While I think that since NASA is the single largest Space Agency in the world, and therefore should have a leading role, it should not be the only player when it comes to advancing our progress into space.
Agreed.
It does not make sense to NOT use the resources of the many other highly advanced space agencies (inclding Russia, Japan, and Europe) and their supporting economies to build a large platform orbiting the earth. If the US did it alone it would be smaller, less diverse, and while still invaluable, ultimitely a burden on the US economy.
In the abstract that might be true. With the europeans in particular. But in this case, Reagan's original plan for a station was LARGER that the current station, and projections predict would have probably cost the american taxpayers less.
The problem with the ISC and Russia is not anything technical, it is Russia's lack of economic and political stability. It will be some time before those issues resolve themselves, but I'm sure they will. I think that within the next 5-10 years Russia wil be strong both internally and economically and will be a valuable partner.
Even though the station is supposed to be completed by then. I don't think we can wait for them, as evidenced by NASA's response.
Re:...and if problems are related...
on
NASA Gets Smart
·
· Score: 2
...not to module itself but to Proton, how is NASA going to launch their new module, that I can't expect weighting less than Russian one?
I don't have the weight of our Service Module in front of me, but I don't think NASA would make such a hollow threat unless it were true and we had the capability to launch our SM.
The new (almuninum-lithium) Super Lightweight External Tank goes a long way to launching heavier payloads.
I think in the final analysis, if we simply built our own station as Reagan had originally planned we'd be further along, and would have spent less money than we ultimately will have once the current station is completed.
Acualy the point is that if the artist is out there, and he or she is any good then there is a fair chance that they will develop a loyal following.
I guess that depends upon how you define your terms, both "fair chance" and "loyal following".
When a large organization or group of people say that my basic freedoms (of speech, and property, to name two) are less valuable than any artists privilige (and it is a privilige) to be heard by a large group of people, and to make money off of that audience then there is a HUGE problem.
I agree with you.
P.S. Most major musicians do not write the music that they play anyway, it is writen by smaller musicians and sold (at a price that would make you cry) to Garth, Reba, and Puff Dady.
Definitely, I'm completely aware of that.
But the artists I work with actually have talent and can play their instruments... and also write their own music.
(BTW no music store in the USA even knows that the band that I bought, exists. Good job RIAA!)
What band would that be? I have trouble finding worthwhile stuff myself.
The cost of producing music today is GOOD because it pre-selects talented artists.
Well I certainly don't agree with that. The worst bands I have ever heard in my life are often given HUGE recording budgets, and the most talented people I have seen are given nothing, or have to fund themselves. Blame people's watered down musical pallettes.
this will result only in low risk, mega-pop-superstars who are guaranteed to turn over profit (Backstreet Boys, Pearl Jam, etc.) More creative and risky acts won't receive play because the margins will be so low.
As I said to you in a previous post, this seems to describe the industry already.
It costs between $250,000 and $1,000,000 to produce CD's today. The cost of the physical artifact is negligible compared to the cost of recording.
Perhaps if you're talking about the top.1% of the people being recorded today. But with the proliferation of high quality inexpensive digital formats like 20-bit ADATs and consoles like the Yamaha O2R, you can produce recordings with very good sonic integrity at very reasonable prices. (although I prefer analog, but that's another subject entirely!)
I was lucky enough to have the opportunity to record the most talented musician I've seen in a long time, and we did a full length jazz-fusion CD (~59 minutes) for around $11,000. This included recording, mix, mastering, and production of 1000 initial units.
I'm pretty happy with the sonic integrity of the finished product (recorded on 16-bit ADATs and mixed on an Amek Big (by Graham Langley) console with a decent selection of outboard gear.
Sure, in retrospect I would have done a few things differently and perhaps made it sound a bit better, but we learn something new every day.
Could I have made it better with a $100,000 budget? You bet... a better console with better mic pre's and a better mix path would have helped... at least to my ear. But is John Q. Citizen going to hear the difference?
Nah.
Sure given the choice and money I'd be happy to take it to that next level. But with a lot of the gear today, I'm not convinced it's necessary anymore.
