I've been trying to find an alternative to gmail for just the reasons you've specified. Do you have any suggestions? I've thought about using my ISP but I don't know if I trust them much further than Google...
But then you're still vulnerable to things like asteroids and serious global pandemics. Yes, let's mine robotically where we can, but we still need to get off this rock and establish some off-site backups of the human race. You do back your files up, right? Well, same principle. I know we can't do it overnight, but it'll only happen by us trying to do it.
I would disagree. A lot of technology has come from the space programme and it's very smart to have a "plan B" and be able to go off to another planet if we fuck this one up good and proper or we end up with an asteroid that will wipe us off the planet.
I would disagree. Going off-planet shouldn't be plan B, it should be plan A. We don't want an alternative in case we fuck earth up; we want to expand and go other places so that we don't fuck earth up. Unfortunately, too many people assume that fucking earth up is a necessary condition for moving off-planet, and then either (a) want to wait until we have to go, or (b) oppose space travel because they don't want to fuck earth up.
The way I see it, there are two ways to interpret a law or constitution--according to the letter and the spirit of the law. In some cases, merely the letter is sufficient to fully grasp the meaning--see the third amendment, for example--and with others, you need to consider intent as well. Nobody is arguing that this process doesn't happen, or shouldn't be applied to new circumstances.
The problem comes when these laws are "interpreted" to mean something inconsistent--or indeed, entirely in opposition to--the letter and spirit. If you can write out or change the meaning of a law simply by saying "I don't like it, so I'm going to say it means something entirely different", there's a problem. If you want to completely change or eliminate part of the constitution, you make an amendment or hold a constitutional convention... you don't just say "I'm just gonna ignore that".
The general consensus that seemed to be reached in Heller, and which seems to be best supported in the historical evidence, falls somewhere in between.
The general intent is that weapons of the type typically carried by individual soldiers at the time in question are protected. This would the average rifle, shotgun, and handgun, but wouldn't cover heavy machine guns, rocket launchers, tanks, artillery, etc. It also covers advances in technology within the protected class (moving from smoothbore muzzleloaders to lever-action repeaters to gas-operated autoloaders, for example), but stays within the categories of "things the average soldier carries and uses on his own" and "things we could reasonably expect people to muster with on their own".
It's pretty fucking sad when South Carolina has a more up-to-date position on it than my own state (Georgia). Good ol' Sonny flat out refuses to lift the statewide ban on bottled alcohol sales (by the drink is ok).
Of course, some of that is the liquor store owners; many of them don't want it because it entails additional costs for them that places like grocery stores don't have to deal with since they're already staffed those days.
First, confusion of net neutrality (a good thing) with the "fairness doctrine" (eh, not so much). Whether the talking head himself is confused, or is just confusing his listeners, is up for debate.
Second, NIH syndrome. The perception is that it's an idea proposed by the democrats, so it must automatically be opposed, regardless of the content.
Remember, people like Rush, Beck, Michael Moore, Hannity, etc. are rabble-rousers. Their job is to say outrageous things to get people stirred up, which makes them listen to the show and (key point here) brings in money (whether through ticket sales or advertising dollars). They're just like Howard Stern, but talking politics rather than sex.
Half the reason the shuttle actually got built was because the USAF put a lot of funding into it. There were several intended uses for it, like launching/maintaining spy satellites, supplying manned military space stations, and short-notice recon flights (back when it was assumed the flight rate would be much higher than it turned out to be). There were even a proposed mission where the shuttle would lift off, rendezvous with a target satellite, capture it, and bring it down on one orbit. A launch pad was even constructed at Vandenberg AFB in southern California for the shuttle that would allow it to fly polar orbits; the first such flight was scheduled for 1986, but it (and all shuttle operations from that site) were canceled after the Challenger accident.
This military involvement was a huge factor in the eventual design of the shuttle. The extra-large payload bay and large delta wings were specified by the USAF in order to loft military payloads and be able to land back at the launch site after one orbit, respectively. It wound up much larger, more expensive, complicated, and fragile because of these requirements. Some have speculated that, had the specifications remained as NASA originally set them, the shuttle would have actually been able to live up to its intended goal of frequent flights and short turnarounds.
