"This is the last of a handful of LORRI images that New Horizons is sending "home" during its busy close encounter with Jupiter - hundreds of images and other data are being taken and stored onboard. The rest of the images will be returned to Earth over the coming weeks and months as the spacecraft speeds along to Pluto."
Wait some time for the high-res...they're more interested in making sure the thing works above all else.
If I was fronting the money, then yes, I'd choose NASA -- but that's coming from me as an American citizen and someone who's spent some time working there. That said, if I was in Europe funding a scientific mission, I'd want the ESA to launch it. Virtually all funds for science missions come from governments, and I doubt that a German government grant office would be thrilled to see money being sent off to improve NASA's launch capability while cutting ESA's launch services out of the picture.
There IS a lot of politics involved in such a decision, but it's rarely good in science (or much else, for that matter) to have the entire worldwide capability in one single organization controlled heavily by politicians.
Why will nuclear power be a good solution only when we feel comfortable giving everybody access? Countries like NK and Iran have pretty small energy consumption (compared to the world as a whole) so letting them stay on standard Coal/Hydro/Wind/Solar wouldn't change things much.
If the USA, India, and China (all of whom have nuclear capability already) switched, emissions would be reduced by a great deal.
Those types of scientists and engineers still do work there. The problem is that NASA has become much too politicized. Congressional oversight can be good, but when decisions are made based on potential political fallout (for example going ahead with the Challenger launch partly because a)Reagan's state of the union was to be that night, and b)political appointees didn't want to see the launch slip until a couple months later), disaster can happen.
RFID credit cards (the ones you see advertised on tv with the marathon runner stoppping for a drink) seem to fill this need. You just touch your plastic card to the machine -- not even signing (less feeling of commitment!!) -- and go. Not only have you placed the payment on a card that you will only pay off at a later date (thus delaying the pain of payment), the physical action of payment doesn't really give time to reflect either.
I'm just using the 8% of the population number from the parent to my post. For 1%, you could monitor for 1/8th the time -- from 24 hour surveillance, that becomes 3 hours. We're also assuming that each surveyor could watch multiple screens.
The idea in 1984 isn't to monitor every citizen every second of every day for his or her entire life. Instead, it's to monitor citizens randomly with no indication that such monitoring is taking place, so that one lives in a constant state of fear. While the latter case generates significantly less data and is easier to monitor (if you were watched 3 hours a day, that would drop the number of surveyors to 1% of the population -- even that isn't necessary, however), it provides the same fear as the former.
we should reprioritize, shifting to robots till there are sufficient advances in manned spaceflight to warrant the many times greater expense
You're only going to get advances in manned spaceflight by actually working on problems related to manned spaceflight!
...why did the original plan not include at least some options for extended runs then, instead of working them now as if the two units were a sandbox...
Mostly because the original mission duration (and expected rover life) was only 90 days. Yes, options for extended runs existed using existing capabilities, but the mission was expected to last for such a short time that there was no need to plan for something that was (then) not seen as possible. Also, it's not as if the JPL team acts as the two rovers are in a sandbox -- they have an exact engineering model in a room on campus for testing new software and proedures before they are uplinked!
Well, they have a nonvoting seat in the House -- so essentially they can't vote and have it count. Also, take a look at DC's licence plates with the slogan "taxation without representation".
Facebook has also never spread adware through its homespage like MySpace did.
They did have a few banner ads that tried to install infected wmf scripts...obviously the fault of the network that hosted the ads, but problems have occurred.
Just to add - the people on the friends list were approved to view the status at specific points in time, not the changes. Of course, this is the very nature of a feed - to display changes in an easy to read format - hence the uproar.
Well, almost. "Authorization" here is pretty vague, as the only way to stay off the feed is to not use the service. If there was an opt-in mechanism or a "z has asked to subscribe to your feed" type of message for approving individual users, your correction would hold.
I don't think that feeds are inherently bad, but their rollout was certainly premature.
Slashdot Mirror
Quite a few clouds, in fact! http://images.spaceref.com/news/2004/08.11.04.oppo rtunity.jpg
From the JPL website:
"This is the last of a handful of LORRI images that New Horizons is sending "home" during its busy close encounter with Jupiter - hundreds of images and other data are being taken and stored onboard. The rest of the images will be returned to Earth over the coming weeks and months as the spacecraft speeds along to Pluto."
