6 months of hard vacuum can be managed in LEO also. You can even test 1/3rd gravity by using a tether system. 6 months on Earth's South Pole is about the same as 6 months on the Moon's South Pole when you are looking at going to Mars. True, but in that case why go to an asteroid either? You could just go straight to Mars. To me that is too much of a risk to do directly though, which is why I'd like to see more incremental development.
If the stated goal is *Mars* exploration, then sidetracked very expensive development should be discouraged. If the goal is the Moon, go there. If it is Mars, develop in that direction. They do not overlap that much in terms of technology and all the other technological development "advantages" that people point out all lose when you compare them to other alternatives. "6 months hard vacuum".. LEO. Lower gravity.. well, in LEO, you can even simulate the exact weight you need. 6 months transit time.. shoot an asteroid mission has to be developed to that exact spec as opposed to a lunar model of a week duration. Mars is not my real goal for our space program, and I suspect that's the crux of our disagreements. I want to work towards a time when we are in space to stay. That's not too likely in the near term, but that's what I want to see us work toward. The Mars proposals of today sound much like Apollo: Develop the tech, go visit the shortest time possible, and then give up because of the cost.
If I had to choose only one, I would pick a permanent moon base over a visit to Mars. I believe that a permanent base will keep enough interest in space and tech development that the other trips will happen eventually. If we go straight to Mars, even if it succeeds like Apollo, how do we know we won't give up for another 40 years as we did with the Moon?
German law on this matter sounds like a pretty good compromise. If we applied this in the US though, the business would need sufficient records to pass a tax audit, which for an appointment-based service would generally include enough information to recontact customers (so one can prove that they indeed exist). A tax audit can go back up to 7 years, thus a small single-proprietor business would have to keep records that long (It may be different for large companies, I'm not sure). That puts a big dent in privacy when compared to ideal EU model. I assume the tax law is quite different in Germany, but does it handle a similar problem?
Sure, it's easy to say, with 20/20 hindsight, would could be better or different, but unless he's privy to all the design trade-offs which were invariably made, then I'd say the product is probably as good as it could have been, given the various pressures. Besides, it's always easier to critique someone else's work than create something novel yourself. So, we should never review anything unless it hasn't been released yet? I think feedback is good; Especially since you can incorporate the best of it in the next iteration.
Chinese saying -- step too far, fall on face. A little more familiar is the phrase "perfect is the enemy of good". Attempting to release a 1.0 product that has everything absolutely perfect and without compromise is the surest way to never ship. "Perfect is the enemy of good" applies to a particular release. It doesn't mean you should stop trying to improve once something is already "good enough".
But what about if the phone company sells your phone number (no other information attached) along with a record of all the numbers you called and all the numbers that called you? Now your phone number is no longer just a means of communication. I would say that we need laws that differentiate between storing and selling?
I don't care if Joe the barber keeps a record of all the appointments I've ever made with him, and the phone number I used to make each appointment. What I do care about is that he does not give away or sell this information, and that he uses due diligence to protect the information from being stolen.
Anything else is getting far too close to a world like 1984, where keeping a diary can become illegal.
I like how originally you keep hammering the fact that the moon has no atmosphere in your first post, yet now you ignore the GP's important point of how the moon is good for testing 6 months of hard vacuum. The south pole of earth is hardly the same environment, and we've already stayed there for extended periods. The next logical step is LEO, which we've also done (Mir,ISS). After that, it would make sense (to me) to do that on a nearby body, rather than a much longer and riskier asteroid or Mars mission.
Please remember that riskier mission endanger not only the astronaut's lives (who are usually willing to take the risk), but it also risks public support and congressional funding. We should take manageable steps.
I don't think you could seriously argue that the second amendment covers cannons, mortars, bombs, and landmines. Please don't jump to conclusions that I never stated. I never claimed that people should be able to own landmines or bombs; The GP stated that the 2nd ammendment was from the "age of muzzle loaders" (personal weapons), and then compared that to nuclear warheads (state of the art military weapons). My point was that the founding fathers were aware of a lot more weaponry than he is representing, and thus were more informed than he was representing.
It's fine to argue the policy points of what people should and shouldn't be able to access. However one shouldn't make gross exaggerations and blatant omissions when gathering "evidence".
P.S. In many states you can (with a licence) own and operate civil-war-era or earlier cannons, as well as mortars. Having never heard of any crime being committed with either, that strikes me as just fine.