The DoD flew several classified shuttle flights in the late 80s and early 90s. I don't remember if any of them have been leaked or declassified, but there's a good bit of speculation about them if you look around a bit. I think most were suspected to be spy satellite launches.
Yet at times, I do think that some of the shamans, some of the time, actually were trying to keep most of their flock's creative urges aimed at constructive endeavors instead of destructive and wasteful ones.
In a similar vein, that's probably true of a lot of the "traditional' religious morals, especially with regard to intimate relations. When you have a relatively short expected lifespan, high infant mortality, a technology level that requires the majority of manual labor to be ivested in agruculture just to sustain the existing population, and neighbors in the smae boat who are fighting the same population and resource pressures (thereby draining large parts of the population from war casualties), you wind up needing lots of people. Any behavior that doesn't further that goal of making more people is rejected because it hurts society as a whole.
Today, with huge advances in agriculture, medicine, technology, and diplomacy, we no longer need to pump out as many people as possible to sustain (or even grow) our society. It doesn't matter if some people don't produce children; others are willingly taking up the slack. Behaviors previously rejected are now acceptable because they are not harming society.
I've mentioned it before, but I feel it needs to be brought up again.
First, the US had an operational ABM capability in the 1970s. The Soviets did as well, though they never decomissioned theirs--the Russinas still operate that system, and it is believed that some of their current-genration SAMs have a secondary ABM capability as well.
The idea of the current missile defense program is not to stop an all-out attack from Russia or other major nuclear powers. There are simply too many missiles, bombers, and warheads to do that. What you use the system for instead is the "rogue" launches, the accidental ones, the handful of missiles (or the single one) coming down.
See, if NORAD detects a missile launch, the President only has about 20 minutes (or less) to decide what he's going to do about it. He doesn't know if it's the first missile of a massive strike, or just an accident. All he does know is that the public will demand his ass on a platter if he doesn't do something about it, and instead just lets it hit. Now, multiply that by N (where N is the number of nuclear powers), and realize that all of them are thinking the same thing. And you run a very high risk of starting a chain-reaction launch of everything.
Missile defense gives you another option. You can shoot down that single missile (or handful of them) before they hit, then pick up the big red telephone and have a good "WTF, mate?!?!" moment.
Many people make it out to be such a super-hard problem to intercept incoming warhead. It's not impossible, it's just a matter of engineering.
I wouldn't exactly call the N-1 "ready to go". Its first flight (Feb. 1969) exploded 69 seconds after liftoff; its second flight (the one in July) blew up 23 seconds after liftoff. Even if it had flown successfully in July, it wouldn't have had anyone on it--not even the Soviets were daft enough to put a crew on a rocket that had only flown once before.* And they certainly wouldn't have been doing anything more than an earth-orbit checkout. It would have taken really good luck on the Soviets' part, plus another Apollo 1-level disaster to NASA, to give the Soviets even a slim chance of putting someone on the moon first. And that's being generous. The N-1 never did work right; something about having 30 engines in the first stage just left too many things to go wrong. All four flights ended in explosions.
*Of course, the US did exactly that 12 years later. Actually, they had a crew on the very first space shuttle launch--no step-by-step or unmanned testing with that one.
I have never seen, been inside, or driven an unmodified car that shuts off the headlights when the key is removed or shut off.
2003 Ford Focus. The headlights won't come on unless the ignition is in "on", and shut off when you turn it to any other position. Note this is distinct from whether the engine is running or not.
Incidentally, the ignition also needs to be in that position to open/close the windows and run other aux functions. I find that annoying.
Yes, several kills were made over the Balkans in the 90s, and over Iraq after Desert Storm (during enforcement of the "no-fly zone"). And then there's the Iranian drone.
Your point is valid. So many people say "well, we haven't used it in a while/at all, why do we need it?" while forgetting that the same could have been said about our current aircraft. The current generation of US fighters (particularly the ones the F-22 was intended to replace) served for many years before seeing combat in US service:
F-14: entered service in 1974, first shots in anger 1981 (jumped by Libyan fighters), retired 2006 F-15: entered service in 1976, first combat in US service 1991 (Desert Storm) F-16: entered service in 1980, first combat in US service 1991 (Desert Storm) F-18: entered service in 1983, first combat in US service 1986 (El Dorado Canyon)
Notes: The F-15 and F-16 saw combat earlier in foreign service (Israel and Pakistan both use the F-16, and Israel has the F-15 as well). Incidentally, the B-1 entered service in 1986, but did not see combat until 1998.