Anybody who advocates less expensive music is advocating a serious degradation in music production quality. As a music lover, I am firmly against this. You are really willing to give up the absolute stellar quality of music production for free distribution? No thanks, I'm more than happy to pay for quality.
In the long run I agree with you. I consider myself an audiofile and a perfectionist in the studio. Bad engineering and bad production make me CRINGE (you have no idea!)... I demand stellar music production... but I don't think you need to spend $1,000,000 unless you have the very example you cited. An orchestra with dozens of musicians and the necessity of a huge studio environment. Other wise you can do great work for in most cases for mid 5-figures, and often less.
Not every artist will make a lot of money, but making money is not the primary goal of most musicians.
Huh, well I have dozens of friends who are musicians, and have recorded dozens of bands over the last 4 years and can assure you... most of the musicians I've worked with want to make it, and make money at it. But that's just my experience.
I completely fail to see how you draw your conclusions. Please explain to me how there is any factual basis in your preposterous claim that online distribution will be more expensive. All it requires is recording a track, encoding it into a digital format, and placing it on a web server. That doesn't guarantee that one will actually listen to you, but that's beside the point.
It seems to me that that is PRECISELY THE point. What's the difference if we're using the old system and no one is listening to you because you can't afford distro, or you're using the new system and no one is listening to you either?
It's sort of like asking if you'd rather be killed by bullet or by drowning. Ultimately, DEAD IS DEAD.
Are you now going to claim that not only don't musicians want to make money, but that additionally they don't want to be HEARD?
The margins will be so low (if not zero), that only highly profitable, homogenized music such as Backstreet Boys and Nine Inch Nails will get produced. The more creative and innovative acts (such as the would-be Gentle Giants of the 2000's) will not get produced. The music industry will splinter into two camps: mega-produced mega-stars on one hand, and poorly produced amateur acts on the other. The middle ground of artists who have thrived in the industry, such as Gentle Giant, other progressive musics, folk musics, jazz, and ethnic musics, will be completely destroyed.
Well, I already SEE the industry as destroyed. I don't think there are very many talented people being recorded by major labels (unless we're talking jazz or classical). I have to look far and wide and search hard to find import catalogs to find anything to which I want to listen.
I'm particularly not looking forward to the the future of recorded classical music, which online distribution will completely and thoroughly destroy. (Wanna stream The Ring on 56k, anyone?)
I'm really not that certain I agree with you here. I don't think this will affect classical music as much as pop (if at all). Classical music always had a niche.. one even smaller than jazz, and I suspect that this won't change. Not only don't I think the powers that be will want to make it available, I suspect the average classical listener wouldn't like that online method of distribution anyway.
a wireless flat-fee/advertising-supported jukebox of unlimited capacity would strip us of our desire to make MP3 files.
What about choice?
What if I wanted to listen to a Gentle Giant track from 1974. Or a Dixie Dregs track from 1981?
Unless this broadcast facility had EVERY RECORD EVER RECORDED this wouldn't seem to elliminate the proliferation of MP3's (which I fail to understand anyway).
But imagine if you could get EVERY RECORD EVER RECORDED, you could then get Richard Klein to advertise for the company!
Many years ago (like 20) the ABC TV Show That's Incredible had a scientist on who put forth a theory on ball lightening, and even had a small laboratory experiment that demonstrated his theory on a small scale.
This scientist claimed that his data showed that ball lightening seemed to show up in areas of geologic instability... near fault lines, etc...
He postulated that the incredible forces involved along these fault lines caused the quartz in the rock to super-heat and become almost plasma-like.
In the lab he took some granite and applied a tremendous amount of pressure to the sample, and when it eventually fractured, his high-speed camera picked up small examples of this "quartz plasma" floating through the air.
He then speculated that on a larger scale, such as along fault lines, that these quartz-plasma balls of light would naturally be larger.
Interesting if nothing else.
I think a better question would be why I remember details about a 20-year old TV show.
It seems to me that if AOL knew that what they were doing was going to "break" the other dial-up connections on people's machines, then what they did was malicious and not unlike a computer virus.
What are the penalties for writing a program whose intent is to perform malicious acts on other people's computers?
