Actually, upon thinking about it. The most important discvovery every made was the ability to turn POTENTIAL energy into KINETIC energy.
This is true regardless of the century.
In this past century we can perhaps talk about unleashing the atom (although in general I am opposed to it), but prior to that we can of course talk about the guy who was able to ignite a piece of wood.
James Burke demonstrated quite conclusively in his CONNECTIONS TV Series that practically all inventions use technology derived from a previous invention or discovery.
I realize that this isn't from the last century, but all inventions go back to the discovery of FIRE.
Forgive me if this is a bit off topic, but I've been waiting to answer this!:-)
Arkady is a character from the first book of the Mars Trilogy (Red Mars, Green Mars, and Blue Mars) by Kim Stanley Robinson.
He was something of a free-spirited, computer-geek, raconteur, anarchist who would have been right at home in an open-source computing environment. I've always speculated about whether or not he would have been running linux, or whether he simply would have written his own OS from the ground up.
After Arkady is gone his like-minded followers started a movement to keep his ideas alive and they became known as "Bogdanovists." Named after him of course, Arkady Nikelyovich Bogdanov.
The trilogy is definitely one of the best sci-fi reads I have ever had, if not the best. I definitely recommend it.
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 decryption 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.
Private stuff on /. is cool.
on
Geeks in Suits
·
· Score: 1
Let me preface this by saying that I understand that slashdot has a target audience. But seriously, do comments like "Who Cares? Why should I care about your personal life." really need to be tossed around? Which one of you has not told someone else about your personal life?
AMEN!
Lord knows that my stupid web site contains plenty of silly photos of me and my friends. I happen to enjoy the occasional post that lets me see what these people that I'm constantly reading about, actually look like. It makes this impersonal form of communication a little more personal.
I've been told way too many times by people that think they're 'normal' that the internet is too impersonal and that I must be some sort of 'closet-case' for actually enjoying it. When that happens I can actually point to photos like these and pretend I actually know them!:-)
(I'm kidding of course, a mere mortal like me could never be lucky enough to know someone as cool as CmdrTaco and Hemos.)
Keep those photos coming. But at the risk of souding like my father, a visit to the barber (for some of the others) wouldn't hurt!;-)
Make no mistake about it. Corporattions are drawing a line in the sand with this move. The outcome of this battle will determine weather or not open source can survive. Hey where are our so-called leaders? ESR? Perens? Young? Torwalds? Augistine? your silence is defening. Speak now or forever hold your piece.
And let's not forget RMS.
This is an excellent point. Where ARE all of the leaders?
In that IRC chat Bruce Perens was aksed about this and did speak briefly about it. His opinion can be found HERE.
And I wouldn't count on Linus to get TOO involved in such a controversial issue right now considering that he works for Transmeta and they probably don't want any negative press of any kind right now.
But that still doesn't explain the 2 guys with the initials. One in particular. They're usually around and usually speaking very loudly. I believe they are needed more than ever to support us in this, what might be the most important battle we ever fight.
I believe their support is needed even if this particular story turns out to be bogus.
I posted this in one of the earlier DVD discussions, and might be more relevent to the NY Case, but I'll post it here again to see what people think:
__
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 decryption 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, this certainly raises some interesting options. Like Touch-Screen-Scratch-And-Sniff web sites.
But as far as a suggestion for the contest. I would suggest taking those video clips of the guys blowing up water melons with their potato cannon, and adding the smell of burned napalm. And then perhaps adding the audio from Apocolypse Now of Bobby Duvall saying, "I love the smell of napalm in the morning... it smells like.... VICTORY."
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 decryption 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.
The solution to this whole copyright/intellectual property issue is so simple. It all came to me a moment ago while reading this thread.
Make all forms of media, and their respective players/viewers/recorders, illegal. In doing so, you would have then eliminated ANY chance of any illegal copies of anything, from ever being made.
Sure, to some this might seem a bit draconian, but as I see it, only these kinds of thorough measures will achieve our collective goal of eliminating illegal copies of copyrighted material.
Does this mean that people can no longer create art? OF COURSE NOT! I mean sure, I do want to put a few new laws on the books, but let us not get crazy and go overboard.
HOWEVER, once you have created said work of art (regardless of media) you must then destroy it since the art itself lies within the creation. Being patted on the back for having done something "brilliant" is ego and can not be tolerated, and... we all know the everyone would want to make and distribute illegal copies, and we can't have that soooo......