You theoretically do that in the US, too, when you fill out the W4 (which sets amounts for withholding). The problem comes at the end of the year when you sum everything up; because the effective tax rate (not the tax bracket, but the effective rate of all the brackets your income spans) is continually variable, you inevitably have to make adjustments for any overtime, bonuses, reduced checks, unemployment/change in employment, etc. It would really be much simpler with a flat tax on all income, or something like that.
Honestly, I want everyone filling in their own information, and (to the greatest extent possible) doing it themselves. I want people seeing exactly how much of their money is being taken in taxes every year. I'd really like to eliminate withholding and make everyone pay their taxes themselves (either once a year or quarterly) and hold elections on April 16, right after the tax returns are due, so that figure would be fresh on their minds when voting. I'd bet people would be a lot less tolerant of frivolous and/or wasteful spending if we did that.
I grew up in a town (in the southeast US, no less!) that had dedicated bike and golf cart paths functioning as a virtual second road network. There were hills, too, and in high school I'd ride 20 miles/day as an afternoon workout. I loved it. Don't really miss the stuck-up newly-rich attitude of many of the yankee transplants, drug-dealing rich kids with BMWs, or the petty local politics, but the paths were awesome.
I don't know for sure, but I think I remember reading before that one of the conditions of purchase is that you will display the orbiter in a climate-controlled facility open to the public. Don't like it? Then you can't buy it.
The thing is, it's not just military spacecraft that would be targeted. Assuming the ASAT rounds have the range, you'd see things like com satellites (even civilian ones--think Iridium), GPS satellites, maybe even weather observation satellites. In a full-blown war where it's drastic enough to start downing birds, you're going to hit anything that could possibly help your enemies and give you a better chance to survive.
Reminds me of the "redemption scenario" mission in X-Wing; had to run that one almost fifty times before beating it. Between that and some other games, I no longer have any patience for the "keep repeating it until you get it right" ones. Not worth wasting my time on.
It's pretty obvious from the GP's post that he is referring to the concept of, for lack of a better term, "space junk". Or in this particular example, coins whizzing about in low orbit at a liesurely 17,000 mph. Even small things like marble-sized debris can put a world of hurt on any contemporary spacecraft; stuff the size of a grain of sand could kill somebody in a spacesuit. Look up how many times NASA has had to move the shuttle due to the threat of space debris. Tracking all these little bits is a full-time job for a bunch of people.
None of this has anything to do with coins falling off a skyscraper. And I can't believe I just fed the troll.
Even in the real world, we sometimes see cases of people that just go nuts, and even spread that craziness to others. It's not unreasonable to assume that, given long periods of isolation and such, a few guys might go crazy on their own, and essentially become Reavers--but their craziness doesn't spread much and dies out because the "host" dies off too soon (kind of like how some diseases don't spread far because they kill their hosts too fast).
Then, let's say that Pax did indeed trigger the start of the Reavers in large numbers, numbers enough to sustain themselves through Stockholm syndrome (like the poor guy in the series) or simply making some victims go crazy like that just to survive. So in that case, the Pax starts them off, but isn't a necessary condition to continue the Reaver line, such as it is.
(note: I am not saying that it's a pathogen or something physical that infects, just that it spreads like one)
Get some Heinlein out there, too... do The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress or Starship Troopers. Or maybe a series off of Scalzi's Old Man's War universe.
Niven's Draco Tavern collection would be a great seed for a series, as would Clarke's White Hart stores.
Or even something original (gasp!), as long as the physics are mostly realistic and self-consistent, the acting is good, the effects decent, and any aliens not just dressed-up humans with bits of latex and body paint.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been trying to find an alternative to gmail for just the reasons you've specified. Do you have any suggestions? I've thought about using my ISP but I don't know if I trust them much further than Google...
