Thanks for the informative response. I did have the negative reaction that you mentioned even though I did notice the scale did not start at 0.0 elevation.
Is it normal for all satellites to be boosted, or only larger things like ISS, Hubble, etc?
That's how probability works. You *cannot* guarantee an accident will not happen. You can only reduce the odds. You can only get close to 100% guarantee, but not actually achieve 100% guarantee. As you get closer to 100% the costs go up enormously. If you wanted to knock it down to 1:100,000 odds you will pay more than 10x the cost. And then.. it's still only a probability, and not a frequency. You interpretted it as a frequency of problems, and not a probability.
Even with this low probability, the ISS could get whacked once every day.. and the probably would still be 1:10000 with the procedure they are using today. Assuming they are modelling probability properly.
It's a floating garbage can, meant to make contractors money.
Boy.. aren't we the objective ones today. Did you believe in this conspiracy before the problems, or only after?
My take is that working on a massive internation project like this is very challenging. With all other joint international projects one nation owns the entire thing and accepts funding for new requirements from the others. ISS is completely different and it's teaching all nations a very good lesson. As a global society we need to learn how to do things like this. It's best for us all.
I was throwing a pot shot at Stallman for his communist-like feelings on software, corporations, and copyrights. Only because it seemed relevant to the topic.
I agree with you. I just thought it humorous to throw out that Mr. OSS (Stallman) wouldn't agree.
That's the very same mentality that got us Bush in office. Stop casting the anti-vote.. and start casting your real vote. Meaning.. stop voting against someone, but vote for the person you actually think will do the job. There is a difference.
Look at Kerry. How many people actually voted *for* Kerry? Very few since most people were voting against Bush. That's what all the bumper stickers say too. Who did the Democrats nominate? The person most likely to defeat Bush.. but not be voted for directly by the people.
You guys needs to stop finding more ways to hate Bush and start being a bit more logical. You are descreditting yourselves by not using any sane method of argument.
Being completely pathetic as a President is not illegal nor is it impeachable. There are a lot of people that completely suck at their jobs. That doesn't make it illegal. It just means they suck at their jobs. Breaking laws that exist today and being proven so in court is in fact a measure of the illegal act itself. Find a real law that the President has broken, find reasonable evidence of it, and start using that as your means to descredit President Bush.
To me the only thing I see that Bush could get in trouble over is any direct authorizations for torture methods that are not permitted by the Geneva Convention. Everything else people blame Bush for has been passed by Congress... including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
No.. there can't. But the point of wikipedia is that you're never done editting any topic.
The point of my post is that it isn't biased if you are not excluding facts you don't like to hear... and are not including conjecture. This is still true regardless of the challenge in collecting all relevant facts.
Like business enterprise software is even ready
on
Web 2.0 Goes To Work
·
· Score: 1
I like how this writer acts like the business world has successfully figured out enterprise architectures and SOA for such a long time, and now even regular home users that are nothing more than hackers are doing the very same thing.
Riiiggghhhtttt.... I'd like to see this writer's experience with enterprise architectures. The book for the business world is just at the beginning of being written. It's far from closed.
There are serious flaws in your argument that no POV exists that is not biased. If you are talking about "opinions" you are absolutely correct. If you are talking about "facts" you are absolutely incorrect. No real and unquestionable fact is biased. You can misrepresent the whole truth by acknowledging only a certain collection of facts while ignoring others. But if you acknowledge all facts and provide nothing else but those facts, you have a truly unbiased view of the situation. If for a moment you think "sure.. that's a fact.. but it isn't relevent to the message I want to send" well.. that would be biased.
You're just as guilty then. Cuz everyone is greedy in their own way.
Are you just as guilty? Or can you say that you are better at controlling your greed and politicians and the industries that own them are not as good as judging right from wrong, and controlling their greed for the better good?
Did you miss this? With stuff like the spying serial number, tpa, etc, they've had an attitude of buy what we tell you or get lost. Not to mention price manipulation.
Shame on a corporation for making a profit. AMD is so pure and virginal white, they'd never do something this dastardly.
The OP didn't say there was anything wrong in making profit. The OP said it's wrong to use methods that are deemed illegal in our laws, and are typicaly not wise in a competitive market. Obviously Intel thought they still owned us all like M$ does... but AMD caught them with their pants down. That's the point of the OP. Intel had it coming to them for their arrogance. And they got exactly what they asked for.
No where in those facts... is the OP indicating that making a profit is a bad thing.
It's Mosaic. The first web browser. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosaic_browser I remember seeing it the first week it and the handful of HTML web pages were released and thought "This is stupid... no one will ever want to use a Web Browser. What a waste of bandwidth and screen space!" Because I used BBB's, archie, gopher, and ftp. Just like you did.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the informative response. I did have the negative reaction that you mentioned even though I did notice the scale did not start at 0.0 elevation.
Is it normal for all satellites to be boosted, or only larger things like ISS, Hubble, etc?
Great link. that's scary stuff to see it like that.
Now why can't they give it a nudge up again? I'm not a space or orbit engineer, why don't they boost it higher so it doesn't decay so rapidly?
The difference between what, and what?
