should be so: with increasing size come "viability costs...due to predation, parasitism, or starvation because of reduced agility, increased detectability, higher energy requirements, heat stress, and/or intrinsic costs of reproduction." For precisely these reasons, a state with trillion-dollar budgets and massive military might is in a precarious condition, and a good candidate for extinction. http://reason.com/news/show/121237.html
So preventing corruption in our international mega-corps and our global military and our world police government is about as likely as finding a Humpback Whale with no barnacles. It's never going to happen because we are too big to find and reach all of the parasites.
Our best chance at lowering corruption and improving the average citizen's voice in government would be to break up our behemoth government by transferring most of the budget and power to the individual States. But with that transition we would be sacrificing our superpower status and the Federal level players wil never willingly let that happen.
I read an article some time ago by a doctor discussing the fully sponsored "educational conferences" that drug companies have at tropical resorts. He had for a long time refused to even attend one of these free vacations, on ethical grounds. Eventually one of his colleagues convinced him to go on one. There were two or three, one hour information sessions that did in fact give the doctor a thorough understanding of this new wonder drug. The rest of the week he enjoyed the tropics with his wife. When he returned he was sendt a large number of samples of the drug. Even though he was fully aware of how he had been influenced and was ideologically against the bribery aspects of the junket, he found himself handing out samples and writing prescriptions for the new drug, because he had samples to give and knowledge about the drug. The doctor readily admits that he never would have written those prescriptions if he had not gone on the junket. Sorry but I cannot find the link to the original article.
But to illustrate how bad the advert/bribery has gotten in medicine:
>The drug companies spend about a third of their revenues on marketing ("selling and administration"). About $8,000 to $12,000 yearly is spent on marketing toward each individual doc per year total. There is one drug rep for every 4.7 office-based physicians. Residents are obviously more prone to influence: "residents in a psychiatry program in Toronto Attended up to 70 lunches that had been sponsored by drug companies and received 75 promotional items over the course of one year," notes David Blumenthal, MD, MPP in a special policy report in the New England Journal of Medicine. (351;18, 1887, 10/28/04).
Mod parent up. Particularly the Stanford link is very interesting and pertinent to this discussion. Being able to have an automated anthropomorphic assistant that isn't annoying is going to become more and more important as a branch of interface design.
While the fact that they still in Earth's gravity well is pertinent to the "up and down in space" discussion, is it correct to say that they are in almost 1G? This is an honest question as my understanding of Physics is all self taught. As I understand things, there is no observable difference between being in Zero G and perpetually falling, at least from the perspective of the astronauts.
I'm sure striking down laws allowing rich people to automatically win the election is for the good of the nation,
Actually the laws have the inverse effect. Instead of a potentially good leader being backed by (and owe favors to...) one or two super rich people, we have been left with poor leaders who are excellent fund raisers and who owe favors to many many people.
One of the most appealing things about politicians like Bloomberg or Perot is their freedom to do the job without oweing any special favors. The same or better could be said about a candidate that was sponsored solely by a Bill Gates or Warren Buffet. Everyone would know that the was a connection between the two and special favors would be glaring obvious and embarrassing.
The way campaign funding works now, I have almost no idea who the candidates really owe. Sure I could track down the long lists of info if I so desired, but it's a very long list for each and every candidate. I also have very how to direct my daily purchasing in regards to political spending, ie. If I buy a pint of Ben and Jerry's is the profit fro that going to go into a Democratic election coffer? What about Snapple, I heard somewhere that they donate Republican. Regardless the politicians owe more favors because the must collect from more sources.
The rich people still give lots of money, and still have disproportionate political influence, but now it is filtered through a dozen different "Friends of..." and "Citizens for..." groups. If campaign reforms worked at all the way they were intended, why have the candidates become ever less trustworthy and inspiring?
Most people these days don't understand the difference between Pedophilia and Ephebophila. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia One is unnatural (doesn't make sense biologically), the other is simply culturally unacceptable. Back in the days when the average life expectancy was 40 years old, it made a lot of sense to marry a 14 year old. These days it makes more sense to have young teens continue their education and social development, consequentially our cultural perceptions of what is acceptable have changed.