Wait some time for the high-res...they're more interested in making sure the thing works above all else.
If I was fronting the money, then yes, I'd choose NASA -- but that's coming from me as an American citizen and someone who's spent some time working there. That said, if I was in Europe funding a scientific mission, I'd want the ESA to launch it. Virtually all funds for science missions come from governments, and I doubt that a German government grant office would be thrilled to see money being sent off to improve NASA's launch capability while cutting ESA's launch services out of the picture.
There IS a lot of politics involved in such a decision, but it's rarely good in science (or much else, for that matter) to have the entire worldwide capability in one single organization controlled heavily by politicians.
Beagle? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4542174.stm
USB key + Portable Firefox + Tor?
Why will nuclear power be a good solution only when we feel comfortable giving everybody access? Countries like NK and Iran have pretty small energy consumption (compared to the world as a whole) so letting them stay on standard Coal/Hydro/Wind/Solar wouldn't change things much. If the USA, India, and China (all of whom have nuclear capability already) switched, emissions would be reduced by a great deal.
Those types of scientists and engineers still do work there. The problem is that NASA has become much too politicized. Congressional oversight can be good, but when decisions are made based on potential political fallout (for example going ahead with the Challenger launch partly because a)Reagan's state of the union was to be that night, and b)political appointees didn't want to see the launch slip until a couple months later), disaster can happen.
RFID credit cards (the ones you see advertised on tv with the marathon runner stoppping for a drink) seem to fill this need. You just touch your plastic card to the machine -- not even signing (less feeling of commitment!!) -- and go. Not only have you placed the payment on a card that you will only pay off at a later date (thus delaying the pain of payment), the physical action of payment doesn't really give time to reflect either.
I'm just using the 8% of the population number from the parent to my post. For 1%, you could monitor for 1/8th the time -- from 24 hour surveillance, that becomes 3 hours. We're also assuming that each surveyor could watch multiple screens.
The idea in 1984 isn't to monitor every citizen every second of every day for his or her entire life. Instead, it's to monitor citizens randomly with no indication that such monitoring is taking place, so that one lives in a constant state of fear. While the latter case generates significantly less data and is easier to monitor (if you were watched 3 hours a day, that would drop the number of surveyors to 1% of the population -- even that isn't necessary, however), it provides the same fear as the former.
You're only going to get advances in manned spaceflight by actually working on problems related to manned spaceflight!
...why did the original plan not include at least some options for extended runs then, instead of working them now as if the two units were a sandbox... Mostly because the original mission duration (and expected rover life) was only 90 days. Yes, options for extended runs existed using existing capabilities, but the mission was expected to last for such a short time that there was no need to plan for something that was (then) not seen as possible. Also, it's not as if the JPL team acts as the two rovers are in a sandbox -- they have an exact engineering model in a room on campus for testing new software and proedures before they are uplinked!So just use ambiguous titles?
They can even use their tinfoil hats to refrigerate their leftover chicken!
Maybe you could have students who passed your class (with high A's, even!) grade for community service hours.
NASA does this (HIP and Space Club Scholars) as well...pay is around the $10 mark/hour as well. NSA pays significantly more, though ;).
40 becomes 40a, and then you get 40b as the new one.
Well, they have a nonvoting seat in the House -- so essentially they can't vote and have it count. Also, take a look at DC's licence plates with the slogan "taxation without representation".
Can't do it as they're on different orbital inclinations -- would need two launches to reach them both.
The thing is, your English department did not profit from storing and recovering the work of students while turnitin.com does.
From the video, you can also remove screws on the bottom, take off the cover, and access the card that way.
If you remove the trailing period, it works. http://replacefacebook.com/
Just to add - the people on the friends list were approved to view the status at specific points in time, not the changes. Of course, this is the very nature of a feed - to display changes in an easy to read format - hence the uproar.
Well, almost. "Authorization" here is pretty vague, as the only way to stay off the feed is to not use the service. If there was an opt-in mechanism or a "z has asked to subscribe to your feed" type of message for approving individual users, your correction would hold.
I don't think that feeds are inherently bad, but their rollout was certainly premature.