Well, it sucks to be ESA. They were hoping to be able to be the 3rd nation (or space agency rather) to have astronauts fly in space, if this story about China is true they'll have to settle for 4th.
Actually, ESA astronauts have flown in space on the Shuttle, but not with their own Arianne rocket.
This just might scare the US out of space-complacency. The thought of China being more advanced than anticpated might just do it.
If nothing else it will be interesting to see what kind of spin our government puts on it.
This stuff is great - it will lead to the sort of technology we will need to allow autonomous robots to explore other planetary bodies, such as Mars or the Moon, but if it breaks down we can just walk up to it and figure out what broke. We can work out the kinks here where we can fix it.
NASA has been sponsoring this type of research for about 2 decades. But we still can't plan for all of the variables involved in getting a rover to the surface of an alien world, and its stay on the world.
Maybe Nasa should try to land some probes on the Antartic from Earth orbit...
This would be a very expensive option, if not a bad idea.
The cost of getting ANYTHING into orbit is still prohibitive. Plus we would essentially have to build the rover to it's flight-hardened specifications since it will be spending some time in space, and this means more money.
Deploying it from the Shuttle is another, probably less expensive option and certainly might be more feasible.
However, the amount of flack you are going to receive from people like environmental groups for the potential harm to the Antarctic environment (if it crashed or something else horrible happened) would mean something like this would never fly. I'm not sure I don't agree with them.
What we need is a stronger voice, one which can get out into major papers, out to the public, we need to tell people whats really going on. Unfortunately I don't really know how we can do this, maybe someone else has a good idea?
Well, I wrote a rather extended description of the issue with several links where he could learn more to Michael Moore, film-maker and anti-corporate activist. For those who aren't aware, Mike made the award winning film Roger And Me, and the award winning TV shows TV Nation, and his current effort on Bravo called The Awful Truth.
Despite the fact that Mike is in the "film industry" I expect him to be our side. First, he is known for making documentaries which expose stuff like this, and second, he truly does like to show corporate america for the hypocrites that they are.
I haven't heard back from him yet, and might not since he started filming his new season of The Awful Truth very recently, but he would be a good ally to have. He's even become Politically Incorrect's presidential campaign correspondent.
Hopefully he can at least put one of his segment producers on it to to do some research.
I really liked the Wizard Of Oz ad. That was sorta cool. Who was it for? One of the carriers, FedEx, DHL, someone. (those ads really work on me).
As much as I hate Nike, they usually have a cool or clever ad on during the SB, but I didn't see one this year. I didn't watch the whole game so perhaps I missed it. Was there one?
I'm not a big sports fan, but the best part about the Super Bowl is when it's over, and we can finally talk about baseball again, a far more elegant sport.
The other side is making the argument that this issue is about copyright protection. After thinking about it, I've thought of an example that would seem to prove them wrong, and that the issue is about WHO gets to view the videos, and not protecting intellectual property.
Prior to the 1980's, if a sufficiently talented electrical engineer wanted to build his own audio equipment (and many audiophiles DID do this) he was free to do so. In this case I am specifically talking about a turntable/record player. There was nothing prohibiting a talented electrical engineer from building his own record player which would allow him to play and LISTEN TO his record collection.
This example could be extended to reel-to-reel tape machines as well as cassette decks, and yes even music CD players, today. For that matter, someone out there is even capable of building a Sony 3348, 48-Track 24-bit, 96Khz pro studio multi-track recorder. And if these people have done their job right SOUND will actually come out of the speakers that the device is hooked to. I'll say it again:
Anyone sufficiently talented is capable of building a device which will render an intelligible playback for whatever media they have chosen to build a player, audio or video
UNTIL NOW.
Now, if I were inclined to do so, I could buy various components and build a DVD player, but without prior knowledge of the encryption algorithm used to encrypt the data on the discs, and a valid ecryption key, I would be unable to actually watch and listen to the DVD that I put into my machine.
What has suddenly changed, that no longer allows me to play a DVD that I purchased in a store and legally own? It would seem (to me) that this is the crux of the issue.
As I was composing this message, something else occurred to me that distills my point into a far more palatable and less wordy argument:
Over the length of my entire life, I have yet to purchase a book whose text was encrypted.