But then you're still vulnerable to things like asteroids and serious global pandemics. Yes, let's mine robotically where we can, but we still need to get off this rock and establish some off-site backups of the human race. You do back your files up, right? Well, same principle. I know we can't do it overnight, but it'll only happen by us trying to do it.
I would disagree. A lot of technology has come from the space programme and it's very smart to have a "plan B" and be able to go off to another planet if we fuck this one up good and proper or we end up with an asteroid that will wipe us off the planet.
I would disagree. Going off-planet shouldn't be plan B, it should be plan A. We don't want an alternative in case we fuck earth up; we want to expand and go other places so that we don't fuck earth up. Unfortunately, too many people assume that fucking earth up is a necessary condition for moving off-planet, and then either (a) want to wait until we have to go, or (b) oppose space travel because they don't want to fuck earth up.
The way I see it, there are two ways to interpret a law or constitution--according to the letter and the spirit of the law. In some cases, merely the letter is sufficient to fully grasp the meaning--see the third amendment, for example--and with others, you need to consider intent as well. Nobody is arguing that this process doesn't happen, or shouldn't be applied to new circumstances.
The problem comes when these laws are "interpreted" to mean something inconsistent--or indeed, entirely in opposition to--the letter and spirit. If you can write out or change the meaning of a law simply by saying "I don't like it, so I'm going to say it means something entirely different", there's a problem. If you want to completely change or eliminate part of the constitution, you make an amendment or hold a constitutional convention... you don't just say "I'm just gonna ignore that".
The general consensus that seemed to be reached in Heller, and which seems to be best supported in the historical evidence, falls somewhere in between.
The general intent is that weapons of the type typically carried by individual soldiers at the time in question are protected. This would the average rifle, shotgun, and handgun, but wouldn't cover heavy machine guns, rocket launchers, tanks, artillery, etc. It also covers advances in technology within the protected class (moving from smoothbore muzzleloaders to lever-action repeaters to gas-operated autoloaders, for example), but stays within the categories of "things the average soldier carries and uses on his own" and "things we could reasonably expect people to muster with on their own".
It's pretty fucking sad when South Carolina has a more up-to-date position on it than my own state (Georgia). Good ol' Sonny flat out refuses to lift the statewide ban on bottled alcohol sales (by the drink is ok).
Of course, some of that is the liquor store owners; many of them don't want it because it entails additional costs for them that places like grocery stores don't have to deal with since they're already staffed those days.
I think it's two things:
First, confusion of net neutrality (a good thing) with the "fairness doctrine" (eh, not so much). Whether the talking head himself is confused, or is just confusing his listeners, is up for debate.
Second, NIH syndrome. The perception is that it's an idea proposed by the democrats, so it must automatically be opposed, regardless of the content.
Remember, people like Rush, Beck, Michael Moore, Hannity, etc. are rabble-rousers. Their job is to say outrageous things to get people stirred up, which makes them listen to the show and (key point here) brings in money (whether through ticket sales or advertising dollars). They're just like Howard Stern, but talking politics rather than sex.
Half the reason the shuttle actually got built was because the USAF put a lot of funding into it. There were several intended uses for it, like launching/maintaining spy satellites, supplying manned military space stations, and short-notice recon flights (back when it was assumed the flight rate would be much higher than it turned out to be). There were even a proposed mission where the shuttle would lift off, rendezvous with a target satellite, capture it, and bring it down on one orbit. A launch pad was even constructed at Vandenberg AFB in southern California for the shuttle that would allow it to fly polar orbits; the first such flight was scheduled for 1986, but it (and all shuttle operations from that site) were canceled after the Challenger accident.
This military involvement was a huge factor in the eventual design of the shuttle. The extra-large payload bay and large delta wings were specified by the USAF in order to loft military payloads and be able to land back at the launch site after one orbit, respectively. It wound up much larger, more expensive, complicated, and fragile because of these requirements. Some have speculated that, had the specifications remained as NASA originally set them, the shuttle would have actually been able to live up to its intended goal of frequent flights and short turnarounds.
The DoD flew several classified shuttle flights in the late 80s and early 90s. I don't remember if any of them have been leaked or declassified, but there's a good bit of speculation about them if you look around a bit. I think most were suspected to be spy satellite launches.
