I think that for the US to have beaten the Soviets in placing a man in space, you would have to go further back in time than simply the Ham and Able launches. The Soviets were well ahead of the US primarily due to one man: Korolev. It was his development of the R-7 rocket that accomplished everything. But in April 1957, there was a mishap - an R-7 prototype exploded. Had that (and I do stress here, HAD THAT) been as devastating an explosion as that of the N1 explosion of 1969 and killed Korolev then it is possible that Khrushchev would have lost interest in the ballistic missile program and scrapped it. That would have given the US - which was far more concerned with nuclear capable bombers - time to catch up and potentially surpass the advancements of the Soviets. Eventually, I think, Van Braun would have been given a chance to pull off a stunt like Korolev did and put a satellite into orbit. That being the case, it would have been the Soviets playing catch-up, not the US. It's entirely likely then that the US would have beaten the Soviets to the punch and placed a man into space first.
But that's a lot of "ifs," and it is not how history actually turned out. This is just "navel-gazing" and I'm honestly surprised that something like this would turn up on Yahoo News (not that it's the greatest source of news in the world, but still). I think it's time we started looking forward, not backward - at least in terms of space exploration.
So, Paramount runs out and gets themselves a "hot, young, edgy" director in order to take a more than well worn franchise in "new directions". But at the same time the film is a prequel featuring two of the most "historically" well known characters in said fictional universe.
What's the point?
We all know how it's going to end, assuming they choose to hold continuity and not just rewrite everything to suit their own tastes. But of course they will rewrite everything - I highly doubt that the demographic that Paramount is after wants to see it's virile young heroes dressed in velour shirts. No new fans will be generated by this exercise and all the old ones will become even more alienated. Star Trek is currently something we all look back on with fond memories and I for one would like to keep it that way. Let's put a merciful stake through the heart of this and move along, there's nothing to see here.
I teach, and often times the subjects that I teach are technical or obscure topics that can be difficult for the layperson to grasp, especially if they have no background in the subject being taught. The solution to this, that works for me, is to develop a number of solid analogies between things most people understand and the subject at hand. For example, how computers work can be compared to preparing food in a kitchen (thanks to my IT friends for developing this one for me!). Specifically:
In a computer you have things that are similar to things in kitchen, like...
- Recipes show how to take ingredients, prepare them, and cook them for a desired result. Similarly programs are a list of instructions the tell a computer how to process data for a desired result
- Cabinets or pantries, these store items that you cook with just like a hard drive stores files that the computer uses.
- Counter space used to prepare items for cooking or eating, this is similar to RAM in a computer where programs and files are temporarily held before and after being processed ("cooked").
- A stove of range top is where the food is cooked, this is similar to a CPU where the information from the files is actually processed
- Serving dishes are where to food is displayed and eaten, this is similar to an output devices (monitor, printer, etc.) where the processed files are displayed for the user.
You can expand on this analogy by showing how having a bigger stove (faster CPU) or larger countertop (more RAM) or more accessible cabinets (hardrives with wider pipes) will impact the speed and ease with which you can prepare a given recipes (speed of executing a program).
I know this is overly simplified and can be improved on, but analogies like this one will go a long way towards teaching people what you want them to know. And that "a-ha" moment of the light bulb going on as someone understands what you are talking about (or writing about) is really worth it.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do they use the term "warfighter" and not the term "soldier?"
I think that for the US to have beaten the Soviets in placing a man in space, you would have to go further back in time than simply the Ham and Able launches. The Soviets were well ahead of the US primarily due to one man: Korolev. It was his development of the R-7 rocket that accomplished everything. But in April 1957, there was a mishap - an R-7 prototype exploded. Had that (and I do stress here, HAD THAT) been as devastating an explosion as that of the N1 explosion of 1969 and killed Korolev then it is possible that Khrushchev would have lost interest in the ballistic missile program and scrapped it. That would have given the US - which was far more concerned with nuclear capable bombers - time to catch up and potentially surpass the advancements of the Soviets. Eventually, I think, Van Braun would have been given a chance to pull off a stunt like Korolev did and put a satellite into orbit. That being the case, it would have been the Soviets playing catch-up, not the US. It's entirely likely then that the US would have beaten the Soviets to the punch and placed a man into space first. But that's a lot of "ifs," and it is not how history actually turned out. This is just "navel-gazing" and I'm honestly surprised that something like this would turn up on Yahoo News (not that it's the greatest source of news in the world, but still). I think it's time we started looking forward, not backward - at least in terms of space exploration.
So, Paramount runs out and gets themselves a "hot, young, edgy" director in order to take a more than well worn franchise in "new directions". But at the same time the film is a prequel featuring two of the most "historically" well known characters in said fictional universe. What's the point? We all know how it's going to end, assuming they choose to hold continuity and not just rewrite everything to suit their own tastes. But of course they will rewrite everything - I highly doubt that the demographic that Paramount is after wants to see it's virile young heroes dressed in velour shirts. No new fans will be generated by this exercise and all the old ones will become even more alienated. Star Trek is currently something we all look back on with fond memories and I for one would like to keep it that way. Let's put a merciful stake through the heart of this and move along, there's nothing to see here.
I teach, and often times the subjects that I teach are technical or obscure topics that can be difficult for the layperson to grasp, especially if they have no background in the subject being taught. The solution to this, that works for me, is to develop a number of solid analogies between things most people understand and the subject at hand. For example, how computers work can be compared to preparing food in a kitchen (thanks to my IT friends for developing this one for me!). Specifically:
In a computer you have things that are similar to things in kitchen, like...
- Recipes show how to take ingredients, prepare them, and cook them for a desired result. Similarly programs are a list of instructions the tell a computer how to process data for a desired result
- Cabinets or pantries, these store items that you cook with just like a hard drive stores files that the computer uses.
- Counter space used to prepare items for cooking or eating, this is similar to RAM in a computer where programs and files are temporarily held before and after being processed ("cooked").
- A stove of range top is where the food is cooked, this is similar to a CPU where the information from the files is actually processed
- Serving dishes are where to food is displayed and eaten, this is similar to an output devices (monitor, printer, etc.) where the processed files are displayed for the user.
You can expand on this analogy by showing how having a bigger stove (faster CPU) or larger countertop (more RAM) or more accessible cabinets (hardrives with wider pipes) will impact the speed and ease with which you can prepare a given recipes (speed of executing a program).
I know this is overly simplified and can be improved on, but analogies like this one will go a long way towards teaching people what you want them to know. And that "a-ha" moment of the light bulb going on as someone understands what you are talking about (or writing about) is really worth it.
I hope that helps.