Someone here mentioned having some gazillionaire fund a trip to the moon and film everything and sell it using the profits to then fund a trip to Mars.
Well there is a private project underway to do something similar to that called The Artemis Project.
Artemis (if I recall correctly) wants to PRE-SELL the rights to the photographs and IMAX film they'll shoot once they get to the moon.
They're hoping the profits they raise from pre-selling those things, combined with other fundraising efforts will be enough to fund their trip.
I believe their trip involves some custom hardware and renting space in the Shuttle Bay to get their stuff into orbit. Once there they power themselves to the moon.
Ah, the good old days of the CBM 2001. When I was in HS in 1982 we had a computer lab full of those. As I recall our first units had the chicklet keyboard and 4K of RAM.
Then the next year we got some machines with 16K of RAM and found ourselves saying things like, "You'll NEVER need more than 16K of RAM." (Where have I heard something like that before?).
And then later in that year I went to a computer programming contest (cough!) at a local high school and I was treated to a 32K PET with a REAL keyboard and a larger screen. We came in 2nd to some guys with an Apple ][.
Somewhere in a box in my cellar I still have some cassette tapes with some of my early programs on them... I also have an old Byte magazine with Bill Shatner doing an add for the PET. I'll have to scan it and put in on my web site.
I could understand if it were the computer the made the universe work, but this strikes me as not news worthy.
It was more likely reported to win the bet that all of the major news networks have with one another about who can stretch Y2K reporting as late in the year as possible.
I submitted a great article about the genetic engineering of foods, and it gets rejected, and then they pick a story about a BSOD.
Of course PGP has been around that long, since 1991.
If Mitnik used a 1K or 2K keysize (not really uncommon, remember assymetrical keys have to be a lot bigger than symetrical ones), I wouldn't think the feds could crack it. Maybe NSA can but as someone else pointed out, they may not want to let that fact get revealed, even to the Justice Dept.
Sure, the NSA could have probably brute forced 1 or 2 of Mitnick's files by now. But is the NSA going to put that kind of computing power into something this small? I don't think so. Plus they're not allowed to work on stuff from US Citizens... (cough!).
I suspect the NSA is happier reading Russia's and Hussein's mail, not Mitnick's.
The federal government is not one big happy family.
But even if they were one big happy family, they still would not tell another federal agency, it's too big a national security breach.
In considering the matter, Judge Pfaelzer said that it was "clever" of Mitnick to have encrypted the files in such a way that the government could not use them in its own case but Mitnick could access them if given a copy.
Yeah, it's pretty clear that the judge understands this encryption concept.
-right-
How can a judge render such an important decision on something she doesn't understand on any level?
so are you suggesting that people may as well stay ignorant, since the educated can't win anyway? assuming that you want to fight the abuse of corporate power, then you must be advocating government control, but how does that get directed if the people are ignorant?
I am only stating what seems to me to be a fact that will be difficult (at best) to overcome.
The masses seem to be content with media being force fed to them by 20-second sound bytes and corporations that (for example) are capable of manufacturing, recording, distributing, and playing the music of an entertainer (for lack of a better word) under one corporate roof.
an educated populace is the only hope. though the fight be hard, it must still be fought. ignorance wins only mindless bliss.
Yes, an educated populace is of course the answer.
I don't have an answer to this question, but how do we encourage people to not only ask the difficult questions, but how to stand out in a crowd as an individual when the peer pressure to fall in line and conform is so tremendous?
I think that, no matter whether linux users choose to move that way, we will be pushed towards stronger radicalism, in our beliefs, our tactics to retain our right to free speech/code, etc.
The fact of the matter is that we're not radical, nor are we getting MORE radical over time. It's simply a matter of the MAINSTREAM moving farther away from us.
Accusing us of being "radicals" is one of the classic ways that mainstream institutions can minimize the effect that any good movement can have. This happens simply because of the blind faith that the typical John Q. Citizen has in his information sources (whatever they may be... be it an obnoxious afternoon AM radio shock jock [12-3pm], or the president of the united states).