It's their right to do whatever they want with their game.
But is it still their game after it has been purchased?
I find it interesting that this isn't taken up as a discrimination issue. Essentially they are saying "You can't have that game because of the country you live in". How is that different than saying "You can't have that game because your skin is the wrong color" or "You can't have that game because you don't project the image we want our product to have"
then we deserve what we get -- which is the end of our superpower status.
Looking at the greatest threat to our super power status right now, I would have to say that a severe reduction on fossil fuel reliance would benefit us greatly in the global superpower sense. If we have an renaissance of green tech in America two important things will happen: 1. We will have a new major tech export, reestablishing the strength of the dollar. 2. When oil loses it's supremacy then Middle Eastern countries will be economically and politically powerless until they transform into more globally harmonious cultures.
Slashdot Mirror
you get better at fixing them. That's really why we're out there after all. We're gaining experience that can only be gained the real way.
I have heard the ISS being criticized as having outlived it's usefulness, but I disagree primarily for the reason you stated. Sure the science experiments are nice, but the real experiment is the station itself, maintaining that thing is the best current path towards ever setting foot on Mars or getting significant numbers of humans in space. That said I have to wonder if the ISS could be bumped into a lower maintenance orbit and used as a hub for a bolo style rotating space station. I think we need to work on taking steps towards autonomous space stations and vehicles. Rather than a trip to the moon, I would be far more excited to hear about an ISS greenhouse that does all of the air and water maintenance (keeping the machines for backup) and supplies a large portion of the food. Not as flashy but more a useful learning experience IMHO.
Its amazing how paranoid the government is becoming
"Paranoid" would imply that they actually believe that these background checks have anything to do with real security. It's all for show. It works under the simple logic of:
JPL is both high profile and mysterious to the average Joe.
It is good if people see "measures are being taken."
This will not inconvenience the voters as much as something like stopping the purchase of Saudi oil. Which would undercut the funding of much terrorist activity.
It allows for the further militarization/control of Space. If you make rocket science a high-security job, it will shut down the budding private sector space travel industry.
Your statement would be more accurate if it read: "It's amazing how gullible,fearful and stupid the American people have become."
Do we wait until they have nuclear tipped rockets that can reach the US?
Under your logic, Iran should launch any nukes it has, right now. Because, we are most definitely gearing up to bomb Tehran into rubble.
Do we do nothing until NY glows in the dark?
Short answer, Yes. We shouldn't attack another country until they have at least tried to attack us first. To reframe the whole idea: imagine going into your neighbor's house and shooting him dead, because your neighbor owned a shot gun and was a jerk. I'm sure the judge would see how that was self defense on your part.
Impeaching Bush without getting rid of Dick Cheney first would lead to President Cheney. Even typing that revolted me.
plenty of reasons to stockpile an exorbitant amount of the staple items (save for later, take more than they would ever use and sell it, etc).
Those reasons largely go away when it's widely available and free. Yes there would be an initial bit of stockpiling until people got used to the idea. Why would you take more than one 20-lbs bag of rice if you know that you can go get another free one anytime you like? I never see people filling up 5 gallon buckets from water fountains because at least for the moment water is non-scarce.
Rather than stealing I think this is a very interesting glimpse into a post-scarcity economy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_scarcity
The most interesting thing about this is that while 60% of the people paid nothing, the band still made more than they would have under the old method. Perhaps we could do this with the food we currently pay farmers not to grow, give away staples like rice and flour for "pay what you want".
wireless phones (not cells)
I'm gonna disagree with you on the cellphone not also being a great candidate for an ultra-cap. As I understand it you wouldn't need a transformer between the wall outlet and your ultra-capacitor when you are charging. No more cellphone charger. Your phone could have two prongs that fold out of the back and plug straight into the wall for 20 secs for a recharge. How often do you go 24 hours without seeing a wall outlet? The only time I can personally think of is when I'm camping, and my phone is turned off then anyhow.
Hmmm, that's an expensive myth for professional cabinet makers, carpenters and other trades that use cordless screwguns on a daily basis. I personally go through an pair of 18v batteries every 6 months, even with tricks like blowing a fan across the charging battery to air cool it. Of course on a busy day I will run each battery through two charge cycles.
she's now guilty of whatever charge Indiana has on its books for escaping from prison...
