We stopped going because we couldn't afford it any more. No one else has gone because they have better uses for their money!
The race to the moon cost so much mioney that it would hev been utterly impossible to pull off at aniy other time in US history. Only the mind-boggling economic excesses of the 1950's and 1960's gave us enough money to toss down that bottomless money pit.
We didn't go to the moon for research purposes. We went for purely political reasons: to beat those (in the lexicon of the day) "Godless bastards in Moscow" to the moon! The science was needed to get the job done.
There is no point in putting a reaserch station on the moon. The cost of maintaining a manned presence on the moon is (pardon the pun) astronimical. Ever breath of air, every drop of water, every bite of food must be sent there at tremedous cost.
The only useful scientific endeavor to put ion the moon would be telscopes on the far side, insulated from the light and radation of the Earth and it's noisy inhabitants.
As much as I like the idea of manned space exploration, and as much as I'd love to go to the moon, I just don't see it being in any way econimically feasable any time soon.
Isn't there a better use for your time than writing code for Linux?
Who the hell cares? If he wants to write a book disproving the hoax believers claims that's his business. If HE thinks it's a good use of HIS time then it is.
Some of those issues are why I moved to Opera. Opera doesn't have a perfect interface, but it doesn't have Mozilla's "Horse designed by committee" interface, either.
So, I should but my network monitoring software on a virtual desktop? What the hell good is that? I need to know when my nodea are down ASAP, regardless of whatever else I'm doing. And I only run dual. The hardcore network guys I work with have six monitors, and want more. They've always got things going on that NEED to be seen the moment there is a problem.
And let's not even talk about the benefits you get when doing web developement having your editor on one screen and your browser on the other.
I find multi-monitor setups to be fantastically useful, and virtual desktop setups to be painfully useless.
They don't want to face the fact that sales are down due to the fact that the music the put out is overpriced and is, for the miost part, crap.
I buy all my music, whether I buy CDs or download from emusic.com, and the last ten CDs I bought were all over ten years old and were all on sale for no more than $12.00 (US). And I know a lot of other consumers just like me: Disafected and out priced.
The issue isn't science. We could get to the moon in less than five years. If we had the money. We know how to build teh rockets to get there. What we lack is the cold, hard, cash.
We were willing to spend those billions and billions of dollars in the 1960's because we were in a race with the Soviets. A race that set the Soviet Union on a one-way trip to bankruptcy. After we won the race we simply couldn't afford to keep up the pace.
We didn't go for science. We didn't go for commerce. We didn't go for any reason other than to beat the Soviets. Once we did, there was no reason to go back.
We will get back to the moon, if we don't let George W. start WWIII. But we won't go back until it can be done at a cost worth paying.
Have you seen the computer that run the Space Shuttle? It's a pretty dinky piece of work. Most of us would laugh a computer like thout off of our desks and throw it in the trash. It is pathetically weak. But it's all that's needed to do the job and it's extremely resistant to radiation and external EM interference.
The Apollo computers were powerful enough to do the job. Going to the moon is not like driving down the highway. The number of dicisions needed are miniscule in comparison. And remember that this was only a guidance computer. It didn't actually DO anything but tell the crew of the Apollo where the hell they SHOULD be. You don't need a whole hell of a lot of power to do that. Hell, a man with a sextant and a stopwatch could do it.
Do you doubt the building of the Golden Gate bridge or the Empire State building because they had NO computers at the times those building were supposedly built? How about the Great Wall of China?
I don't doubt that we went to the moon. And I don't doubt that Apollo 11 was the real deal. For one thing I watched it on TV as it happened. For another, the politacl fallout from the Soviets finding out it was a fake would have ruined the USA in the politial arena. It was too damned important to fake. Succeed or fail, we had no choice but to play it honest.
No, we can't. There is not telescope in the world that can "zoom in" close enough to see anythung that we have left behind on the moon. Even the mighty Hubble can only see things no smaller than 90 metres across on the moon.
And it wouldn't matter if we could. The doubters wouls simply claim that the images in the telescopes were fakes, or that unmanned rockets dropped all that junk on the moon.
The moon landings gave us much more than material gain.
It literally changed the way a large part of the people here saw the Earth. Imagine, if you can, the feelings of the people here at home the first time they saw the video of the earth from the moon: a warm, beautiful, but FINITE blue ball in the blackness of space. Our home, seen not from within, but seen from outside for the first time.