Ummm, I read your original post a bit too fast maybe(there were so many and I read them during a break in my work). I really had the impression that you said all Apollo missions were successful, hence my reaction, for Apollo 1 accident was really sad. I apologize for being so trigger-happy.
It's cool. I sometimes read to quickly myself and guilty of the same thing.
What I meant was that every enterprise that is partially successful is also a partial failure. Your post, given my misreading of the Apollo thing, made the impression that the only failure you considered was Challenger's last flight. But I still think the same way: one of the Mercury series' goals must have been tuning re-entry and manned-capsule recovery (different from recovering one without doors os hatches)
While it is true that they were practicing every aspect of the mission during Mercury, recovery was not the most important feature. THE primary objective was getting a man in space before the Russians REALLY made us look bad. Having done that they weren't too worried about hooking a cable to a capsule and hauling it onto an aircraft carrier. Compared rendezvous and docking (in space), recovery was a no brainer. Yes Grissom's capsule did sink to the bottom but that was not a recovery issue. That was a problem with the explosive bolts on the capsule hatch. Recovery went relatively fine. They actually hooked into the capsule but it filled with water and was too heavy for the copter to lift. So they had to let it go.
Not all objectives of the Spave Shuttle program were met.
You had better believe it they weren't! Like making space travel inexpensive!:-) They sold congress and America on this "reusable" spacecraft that was going to be cheap to refly, and we ended up getting a reusable aircraft that really ISN'T any cheaper than flying Saturn's would have been if we kept production up and got costs down. Plus we would have retained heavy-lift capability.
There *have* been failures and NASA *learnt* something from those. And if you take them into account, it doesn't add up to.977 batting average.
But I was never saying NASA'S batting average WAS.977. I was saying that even if you add any and all Mars (and other) probe failures you do not lower that.977 batting average that much. I was attempting to point out that their number of successes was actually quite high (thereby making your claim unlikely).
You however did say that their average was 50% or lower.
Don't take me wrong, I'm a great admirer of the U.S. space program.
Then we have much in common.:-) I also admire the Russians for their space program. They did a lot of amazing things before we did.
Sure 50% failure rate is unreal, but: Didn't one Mercury flight overshoot about 200 miles?
Maybe. Probably. But so what? Mercury flights were not about guaranteeing exact splashdown coordinates. They were about testing a craft we built, to fly in space for the very first time(s).
Didn't they loose another after splashdown?
Sure, Gus Grissom's capsule (which was recovered last summer). But again, that flight was not about successful capsule recovery, it was about what we learned DURING the flight.
You dare calling Apollo 1 a success?
I don't recall saying that. Don't put words in my mouth. Apollo-1 was one of the 2 Apollo flights in my list (if you read it) that was not a success.
Do you call Apollo 13 a success (although the rescue was a beautiful hack)?
See above. I listed 2 Apollo flights as NON SUCCESSES, this was the other.
Are you sure all shuttle flights were successful?
I guess it depends on how you define successful. In all but one flight we got the ship up into orbit, learned something, and then successfully got the ship and crew back to fly again. Which incidentally would meet my definition of success.
It seem that your concept of success is "nobody died during the flight". That is quite radical, don't you think so?
Odd, I don't recall having said that.
However, I'm sure I could get a lot of NASA flight directors to agree with me that not losing any lives, not losing the ship (in the Shuttle's case), and learning something new defines a successful mission.
Moderators seem to have misplaced their brains recently.
Amen to that. In many recent stories people have been quoting someone else (like posting 2 sentences from a law book in whatever legal case we might be discussing, for instance), and they're getting moderated up to a 5 when they didn't post one word of their very own.
Time is the big one: the probability that another civilization is at the same technological stage as us such that they use radio to communicate in astoundingly low. Just imagine: 200 hundred years ago, a mere drop in the bucket in geologic time, we could not even receive radio signals. 200 hundred years from now, whose to say that we won't be using fiber optics and laser relays to transmit information.
Well, it's not illogical to assume that a civilization that wanted to be found would continue to transmit using radio signals (for reasons that are obvious to us anyway). Plus there's the chance we'll pick up random radio signals just like we've been sending for the last 70+ years.
Incidentally, there are also projects searching for those very laser-light signals you mention, as well.