That's how probability works. You *cannot* guarantee an accident will not happen. You can only reduce the odds. You can only get close to 100% guarantee, but not actually achieve 100% guarantee. As you get closer to 100% the costs go up enormously. If you wanted to knock it down to 1:100,000 odds you will pay more than 10x the cost. And then.. it's still only a probability, and not a frequency. You interpretted it as a frequency of problems, and not a probability.
Even with this low probability, the ISS could get whacked once every day.. and the probably would still be 1:10000 with the procedure they are using today. Assuming they are modelling probability properly.
It's a floating garbage can, meant to make contractors money.
Boy.. aren't we the objective ones today. Did you believe in this conspiracy before the problems, or only after?
My take is that working on a massive internation project like this is very challenging. With all other joint international projects one nation owns the entire thing and accepts funding for new requirements from the others. ISS is completely different and it's teaching all nations a very good lesson. As a global society we need to learn how to do things like this. It's best for us all.
I was throwing a pot shot at Stallman for his communist-like feelings on software, corporations, and copyrights. Only because it seemed relevant to the topic.
I agree with you. I just thought it humorous to throw out that Mr. OSS (Stallman) wouldn't agree.
"Freedom doesn't mean that no effort/expense is required. It only means that the effort won't be artificially impeded."
You're absolutely right, but try getting Stallman to agree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeach
That's the very same mentality that got us Bush in office. Stop casting the anti-vote.. and start casting your real vote. Meaning.. stop voting against someone, but vote for the person you actually think will do the job. There is a difference.
Look at Kerry. How many people actually voted *for* Kerry? Very few since most people were voting against Bush. That's what all the bumper stickers say too. Who did the Democrats nominate? The person most likely to defeat Bush.. but not be voted for directly by the people.
You guys needs to stop finding more ways to hate Bush and start being a bit more logical. You are descreditting yourselves by not using any sane method of argument.
Being completely pathetic as a President is not illegal nor is it impeachable. There are a lot of people that completely suck at their jobs. That doesn't make it illegal. It just means they suck at their jobs. Breaking laws that exist today and being proven so in court is in fact a measure of the illegal act itself. Find a real law that the President has broken, find reasonable evidence of it, and start using that as your means to descredit President Bush.
To me the only thing I see that Bush could get in trouble over is any direct authorizations for torture methods that are not permitted by the Geneva Convention. Everything else people blame Bush for has been passed by Congress... including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
So is WinZip.
No.. there can't. But the point of wikipedia is that you're never done editting any topic.
The point of my post is that it isn't biased if you are not excluding facts you don't like to hear... and are not including conjecture. This is still true regardless of the challenge in collecting all relevant facts.
I like how this writer acts like the business world has successfully figured out enterprise architectures and SOA for such a long time, and now even regular home users that are nothing more than hackers are doing the very same thing.
Riiiggghhhtttt.... I'd like to see this writer's experience with enterprise architectures. The book for the business world is just at the beginning of being written. It's far from closed.
There are serious flaws in your argument that no POV exists that is not biased. If you are talking about "opinions" you are absolutely correct. If you are talking about "facts" you are absolutely incorrect. No real and unquestionable fact is biased. You can misrepresent the whole truth by acknowledging only a certain collection of facts while ignoring others. But if you acknowledge all facts and provide nothing else but those facts, you have a truly unbiased view of the situation. If for a moment you think "sure.. that's a fact.. but it isn't relevent to the message I want to send" well.. that would be biased.
You're just as guilty then. Cuz everyone is greedy in their own way.
Are you just as guilty? Or can you say that you are better at controlling your greed and politicians and the industries that own them are not as good as judging right from wrong, and controlling their greed for the better good?
We're in complete agreement.
I share your frustration and feelings completely.
The OP said no such thing.
Did you miss this?
With stuff like the spying serial number, tpa, etc, they've had an attitude of buy what we tell you or get lost. Not to mention price manipulation.
That's what I said.
If an owned politician is no longer in office, the industry will simply by another politician that *is* in office.
Shame on a corporation for making a profit. AMD is so pure and virginal white, they'd never do something this dastardly.
The OP didn't say there was anything wrong in making profit. The OP said it's wrong to use methods that are deemed illegal in our laws, and are typicaly not wise in a competitive market. Obviously Intel thought they still owned us all like M$ does... but AMD caught them with their pants down. That's the point of the OP. Intel had it coming to them for their arrogance. And they got exactly what they asked for.
No where in those facts... is the OP indicating that making a profit is a bad thing.
The problem isn't the senators. It's the industries that *own* them.
This is nonenforcable.
Agreed. All one has to do is offer private certs to the subscribe base and pipe the stream over SSL.
Scott
Mosiac?
It's Mosaic. The first web browser. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosaic_browser I remember seeing it the first week it and the handful of HTML web pages were released and thought "This is stupid... no one will ever want to use a Web Browser. What a waste of bandwidth and screen space!" Because I used BBB's, archie, gopher, and ftp. Just like you did.
Cheers,
Scott
I've been posting to online forums long before Mosaic 1.0 was released. Don't assume that by not being childish that I am new to online formats.
Exactly.