Yet at times, I do think that some of the shamans, some of the time, actually were trying to keep most of their flock's creative urges aimed at constructive endeavors instead of destructive and wasteful ones.
In a similar vein, that's probably true of a lot of the "traditional' religious morals, especially with regard to intimate relations. When you have a relatively short expected lifespan, high infant mortality, a technology level that requires the majority of manual labor to be ivested in agruculture just to sustain the existing population, and neighbors in the smae boat who are fighting the same population and resource pressures (thereby draining large parts of the population from war casualties), you wind up needing lots of people. Any behavior that doesn't further that goal of making more people is rejected because it hurts society as a whole.
Today, with huge advances in agriculture, medicine, technology, and diplomacy, we no longer need to pump out as many people as possible to sustain (or even grow) our society. It doesn't matter if some people don't produce children; others are willingly taking up the slack. Behaviors previously rejected are now acceptable because they are not harming society.
I really liked their "building airplanes in mid-air" commercial, but then, I'm an aerospace engineer and built an airplane in my garage.
Well that's easy... nobody aims. It's hard to hit a barn from the inside when you're shooting like that.
I've mentioned it before, but I feel it needs to be brought up again.
First, the US had an operational ABM capability in the 1970s. The Soviets did as well, though they never decomissioned theirs--the Russinas still operate that system, and it is believed that some of their current-genration SAMs have a secondary ABM capability as well.
The idea of the current missile defense program is not to stop an all-out attack from Russia or other major nuclear powers. There are simply too many missiles, bombers, and warheads to do that. What you use the system for instead is the "rogue" launches, the accidental ones, the handful of missiles (or the single one) coming down.
See, if NORAD detects a missile launch, the President only has about 20 minutes (or less) to decide what he's going to do about it. He doesn't know if it's the first missile of a massive strike, or just an accident. All he does know is that the public will demand his ass on a platter if he doesn't do something about it, and instead just lets it hit. Now, multiply that by N (where N is the number of nuclear powers), and realize that all of them are thinking the same thing. And you run a very high risk of starting a chain-reaction launch of everything.
Missile defense gives you another option. You can shoot down that single missile (or handful of them) before they hit, then pick up the big red telephone and have a good "WTF, mate?!?!" moment.
Many people make it out to be such a super-hard problem to intercept incoming warhead. It's not impossible, it's just a matter of engineering.
I wouldn't exactly call the N-1 "ready to go". Its first flight (Feb. 1969) exploded 69 seconds after liftoff; its second flight (the one in July) blew up 23 seconds after liftoff. Even if it had flown successfully in July, it wouldn't have had anyone on it--not even the Soviets were daft enough to put a crew on a rocket that had only flown once before.* And they certainly wouldn't have been doing anything more than an earth-orbit checkout. It would have taken really good luck on the Soviets' part, plus another Apollo 1-level disaster to NASA, to give the Soviets even a slim chance of putting someone on the moon first. And that's being generous. The N-1 never did work right; something about having 30 engines in the first stage just left too many things to go wrong. All four flights ended in explosions.
*Of course, the US did exactly that 12 years later. Actually, they had a crew on the very first space shuttle launch--no step-by-step or unmanned testing with that one.
I have never seen, been inside, or driven an unmodified car that shuts off the headlights when the key is removed or shut off.
2003 Ford Focus. The headlights won't come on unless the ignition is in "on", and shut off when you turn it to any other position. Note this is distinct from whether the engine is running or not.
Incidentally, the ignition also needs to be in that position to open/close the windows and run other aux functions. I find that annoying.
Yes, several kills were made over the Balkans in the 90s, and over Iraq after Desert Storm (during enforcement of the "no-fly zone"). And then there's the Iranian drone.
Your point is valid. So many people say "well, we haven't used it in a while/at all, why do we need it?" while forgetting that the same could have been said about our current aircraft. The current generation of US fighters (particularly the ones the F-22 was intended to replace) served for many years before seeing combat in US service:
F-14: entered service in 1974, first shots in anger 1981 (jumped by Libyan fighters), retired 2006
F-15: entered service in 1976, first combat in US service 1991 (Desert Storm)
F-16: entered service in 1980, first combat in US service 1991 (Desert Storm)
F-18: entered service in 1983, first combat in US service 1986 (El Dorado Canyon)
Notes:
The F-15 and F-16 saw combat earlier in foreign service (Israel and Pakistan both use the F-16, and Israel has the F-15 as well). Incidentally, the B-1 entered service in 1986, but did not see combat until 1998.