Imagine, if you can, the feelings of the people all over the world as Niel Armstrong stepped onto the moon for the first time: knowing that a human being had actually trod upon another world for the very first time.
Those of use alive at the time will never forget it.
It's a shame that the IE VS Netscape war has made it almost impossible for most companies to make a living selling good browsers (or even email clients). I have no problem paying a reasonable amount of money for a quality product.
You don't want to pay for it? Fine. Use the advert version. Or don't use it at all.
Equal amounts should have been created, not were created. Our current undrstanding says that there should have been an equal amount of matter and antimatter created, yet, the evidence says that is not true as there is a hell of a lot of matter and very little antimatter.
That observation is causing quite a bit of consternation in the world of physics. There are some interesting theories about this, but no one is really sure just yet.
I personally believe that at some level of income, the tax rate for individuals should become 100%. No one person should have a billion dollars...
If I legally make a billion dollars, why should I be forced to give it all to the governement? Why can't I keep the money I made?
I have nothing against paying my fair share of taxes, but punishing (which is what you are advocating) people because they make obscene amounts of money is 100% grade-AAA horseshit.
Nintendo has only loved the pocketbooks of their users, nothing more.
And his makes them different from who? Every corporation (save a few oddball nonprofits) is in the business of making money. That's the whole point. Corporations will also defend their position in the marketplace and do their best to weed out the weaker competitors. That has always been the case.
Superman fights to enforce the laws. He is a flying supercop.
Batman fights for justice. He doles out punishement to thise who deserve it and lets minor fuckups go with little more than a slap on the wrist.
While they are nominally on the same side, they're not fighting the same fight and have very different goals. Batman also does not trust any being with as much raw power as Superman.
Think about it. Who's Supe's girlfriend? Nice law-abiding Lois Lane. Bat's girlfriend? The notorious jewel thief Cat Woman.
And I just took my old pastachio-green commode to teh dump last week. Not that you'd want a 20-year old toilet with all the hard water stains that go with it.
Slashdot Mirror
We stopped going because we couldn't afford it any more. No one else has gone because they have better uses for their money!
The race to the moon cost so much mioney that it would hev been utterly impossible to pull off at aniy other time in US history. Only the mind-boggling economic excesses of the 1950's and 1960's gave us enough money to toss down that bottomless money pit.
We didn't go to the moon for research purposes. We went for purely political reasons: to beat those (in the lexicon of the day) "Godless bastards in Moscow" to the moon! The science was needed to get the job done.
There is no point in putting a reaserch station on the moon. The cost of maintaining a manned presence on the moon is (pardon the pun) astronimical. Ever breath of air, every drop of water, every bite of food must be sent there at tremedous cost.
The only useful scientific endeavor to put ion the moon would be telscopes on the far side, insulated from the light and radation of the Earth and it's noisy inhabitants.
As much as I like the idea of manned space exploration, and as much as I'd love to go to the moon, I just don't see it being in any way econimically feasable any time soon.
Isn't there a better use for your time than writing code for Linux?
Who the hell cares? If he wants to write a book disproving the hoax believers claims that's his business. If HE thinks it's a good use of HIS time then it is.
Some of those issues are why I moved to Opera. Opera doesn't have a perfect interface, but it doesn't have Mozilla's "Horse designed by committee" interface, either.
Do you know who Avon is? They are a very large cosmetics company. I very much doubt that they would be selling bootleg items of any kind.
So, I should but my network monitoring software on a virtual desktop? What the hell good is that? I need to know when my nodea are down ASAP, regardless of whatever else I'm doing. And I only run dual. The hardcore network guys I work with have six monitors, and want more. They've always got things going on that NEED to be seen the moment there is a problem.
And let's not even talk about the benefits you get when doing web developement having your editor on one screen and your browser on the other.
I find multi-monitor setups to be fantastically useful, and virtual desktop setups to be painfully useless.
I hear flowers and or chocolates will reduce the number of macings a geek will suffer in his lifetime.
You could also ask before you go rooting around the garden.
I want the Shania Twain chanel. Muted, of course.
She makes me all anxious. Like Bugs Bunny in drag.
They don't want to face the fact that sales are down due to the fact that the music the put out is overpriced and is, for the miost part, crap.
I buy all my music, whether I buy CDs or download from emusic.com, and the last ten CDs I bought were all over ten years old and were all on sale for no more than $12.00 (US). And I know a lot of other consumers just like me: Disafected and out priced.
And Satan is laughing his festering ass off.
There is a pastel shade of blue that photocopiers do not reproduce.