Believe it or not, there are some people who don't believe in extra terrestrial intelligence. And those people aren't all psycho fundies either. We choose to work on Distributed.net because to us, it's far more purposeful than seti at home, which would be like looking in an empty box for...something.
Umm, that's not a logical statement. If you don't want to looks for aliens that's fine.It's simply your choice.
But saying you don't believe in them has no correlation to whether or not they are actually out there. They might exist regardless of what you believe.
Why haven't we developed cool spacecrafts like they had in Star Wars:TPM that can go straight into the atmosphere? It would seem to be more an economic issue as opposed to a technological issue. I guess they can't develop quite enough thrust to escape the Earth's gravity without using those huge rockets.
I'm not sure what you mean by "go straight into the atmosphere". Someone below thought that you might have meant a single stage to orbit (SSTO) type of vehicle.
While a great idea, we have yet to actually BUILD an SSTO vehicle. And while I believe it is possible, it will not be inexpensive since doing it will require using cutting edge materials to overcome the problems involved (the mass of the craft and how much fuel it can carry, etc..).
Oh well... Time to work on that Warp Drive (Yeah I know this would only help once you are in orbit but Warp Drives are pretty damn cool)
Actually, if we're going to work of some magical technology, lets first develop anti-gravity. With that you could pedal a bike into orbit.
And on a less magical and slightly more realistic note, why not aggressively develop the ability to manufacture huge quantities of Buckminister Fullerenes and build a space elevator to get into orbit? That would be the next best thing to anti-gravity.
"The keys have no real purpose except to circumvent the locks that stand between the thief and the goods he or she targets"
..except that it isn't the case -- one of the main uses of the decryption "formula" is to allow the use of DVDs on "alternative" operating systems like Linux. Piracy is NOT the only use.
A better analogy would be "someone making keys to a department store that locks their doors and only gives keys to whites (because they are the majority!)"
And that would be an argument I would make if I were an attorney on our side. It appeals to emotions a little bit but it also conjurs very powerful imagery.
Of course the judge too might see that and ask you to refrain from making such argument.
This is good news. But as the first comment pointed out, I also thought it was free for anyone who wanted it?
And I hate to be a cynical nay-sayer, and while I recognize this as being good, why post it here? For me, the articles on/. are secondary to the intelligent discussions that come about as a result of their being posted here.
Having said that, what kind of engaging conversation other than everyone agreeing that "this is a good thing," is this article going to generate?
Quick comment about this one, but perhaps the Government is finally feeling the heat from the demands of software developers.
Perhaps.
either the NSA can crack "strong" encryption like a bitch, or they aren't doing their job in allowing the export of encryption...
I think both the NSA and the government itself (though the legislature is slower to accept it because they don't UNDERSTAND it) finally realize that they actually LOST this encryption battle when Phil Zimmermann released PGP and it put military grade encryption in the hands of the masses.
The final nail in their coffin was when CLIPPER crashed and burned.
The cat has been out of the proverbial bag for 1/2 a decade and it's all just a simple matter of monolithic institutions taking a LONG time to adjust to realizations like these.
Eventually (probably sooner than later) all crypto will be freely exportable and this will be a non-issue. All the legislators need to THINK is that they CHOSE to do it, as opposed to having it rammed down their throats like actually happened, and they'll be happy. Since we all know they fear things like technology, and even though they know they actually can't control it, they need to think they can so that their egos stay adequately inflated so that they remain happy.
I saw someone mention that they were using this for it's audio editing features.
I for one would welcome a complete audio editng suite not unlike Protools for linux. I would more over to it instantly in my studio.
In previous studios in which I've worked we used Macs, with Protools and Logic audio in complete synchronism with both our analog and digital tape machines. Except they crashed like crazy.
I have also used Protools under NT, and as much as it pains me to say it, it is more stable with these apps than is MacOS.
HOWEVER, a powerful GPL'd editing tool under linux would make me the happiest engineer on the planet.
Not only would it allow me to alienate all of the other engineers who don't know what linux is (and think the Mac is the be-all-end-all platform on the planet). It would make for crashproof editing sessions!:-)
It's times like these when I wish I was a programmer. I would dedicate all of my free time to programming for such an effort.
a full lunar eclipse on January 20, which also happens to be the first full moon of the new year.