You theoretically do that in the US, too, when you fill out the W4 (which sets amounts for withholding). The problem comes at the end of the year when you sum everything up; because the effective tax rate (not the tax bracket, but the effective rate of all the brackets your income spans) is continually variable, you inevitably have to make adjustments for any overtime, bonuses, reduced checks, unemployment/change in employment, etc. It would really be much simpler with a flat tax on all income, or something like that.
Honestly, I want everyone filling in their own information, and (to the greatest extent possible) doing it themselves. I want people seeing exactly how much of their money is being taken in taxes every year. I'd really like to eliminate withholding and make everyone pay their taxes themselves (either once a year or quarterly) and hold elections on April 16, right after the tax returns are due, so that figure would be fresh on their minds when voting. I'd bet people would be a lot less tolerant of frivolous and/or wasteful spending if we did that.
I grew up in a town (in the southeast US, no less!) that had dedicated bike and golf cart paths functioning as a virtual second road network. There were hills, too, and in high school I'd ride 20 miles/day as an afternoon workout. I loved it. Don't really miss the stuck-up newly-rich attitude of many of the yankee transplants, drug-dealing rich kids with BMWs, or the petty local politics, but the paths were awesome.
I don't know for sure, but I think I remember reading before that one of the conditions of purchase is that you will display the orbiter in a climate-controlled facility open to the public. Don't like it? Then you can't buy it.
my Droid, and my previous phone (an LG VX8300).
I'm thinking of making that same upgrade myself. Do you think the added capability is worth it?
The thing is, it's not just military spacecraft that would be targeted. Assuming the ASAT rounds have the range, you'd see things like com satellites (even civilian ones--think Iridium), GPS satellites, maybe even weather observation satellites. In a full-blown war where it's drastic enough to start downing birds, you're going to hit anything that could possibly help your enemies and give you a better chance to survive.
Reminds me of the "redemption scenario" mission in X-Wing; had to run that one almost fifty times before beating it. Between that and some other games, I no longer have any patience for the "keep repeating it until you get it right" ones. Not worth wasting my time on.
Consider that the highest private rocket ever flown hasn't even reached orbit yet.
Wanna try that again?
Reading comprehension FAIL.
It's pretty obvious from the GP's post that he is referring to the concept of, for lack of a better term, "space junk". Or in this particular example, coins whizzing about in low orbit at a liesurely 17,000 mph. Even small things like marble-sized debris can put a world of hurt on any contemporary spacecraft; stuff the size of a grain of sand could kill somebody in a spacesuit. Look up how many times NASA has had to move the shuttle due to the threat of space debris. Tracking all these little bits is a full-time job for a bunch of people.
None of this has anything to do with coins falling off a skyscraper. And I can't believe I just fed the troll.
Well, what about this?
Even in the real world, we sometimes see cases of people that just go nuts, and even spread that craziness to others. It's not unreasonable to assume that, given long periods of isolation and such, a few guys might go crazy on their own, and essentially become Reavers--but their craziness doesn't spread much and dies out because the "host" dies off too soon (kind of like how some diseases don't spread far because they kill their hosts too fast).
Then, let's say that Pax did indeed trigger the start of the Reavers in large numbers, numbers enough to sustain themselves through Stockholm syndrome (like the poor guy in the series) or simply making some victims go crazy like that just to survive. So in that case, the Pax starts them off, but isn't a necessary condition to continue the Reaver line, such as it is.
(note: I am not saying that it's a pathogen or something physical that infects, just that it spreads like one)
Sound plausible?
Get some Heinlein out there, too... do The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress or Starship Troopers. Or maybe a series off of Scalzi's Old Man's War universe.
Niven's Draco Tavern collection would be a great seed for a series, as would Clarke's White Hart stores.
Or even something original (gasp!), as long as the physics are mostly realistic and self-consistent, the acting is good, the effects decent, and any aliens not just dressed-up humans with bits of latex and body paint.