And it needs to be emphasized that you can't give robots feelings; you can only make them PRETEND to have feelings. As Turing and many philosophers might say, what is the difference?
Will robots ever love? Yes, as far as YOU know. ...and the same goes for any human we'll ever interact with. All we can ever "know" is what we experience; You'll never be able to tell the difference between real, a good forgery, or a working computer simulation. I enjoy living in this world of human emotion too, but its worth pointing out that our current understanding of emotion is that it is neurochemical states in a lower part of the brain, which we've inherited almost unchanged from reptiles. All the sudden a computer simulation doesn't seem all that less real, does it?
Ah, so really there are two kinds of things: those which are dualities and those which are not? Finally, someone who understands both sides of the sphere.
While I can see your point, I don't think it's a good idea to buy something from an online store that you don't trust. Pay the extra ~3% and go to a store that people have heard of.
What can I say, it's late, my brain is shutting down and slashdot won't let me edit my posts. So, what you're saying is that your renewable intelligence cannot provide the base-load thought required to post at night?
Just wait until tomorrow, use some hydro to wake yourself up in the morning, and post when the sun is shining. Either that or spend 6 months at alternating polar regions.
- Hope this helps.
Their next steps should be to create some new secure TCP/IP protocols to replace the outdated HTTP, SMTP, FTP, and so on, while signing in at the OS level. They could call it "Microsoft Fista".
Then again, maybe "Faceter" would be a better name, or a more-web-2.0 "MS Fistr".
... comparisons would be nicer. This new MRAM can process 1.1 million operations in the time it takes an egg to fall the width of a human hair. In fact, it's so fast, it can output 91 words in the time it takes light to travel the length of a football field.
When was the last time you saw a 1.8GHz cell phone with a 16cm antenna? Clearly whatever devices end up using the spectrum will use quarter wave or helical antennas.
Another common argument is that the news sites would die without input from search engines, but again I can't believe this is really true. When I reach lunchtime at work, I do not visit Google to find the BBC News web site, I just type in news.bbc.co.uk. (Actually, I visit the bookmark, but the first time that's what I typed.) Google, or any other news aggregator, is wholly unnecessary to my finding the main news site. Even without that, I could easily have guessed that the BBC News web site could be reached at www.bbc.co.uk/news or news.bbc.co.uk, either of which would have got me there immediately. If what you said above is true, then the news sites could simply deny access to spiders with their robots.txt; It wouldn't affect their business too much, and they could prevent those pesky aggregator sites from nicking their content. Of course the news sites have not done this, which leads me to believe that they gain more in traffic than they lose through aggregators. Otherwise their current actions would not make economic sense. Providing additional revenue for the news providers while at the same time offering features for users is not what I would call "useless". Of course, news sites would like new standards that let them have their cake and eat it too, but the actions of the news providers in the current system seems to be at odds with the world view that you are describing.
They want you on their site, but they want the power to summarise and manage their search engine face to maximise foot traffic whilst not giving the whole story away. When other content sites do that, its called cloaking, and it is (rightly) frowned upon by search engines. If you give news sites the power to summarize, who enforces that the summary has anything to do with the story? Also, if the story can be "given away" in the three sentences in a google summary, maybe the news sites should write better stories.
In print, when I reference another writer's work, I get to choose the quote. This new online restriction is essentially giving select writers the power to control how they are quoted. This would not be tolerated in print, and it should not be tolerated online. The funny thing is, news sites make a living by misquoting people in interviews and presentations, by making highly selective edits to paint a particular spin they want for a story. In my old line of work, I was interviewed a few times a year, and while many press people were decent, far too many were looking for the most controversial sound bites rather than a summary of my actual views; I would have to speak in a very guarded manner to make sure every single sentence would still sound ok when taken out of context. So, if the press wants the power to control the summarization and references to its own works, it ought to give the same control to those providing it with content. Of course, the press would never give up that power, and would claim that it would ruin their industry. In that case, why should we let them do the same thing to search engines?
So, how about we just stick with people deciding on their own quotes and summaries of others' work? It may not be perfect, but it doesn't give any one party too much control compared to others. Its been working adequately for the internet for 10 years, and for hundreds of years in print.
P.S. L.C., We probably don't disagree on these issues, but your post is what inspired me to write. Mostly its aimed at the news sites trying to push this new form of control.