I thought this was no coincidence, that a full lunar eclipse was only possible when the moon is on the far side of the earth from the sun, which is when it appears full. no? astonomers care to comment?
Yes, all lunar eclipses occur when the moon is full. Think of it this way, the only way that the earth can block the sun's light from getting to the moon would be if the sun was at 6-O'clock, and the moon was at 12-O'clock (using that crazy military reference where 6-o'clock is exactly behind you and 12-o'clock is exactly in front of you).
The greatest irony is that the moon is at it's fullest at precisely the time that we can't see it. When it is totally eclipsed.
Slashdot Mirror
This is true regardless of the century.
In this past century we can perhaps talk about unleashing the atom (although in general I am opposed to it), but prior to that we can of course talk about the guy who was able to ignite a piece of wood.
I realize that this isn't from the last century, but all inventions go back to the discovery of FIRE.
Or perhaps the Martians are attempting to build our confidence so that we'll continue sending them "souvenirs".
Last I heard, Mars Polar Lander was fetching quite a price on Mars' Ebay.
Forgive me if this is a bit off topic, but I've been waiting to answer this! :-)
Arkady is a character from the first book of the Mars Trilogy (Red Mars, Green Mars, and Blue Mars) by Kim Stanley Robinson.
He was something of a free-spirited, computer-geek, raconteur, anarchist who would have been right at home in an open-source computing environment. I've always speculated about whether or not he would have been running linux, or whether he simply would have written his own OS from the ground up.
After Arkady is gone his like-minded followers started a movement to keep his ideas alive and they became known as "Bogdanovists." Named after him of course, Arkady Nikelyovich Bogdanov.
The trilogy is definitely one of the best sci-fi reads I have ever had, if not the best. I definitely recommend it.
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 decryption 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.
AMEN!
Lord knows that my stupid web site contains plenty of silly photos of me and my friends. I happen to enjoy the occasional post that lets me see what these people that I'm constantly reading about, actually look like. It makes this impersonal form of communication a little more personal.
I've been told way too many times by people that think they're 'normal' that the internet is too impersonal and that I must be some sort of 'closet-case' for actually enjoying it. When that happens I can actually point to photos like these and pretend I actually know them! :-)
(I'm kidding of course, a mere mortal like me could never be lucky enough to know someone as cool as CmdrTaco and Hemos.)
Keep those photos coming. But at the risk of souding like my father, a visit to the barber (for some of the others) wouldn't hurt! ;-)
(DUCK!)
And let's not forget RMS.
This is an excellent point. Where ARE all of the leaders?
In that IRC chat Bruce Perens was aksed about this and did speak briefly about it. His opinion can be found HERE.
And I wouldn't count on Linus to get TOO involved in such a controversial issue right now considering that he works for Transmeta and they probably don't want any negative press of any kind right now.
But that still doesn't explain the 2 guys with the initials. One in particular. They're usually around and usually speaking very loudly. I believe they are needed more than ever to support us in this, what might be the most important battle we ever fight.
I believe their support is needed even if this particular story turns out to be bogus.
__
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 decryption 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.
But as far as a suggestion for the contest. I would suggest taking those video clips of the guys blowing up water melons with their potato cannon, and adding the smell of burned napalm. And then perhaps adding the audio from Apocolypse Now of Bobby Duvall saying, "I love the smell of napalm in the morning... it smells like.... VICTORY."
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 decryption 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.
Make all forms of media, and their respective players/viewers/recorders, illegal. In doing so, you would have then eliminated ANY chance of any illegal copies of anything, from ever being made.
Sure, to some this might seem a bit draconian, but as I see it, only these kinds of thorough measures will achieve our collective goal of eliminating illegal copies of copyrighted material.
Does this mean that people can no longer create art? OF COURSE NOT! I mean sure, I do want to put a few new laws on the books, but let us not get crazy and go overboard.
HOWEVER, once you have created said work of art (regardless of media) you must then destroy it since the art itself lies within the creation. Being patted on the back for having done something "brilliant" is ego and can not be tolerated, and... we all know the everyone would want to make and distribute illegal copies, and we can't have that soooo......
It's cool. I sometimes read to quickly myself and guilty of the same thing.