You forget that the Soviets parked quite a few satalites in lunar orbit. They would have known. Of this I have no doubt.
The issue isn't science. We could get to the moon in less than five years. If we had the money. We know how to build teh rockets to get there. What we lack is the cold, hard, cash.
We were willing to spend those billions and billions of dollars in the 1960's because we were in a race with the Soviets. A race that set the Soviet Union on a one-way trip to bankruptcy. After we won the race we simply couldn't afford to keep up the pace.
We didn't go for science. We didn't go for commerce. We didn't go for any reason other than to beat the Soviets. Once we did, there was no reason to go back.
We will get back to the moon, if we don't let George W. start WWIII. But we won't go back until it can be done at a cost worth paying.
Have you seen the computer that run the Space Shuttle? It's a pretty dinky piece of work. Most of us would laugh a computer like thout off of our desks and throw it in the trash. It is pathetically weak. But it's all that's needed to do the job and it's extremely resistant to radiation and external EM interference.
The Apollo computers were powerful enough to do the job. Going to the moon is not like driving down the highway. The number of dicisions needed are miniscule in comparison. And remember that this was only a guidance computer. It didn't actually DO anything but tell the crew of the Apollo where the hell they SHOULD be. You don't need a whole hell of a lot of power to do that. Hell, a man with a sextant and a stopwatch could do it.
Do you doubt the building of the Golden Gate bridge or the Empire State building because they had NO computers at the times those building were supposedly built? How about the Great Wall of China?
I don't doubt that we went to the moon. And I don't doubt that Apollo 11 was the real deal. For one thing I watched it on TV as it happened. For another, the politacl fallout from the Soviets finding out it was a fake would have ruined the USA in the politial arena. It was too damned important to fake. Succeed or fail, we had no choice but to play it honest.
No, we can't. There is not telescope in the world that can "zoom in" close enough to see anythung that we have left behind on the moon. Even the mighty Hubble can only see things no smaller than 90 metres across on the moon.
And it wouldn't matter if we could. The doubters wouls simply claim that the images in the telescopes were fakes, or that unmanned rockets dropped all that junk on the moon.
The moon landings gave us much more than material gain.
It literally changed the way a large part of the people here saw the Earth. Imagine, if you can, the feelings of the people here at home the first time they saw the video of the earth from the moon: a warm, beautiful, but FINITE blue ball in the blackness of space. Our home, seen not from within, but seen from outside for the first time.
Imagine, if you can, the feelings of the people all over the world as Niel Armstrong stepped onto the moon for the first time: knowing that a human being had actually trod upon another world for the very first time.
Those of use alive at the time will never forget it.
And for what? They would simply claim that the images were faked, even if the Hubble could see the landers (which it can't).
Probably too old for most of you, but anyone else catch the Vulcan hand in the end of "Logan's Run"?
It's a shame that the IE VS Netscape war has made it almost impossible for most companies to make a living selling good browsers (or even email clients). I have no problem paying a reasonable amount of money for a quality product.
You don't want to pay for it? Fine. Use the advert version. Or don't use it at all.
Chevy: Emily.
Emily: Yes, Cheddar?
Chevy: Irish settlers. Irish settlers brought Halloween to the US in the 1800's.
Emily: Oh, that's different. Nevermind.
(With apologies to Gilda.)
That observation is causing quite a bit of consternation in the world of physics. There are some interesting theories about this, but no one is really sure just yet.
If I legally make a billion dollars, why should I be forced to give it all to the governement? Why can't I keep the money I made?
I have nothing against paying my fair share of taxes, but punishing (which is what you are advocating) people because they make obscene amounts of money is 100% grade-AAA horseshit.
And his makes them different from who? Every corporation (save a few oddball nonprofits) is in the business of making money. That's the whole point. Corporations will also defend their position in the marketplace and do their best to weed out the weaker competitors. That has always been the case.
But they are not fighting the same fight.
Superman fights to enforce the laws. He is a flying supercop.
Batman fights for justice. He doles out punishement to thise who deserve it and lets minor fuckups go with little more than a slap on the wrist.
While they are nominally on the same side, they're not fighting the same fight and have very different goals. Batman also does not trust any being with as much raw power as Superman.
Think about it. Who's Supe's girlfriend? Nice law-abiding Lois Lane. Bat's girlfriend? The notorious jewel thief Cat Woman.
And I just took my old pastachio-green commode to teh dump last week. Not that you'd want a 20-year old toilet with all the hard water stains that go with it.