Yes, our views SCARE the monolithic mainstream, but our views really haven't changed. We want our freedoms. We've always wanted them, and we always will. There's nothing particularly MORE radical about than those ideas than in the 1960's, but what has changed are the people and institutions who want us to have fewer freedoms so they can have higher profit-margins.
(A truly free market requires informed consumers, not passive drones; but we cannot force everyone to be equally intelligent, nor expect everyone to be equally desirous to live freely.)
Your argument would have merit if it weren't for the fact that corporations obfuscate facts so that consumers CAN NOT make informed decisions. It's impossible to compete with the spin that a multi-billion dollar industry or corporation can apply.
Let's not forget that educational institutions teach people to fall in line, and not rebel. Given these things, the playing field can never be fair.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed.
In the abstract that might be true. With the europeans in particular. But in this case, Reagan's original plan for a station was LARGER that the current station, and projections predict would have probably cost the american taxpayers less.
Even though the station is supposed to be completed by then. I don't think we can wait for them, as evidenced by NASA's response.
I don't have the weight of our Service Module in front of me, but I don't think NASA would make such a hollow threat unless it were true and we had the capability to launch our SM.
The new (almuninum-lithium) Super Lightweight External Tank goes a long way to launching heavier payloads.
Count on it being true.
It makes me angry.
COOL.
Any supercomputer is OK by me.
I guess that depends upon how you define your terms, both "fair chance" and "loyal following".
I agree with you.
Definitely, I'm completely aware of that.
But the artists I work with actually have talent and can play their instruments... and also write their own music.
What band would that be? I have trouble finding worthwhile stuff myself.
Well I certainly don't agree with that. The worst bands I have ever heard in my life are often given HUGE recording budgets, and the most talented people I have seen are given nothing, or have to fund themselves. Blame people's watered down musical pallettes.
As I said to you in a previous post, this seems to describe the industry already.
Perhaps if you're talking about the top .1% of the people being recorded today. But with the proliferation of high quality inexpensive digital formats like 20-bit ADATs and consoles like the Yamaha O2R, you can produce recordings with very good sonic integrity at very reasonable prices. (although I prefer analog, but that's another subject entirely!)
I was lucky enough to have the opportunity to record the most talented musician I've seen in a long time, and we did a full length jazz-fusion CD (~59 minutes) for around $11,000. This included recording, mix, mastering, and production of 1000 initial units.
I'm pretty happy with the sonic integrity of the finished product (recorded on 16-bit ADATs and mixed on an Amek Big (by Graham Langley) console with a decent selection of outboard gear.
Sure, in retrospect I would have done a few things differently and perhaps made it sound a bit better, but we learn something new every day.
Could I have made it better with a $100,000 budget? You bet... a better console with better mic pre's and a better mix path would have helped... at least to my ear. But is John Q. Citizen going to hear the difference?
Nah.
Sure given the choice and money I'd be happy to take it to that next level. But with a lot of the gear today, I'm not convinced it's necessary anymore.
In the long run I agree with you. I consider myself an audiofile and a perfectionist in the studio. Bad engineering and bad production make me CRINGE (you have no idea!)... I demand stellar music production... but I don't think you need to spend $1,000,000 unless you have the very example you cited. An orchestra with dozens of musicians and the necessity of a huge studio environment. Other wise you can do great work for in most cases for mid 5-figures, and often less.
Huh, well I have dozens of friends who are musicians, and have recorded dozens of bands over the last 4 years and can assure you... most of the musicians I've worked with want to make it, and make money at it. But that's just my experience.
It seems to me that that is PRECISELY THE point. What's the difference if we're using the old system and no one is listening to you because you can't afford distro, or you're using the new system and no one is listening to you either?
It's sort of like asking if you'd rather be killed by bullet or by drowning. Ultimately, DEAD IS DEAD.
Are you now going to claim that not only don't musicians want to make money, but that additionally they don't want to be HEARD?
Well, I already SEE the industry as destroyed. I don't think there are very many talented people being recorded by major labels (unless we're talking jazz or classical). I have to look far and wide and search hard to find import catalogs to find anything to which I want to listen.