This case brings into question the whole purpose of prison. The criminal escape charges should be dropped if the idea behind prison is actually to reform the prisoner. It sounds like this lady lead a mainstream productive life, which should be the point of prison. Now if the real purpose of prison is a juvenile sense of revenge or to support the prison industrial complex, then by all means let's throw her back in and her new husband too, after all he was harboring a fugitive.
People used to think the Alps and England's Lake District were wild and ugly and unpleasant, and now they're major tourist attractions,
One of the funny things about natural tourist attractions is that they still have to have an infrastructure. Ya know, some place for the tourists to sleep and eat and a gift shop and places for all of the employees to live. How exactly do you propose to get an infrastructure built on the moon without a real industry to pay for it. No, space tourism isn't ever going to be a big enough industry to foot that kind of bill, energy is already that big of an industry. If you want your grand children to be able to go camping at the edge of the Sea of Tranquility, you had best hope that there is an economically viable, non-military, reason for humans to make regular trips to the moon.
the current situation is preciseley because the government does not fear the people.
As popular and rousing a line of thought as that is, I would like to point out that the reason our government is becoming ever more controlling is because they are afraid. If your freedom is maintained by fear, then you will be free alone. If you wish to live in a free society then a common bond of trust among the members of that society are essential. I cannot trust you and fear you at the same time.
I do not think we are in such disagreement as to the eventual violent restructuring of our failing democracy, I think that the individuals who have broken the trust given to them by the people are traitors. I believe traitors are usually executed. Where we disagree is in the foundations of what would come next. Every country that has violent revolution as it's primary form of regime change is doomed to be a military dictatorship. This could have easily been the case here in America if George Washington hadn't purposefully stepped down from the Presidency. He didn't step down because he was afraid of the populace, he stepped down because he had faith in the ideas and institutions that had been put forth in the Constitution.
It's a fantastic lie and pretty much always has been. Democracy, as practiced in the real world, isn't a way to give power to the people. It's a way to give token power to the people,
Don't forget it essential companion lie: "The pen is mightier than the sword." Writing angry op-ed letters and having unarmed protests are wonderful ways for people to express their outrage without actually having any real effect.
a saying regarding governance "By the people, for the people"
Unfortunately, that was a statement written by well educated wealthy landowners, for well educated landowners. Originally only white men who owned land could vote.
The reason we see such an erosion of our freedoms is that Freedom and Trust go hand in hand. Some of that trust is to be responsible (gun safety), and some of that trust is to respect life and civil society (not a terrorist). That trust is gone, not only between the government and the people, but between neighbors. We wouldn't need all of this "think of the children" shit, if neighbors actually knew and trusted each other. We wouldn't have the highest prison population in the world if the government trusted the people.
If enough people voted for candidate A, and B won.. people would then search and see the popular vote was indeed for A. If the margin was high enough, all hell would break loose
I seem to recall almost that exact scenario happening in November 2000. But Al Gore isn't stupid, so he didn't make a big stink, he made a concession speach. Why? Because all-hell-breaking-loose is going to result in a reorganization of this country's power structure, and anyone with enough clout to get their name on the ballot has a vested interest in maintaining that power structure. Most everyone else in the country who: owns a house and has kids in public school and likes spending weekends in the mall or watching sports; also has a vested interest in maintaining the incumbent power structure. A government can be as corrupt and self-serving as it wants as long as the people are comfortable. That is why you will never see gas any electricity rationing to meet Kyoto protocols, because the people would be roused out of their comfort zone. That is why educational standards are allowed steadily slip, because uninformed people are easier to placate. That is why terrorism scares the hell out of the government, not for the actual lives or property destroyed, but because it makes everyone less comfortable and complacent.
You say that as if there is any other kind of corporation. Seriously, if you were to opt out of the services of every corporation that has politicians in it's pocket you would be so alienated from society as to be unable to affect any change with-in society. To put it in concrete terms, how are you going to have a house without a bank account? How are you going to have a job without any telephone number? How are you going to vote when you are an unemployed homeless person?