The campus O was going downhill anyway. A small fries in 1996 was about 3x bigger than the ones they ended up with in 200x when they left. A large fries used to fill up a whole tray and feed four people at a movie.
Slashdot Mirror
If I had to choose only one, I would pick a permanent moon base over a visit to Mars. I believe that a permanent base will keep enough interest in space and tech development that the other trips will happen eventually. If we go straight to Mars, even if it succeeds like Apollo, how do we know we won't give up for another 40 years as we did with the Moon?
German law on this matter sounds like a pretty good compromise. If we applied this in the US though, the business would need sufficient records to pass a tax audit, which for an appointment-based service would generally include enough information to recontact customers (so one can prove that they indeed exist). A tax audit can go back up to 7 years, thus a small single-proprietor business would have to keep records that long (It may be different for large companies, I'm not sure). That puts a big dent in privacy when compared to ideal EU model. I assume the tax law is quite different in Germany, but does it handle a similar problem?
I don't care if Joe the barber keeps a record of all the appointments I've ever made with him, and the phone number I used to make each appointment. What I do care about is that he does not give away or sell this information, and that he uses due diligence to protect the information from being stolen.
Anything else is getting far too close to a world like 1984, where keeping a diary can become illegal.
I like how originally you keep hammering the fact that the moon has no atmosphere in your first post, yet now you ignore the GP's important point of how the moon is good for testing 6 months of hard vacuum. The south pole of earth is hardly the same environment, and we've already stayed there for extended periods. The next logical step is LEO, which we've also done (Mir,ISS). After that, it would make sense (to me) to do that on a nearby body, rather than a much longer and riskier asteroid or Mars mission.
Please remember that riskier mission endanger not only the astronaut's lives (who are usually willing to take the risk), but it also risks public support and congressional funding. We should take manageable steps.
It's fine to argue the policy points of what people should and shouldn't be able to access. However one shouldn't make gross exaggerations and blatant omissions when gathering "evidence".
P.S. In many states you can (with a licence) own and operate civil-war-era or earlier cannons, as well as mortars. Having never heard of any crime being committed with either, that strikes me as just fine.
[1] [2] [3] [4]
While I can see your point, I don't think it's a good idea to buy something from an online store that you don't trust. Pay the extra ~3% and go to a store that people have heard of.
What's a middle click then? Middle click is quite important in X.
[Citation needed]
Because Superman is dead?
Ok, how about we fund it by using the left-over fractions of a penny from bank transactions?
Just wait until tomorrow, use some hydro to wake yourself up in the morning, and post when the sun is shining. Either that or spend 6 months at alternating polar regions.
- Hope this helps.
Then again, maybe "Faceter" would be a better name, or a more-web-2.0 "MS Fistr".
(don't forget to top post over a full quote) Me too.
-kihjin
... comparisons would be nicer. This new MRAM can process 1.1 million operations in the time it takes an egg to fall the width of a human hair. In fact, it's so fast, it can output 91 words in the time it takes light to travel the length of a football field.Hope this helps...
When was the last time you saw a 1.8GHz cell phone with a 16cm antenna? Clearly whatever devices end up using the spectrum will use quarter wave or helical antennas.
In print, when I reference another writer's work, I get to choose the quote. This new online restriction is essentially giving select writers the power to control how they are quoted. This would not be tolerated in print, and it should not be tolerated online. The funny thing is, news sites make a living by misquoting people in interviews and presentations, by making highly selective edits to paint a particular spin they want for a story. In my old line of work, I was interviewed a few times a year, and while many press people were decent, far too many were looking for the most controversial sound bites rather than a summary of my actual views; I would have to speak in a very guarded manner to make sure every single sentence would still sound ok when taken out of context. So, if the press wants the power to control the summarization and references to its own works, it ought to give the same control to those providing it with content. Of course, the press would never give up that power, and would claim that it would ruin their industry. In that case, why should we let them do the same thing to search engines?
So, how about we just stick with people deciding on their own quotes and summaries of others' work? It may not be perfect, but it doesn't give any one party too much control compared to others. Its been working adequately for the internet for 10 years, and for hundreds of years in print.
P.S. L.C., We probably don't disagree on these issues, but your post is what inspired me to write. Mostly its aimed at the news sites trying to push this new form of control.
The campus O was going downhill anyway. A small fries in 1996 was about 3x bigger than the ones they ended up with in 200x when they left. A large fries used to fill up a whole tray and feed four people at a movie.