I'm really not that certain I agree with you here. I don't think this will affect classical music as much as pop (if at all). Classical music always had a niche.. one even smaller than jazz, and I suspect that this won't change. Not only don't I think the powers that be will want to make it available, I suspect the average classical listener wouldn't like that online method of distribution anyway.
Just a thought.
What about choice?
What if I wanted to listen to a Gentle Giant track from 1974. Or a Dixie Dregs track from 1981?
Unless this broadcast facility had EVERY RECORD EVER RECORDED this wouldn't seem to elliminate the proliferation of MP3's (which I fail to understand anyway).
But imagine if you could get EVERY RECORD EVER RECORDED, you could then get Richard Klein to advertise for the company!
(1970's Comedy reference)
This scientist claimed that his data showed that ball lightening seemed to show up in areas of geologic instability... near fault lines, etc...
He postulated that the incredible forces involved along these fault lines caused the quartz in the rock to super-heat and become almost plasma-like.
In the lab he took some granite and applied a tremendous amount of pressure to the sample, and when it eventually fractured, his high-speed camera picked up small examples of this "quartz plasma" floating through the air.
He then speculated that on a larger scale, such as along fault lines, that these quartz-plasma balls of light would naturally be larger.
Interesting if nothing else.
I think a better question would be why I remember details about a 20-year old TV show.
What are the penalties for writing a program whose intent is to perform malicious acts on other people's computers?
Actually, ESA astronauts have flown in space on the Shuttle, but not with their own Arianne rocket.
This just might scare the US out of space-complacency. The thought of China being more advanced than anticpated might just do it.
If nothing else it will be interesting to see what kind of spin our government puts on it.
Private industry can attempt to put old age homes and honeymoon places in space now. What is stopping them?
NASA has been sponsoring this type of research for about 2 decades. But we still can't plan for all of the variables involved in getting a rover to the surface of an alien world, and its stay on the world.
This would be a very expensive option, if not a bad idea.
The cost of getting ANYTHING into orbit is still prohibitive. Plus we would essentially have to build the rover to it's flight-hardened specifications since it will be spending some time in space, and this means more money.
Deploying it from the Shuttle is another, probably less expensive option and certainly might be more feasible.
However, the amount of flack you are going to receive from people like environmental groups for the potential harm to the Antarctic environment (if it crashed or something else horrible happened) would mean something like this would never fly. I'm not sure I don't agree with them.
Well, I wrote a rather extended description of the issue with several links where he could learn more to Michael Moore, film-maker and anti-corporate activist. For those who aren't aware, Mike made the award winning film Roger And Me, and the award winning TV shows TV Nation, and his current effort on Bravo called The Awful Truth.
Despite the fact that Mike is in the "film industry" I expect him to be our side. First, he is known for making documentaries which expose stuff like this, and second, he truly does like to show corporate america for the hypocrites that they are.
I haven't heard back from him yet, and might not since he started filming his new season of The Awful Truth very recently, but he would be a good ally to have. He's even become Politically Incorrect's presidential campaign correspondent.
Hopefully he can at least put one of his segment producers on it to to do some research.
As much as I hate Nike, they usually have a cool or clever ad on during the SB, but I didn't see one this year. I didn't watch the whole game so perhaps I missed it. Was there one?
I'm not a big sports fan, but the best part about the Super Bowl is when it's over, and we can finally talk about baseball again, a far more elegant sport.
The other side is making the argument that this issue is about copyright protection. After thinking about it, I've thought of an example that would seem to prove them wrong, and that the issue is about WHO gets to view the videos, and not protecting intellectual property.
Prior to the 1980's, if a sufficiently talented electrical engineer wanted to build his own audio equipment (and many audiophiles DID do this) he was free to do so. In this case I am specifically talking about a turntable/record player. There was nothing prohibiting a talented electrical engineer from building his own record player which would allow him to play and LISTEN TO his record collection.
This example could be extended to reel-to-reel tape machines as well as cassette decks, and yes even music CD players, today. For that matter, someone out there is even capable of building a Sony 3348, 48-Track 24-bit, 96Khz pro studio multi-track recorder. And if these people have done their job right SOUND will actually come out of the speakers that the device is hooked to. I'll say it again:
Anyone sufficiently talented is capable of building a device which will render an intelligible playback for whatever media they have chosen to build a player, audio or video
UNTIL NOW.