Corruption is one of the prices we pay for having such a large society. Even if all corporations and government entities had wonderful transparency there would be an unfeasible amount of oversight needed to prevent corruption. Here is an excerpt from an article that explains "Why big things fail":
So preventing corruption in our international mega-corps and our global military and our world police government is about as likely as finding a Humpback Whale with no barnacles. It's never going to happen because we are too big to find and reach all of the parasites.
Our best chance at lowering corruption and improving the average citizen's voice in government would be to break up our behemoth government by transferring most of the budget and power to the individual States. But with that transition we would be sacrificing our superpower status and the Federal level players wil never willingly let that happen.
But to illustrate how bad the advert/bribery has gotten in medicine: http://doctormental.blogspot.com/2004/11/doctors-and-drug-companies.html
Now imagine how fast progress would be with more military porn.
Porn and War are the two major competing drivers of all progress. It kinda brings new light to the phrase "Make Love not War."
Mod parent up. Particularly the Stanford link is very interesting and pertinent to this discussion. Being able to have an automated anthropomorphic assistant that isn't annoying is going to become more and more important as a branch of interface design.
While the fact that they still in Earth's gravity well is pertinent to the "up and down in space" discussion, is it correct to say that they are in almost 1G? This is an honest question as my understanding of Physics is all self taught. As I understand things, there is no observable difference between being in Zero G and perpetually falling, at least from the perspective of the astronauts.
I'm sure striking down laws allowing rich people to automatically win the election is for the good of the nation,
..." groups. If campaign reforms worked at all the way they were intended, why have the candidates become ever less trustworthy and inspiring?
Actually the laws have the inverse effect. Instead of a potentially good leader being backed by (and owe favors to...) one or two super rich people, we have been left with poor leaders who are excellent fund raisers and who owe favors to many many people.
One of the most appealing things about politicians like Bloomberg or Perot is their freedom to do the job without oweing any special favors. The same or better could be said about a candidate that was sponsored solely by a Bill Gates or Warren Buffet. Everyone would know that the was a connection between the two and special favors would be glaring obvious and embarrassing.
The way campaign funding works now, I have almost no idea who the candidates really owe. Sure I could track down the long lists of info if I so desired, but it's a very long list for each and every candidate. I also have very how to direct my daily purchasing in regards to political spending, ie. If I buy a pint of Ben and Jerry's is the profit fro that going to go into a Democratic election coffer? What about Snapple, I heard somewhere that they donate Republican. Regardless the politicians owe more favors because the must collect from more sources.
The rich people still give lots of money, and still have disproportionate political influence, but now it is filtered through a dozen different "Friends of..." and "Citizens for
Most people these days don't understand the difference between Pedophilia and Ephebophila. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia One is unnatural (doesn't make sense biologically), the other is simply culturally unacceptable. Back in the days when the average life expectancy was 40 years old, it made a lot of sense to marry a 14 year old. These days it makes more sense to have young teens continue their education and social development, consequentially our cultural perceptions of what is acceptable have changed.
It's their right to do whatever they want with their game.
But is it still their game after it has been purchased?
I find it interesting that this isn't taken up as a discrimination issue. Essentially they are saying "You can't have that game because of the country you live in". How is that different than saying "You can't have that game because your skin is the wrong color" or "You can't have that game because you don't project the image we want our product to have"
then we deserve what we get -- which is the end of our superpower status.
Looking at the greatest threat to our super power status right now, I would have to say that a severe reduction on fossil fuel reliance would benefit us greatly in the global superpower sense. If we have an renaissance of green tech in America two important things will happen: 1. We will have a new major tech export, reestablishing the strength of the dollar. 2. When oil loses it's supremacy then Middle Eastern countries will be economically and politically powerless until they transform into more globally harmonious cultures.
What, you think those solar cells and batteries are made cleanly?
The best way around the pollution caused by chemical batteries is to stop useing them for stationary power supplies. Flywheels are so far advanced as a form of energy storage as to make using batteries for home power look almost laughable. Here's a nice comparison between the two technologies: http://www.activepower.com/solutions/cleansource-systems/flywheel-technology/flywheel-vs-battery.html
It's a shame that the gyroscopic effects make them unsuitable for transportation power.