Now, if I were inclined to do so, I could buy various components and build a DVD player, but without prior knowledge of the encryption algorithm used to encrypt the data on the discs, and a valid ecryption key, I would be unable to actually watch and listen to the DVD that I put into my machine.
What has suddenly changed, that no longer allows me to play a DVD that I purchased in a store and legally own? It would seem (to me) that this is the crux of the issue.
As I was composing this message, something else occurred to me that distills my point into a far more palatable and less wordy argument:
Over the length of my entire life, I have yet to purchase a book whose text was encrypted.
Well there is a private project underway to do something similar to that called The Artemis Project.
Artemis (if I recall correctly) wants to PRE-SELL the rights to the photographs and IMAX film they'll shoot once they get to the moon.
They're hoping the profits they raise from pre-selling those things, combined with other fundraising efforts will be enough to fund their trip.
I believe their trip involves some custom hardware and renting space in the Shuttle Bay to get their stuff into orbit. Once there they power themselves to the moon.
They're at asi.org
Then the next year we got some machines with 16K of RAM and found ourselves saying things like, "You'll NEVER need more than 16K of RAM." (Where have I heard something like that before?).
And then later in that year I went to a computer programming contest (cough!) at a local high school and I was treated to a 32K PET with a REAL keyboard and a larger screen. We came in 2nd to some guys with an Apple ][.
Somewhere in a box in my cellar I still have some cassette tapes with some of my early programs on them... I also have an old Byte magazine with Bill Shatner doing an add for the PET. I'll have to scan it and put in on my web site.
Ah the memories! :-)
I could understand if it were the computer the made the universe work, but this strikes me as not news worthy.
It was more likely reported to win the bet that all of the major news networks have with one another about who can stretch Y2K reporting as late in the year as possible.
I submitted a great article about the genetic engineering of foods, and it gets rejected, and then they pick a story about a BSOD.
Oh god my head hurts.
Sure, the NSA could have probably brute forced 1 or 2 of Mitnick's files by now. But is the NSA going to put that kind of computing power into something this small? I don't think so. Plus they're not allowed to work on stuff from US Citizens... (cough!).
I suspect the NSA is happier reading Russia's and Hussein's mail, not Mitnick's.
But even if they were one big happy family, they still would not tell another federal agency, it's too big a national security breach.
Yeah, it's pretty clear that the judge understands this encryption concept.
-right-
How can a judge render such an important decision on something she doesn't understand on any level?
I am only stating what seems to me to be a fact that will be difficult (at best) to overcome.
The masses seem to be content with media being force fed to them by 20-second sound bytes and corporations that (for example) are capable of manufacturing, recording, distributing, and playing the music of an entertainer (for lack of a better word) under one corporate roof.
Yes, an educated populace is of course the answer.
I don't have an answer to this question, but how do we encourage people to not only ask the difficult questions, but how to stand out in a crowd as an individual when the peer pressure to fall in line and conform is so tremendous?
The fact of the matter is that we're not radical, nor are we getting MORE radical over time. It's simply a matter of the MAINSTREAM moving farther away from us.
Accusing us of being "radicals" is one of the classic ways that mainstream institutions can minimize the effect that any good movement can have. This happens simply because of the blind faith that the typical John Q. Citizen has in his information sources (whatever they may be... be it an obnoxious afternoon AM radio shock jock [12-3pm], or the president of the united states).
Yes, our views SCARE the monolithic mainstream, but our views really haven't changed. We want our freedoms. We've always wanted them, and we always will. There's nothing particularly MORE radical about than those ideas than in the 1960's, but what has changed are the people and institutions who want us to have fewer freedoms so they can have higher profit-margins.
Your argument would have merit if it weren't for the fact that corporations obfuscate facts so that consumers CAN NOT make informed decisions. It's impossible to compete with the spin that a multi-billion dollar industry or corporation can apply.
Let's not forget that educational institutions teach people to fall in line, and not rebel. Given these things, the playing field can never be fair.