While it is true that they were practicing every aspect of the mission during Mercury, recovery was not the most important feature. THE primary objective was getting a man in space before the Russians REALLY made us look bad. Having done that they weren't too worried about hooking a cable to a capsule and hauling it onto an aircraft carrier. Compared rendezvous and docking (in space), recovery was a no brainer. Yes Grissom's capsule did sink to the bottom but that was not a recovery issue. That was a problem with the explosive bolts on the capsule hatch. Recovery went relatively fine. They actually hooked into the capsule but it filled with water and was too heavy for the copter to lift. So they had to let it go.
You had better believe it they weren't! Like making space travel inexpensive! :-) They sold congress and America on this "reusable" spacecraft that was going to be cheap to refly, and we ended up getting a reusable aircraft that really ISN'T any cheaper than flying Saturn's would have been if we kept production up and got costs down. Plus we would have retained heavy-lift capability.
But I was never saying NASA'S batting average WAS .977. I was saying that even if you add any and all Mars (and other) probe failures you do not lower that .977 batting average that much. I was attempting to point out that their number of successes was actually quite high (thereby making your claim unlikely).
You however did say that their average was 50% or lower.
Then we have much in common. :-) I also admire the Russians for their space program. They did a lot of amazing things before we did.
Maybe. Probably. But so what? Mercury flights were not about guaranteeing exact splashdown coordinates. They were about testing a craft we built, to fly in space for the very first time(s).
Sure, Gus Grissom's capsule (which was recovered last summer). But again, that flight was not about successful capsule recovery, it was about what we learned DURING the flight.
I don't recall saying that. Don't put words in my mouth. Apollo-1 was one of the 2 Apollo flights in my list (if you read it) that was not a success.
See above. I listed 2 Apollo flights as NON SUCCESSES, this was the other.
I guess it depends on how you define successful. In all but one flight we got the ship up into orbit, learned something, and then successfully got the ship and crew back to fly again. Which incidentally would meet my definition of success.
Odd, I don't recall having said that.
However, I'm sure I could get a lot of NASA flight directors to agree with me that not losing any lives, not losing the ship (in the Shuttle's case), and learning something new defines a successful mission.
Amen to that. In many recent stories people have been quoting someone else (like posting 2 sentences from a law book in whatever legal case we might be discussing, for instance), and they're getting moderated up to a 5 when they didn't post one word of their very own.
I think that's lame.
Wow, there are people out there who would buy my porche from me so that I could buy a Ferrari?
What if it's not even constructed from pressure-treated lumber?
Umm, I wouldn't say so. But I guess it depends upon how you define LATELY. I prefer to look at their entire history.
6 Mercury flights, 6 successes.
10 Gemini flights, 10 successes.
12 manned Apollo flights (or tests), 10 successes.
3 Skylab flights, 3 successes.
We'll call it 100 shuttle flights with 99 successes.
We'll call that 131 flights with 128 successes.
You're telling me NASA has flown enough probes that have failed to bring that .977 batting average down below .500?
Well, it's not illogical to assume that a civilization that wanted to be found would continue to transmit using radio signals (for reasons that are obvious to us anyway). Plus there's the chance we'll pick up random radio signals just like we've been sending for the last 70+ years.
Incidentally, there are also projects searching for those very laser-light signals you mention, as well.
Umm, that's not a logical statement. If you don't want to looks for aliens that's fine.It's simply your choice.
But saying you don't believe in them has no correlation to whether or not they are actually out there. They might exist regardless of what you believe.
I'm not sure what you mean by "go straight into the atmosphere". Someone below thought that you might have meant a single stage to orbit (SSTO) type of vehicle.
While a great idea, we have yet to actually BUILD an SSTO vehicle. And while I believe it is possible, it will not be inexpensive since doing it will require using cutting edge materials to overcome the problems involved (the mass of the craft and how much fuel it can carry, etc..).
Actually, if we're going to work of some magical technology, lets first develop anti-gravity. With that you could pedal a bike into orbit.
And on a less magical and slightly more realistic note, why not aggressively develop the ability to manufacture huge quantities of Buckminister Fullerenes and build a space elevator to get into orbit? That would be the next best thing to anti-gravity.
If you ask me, ALL Black Holes are cool. ;-)
And that would be an argument I would make if I were an attorney on our side. It appeals to emotions a little bit but it also conjurs very powerful imagery.
Of course the judge too might see that and ask you to refrain from making such argument.
And I hate to be a cynical nay-sayer, and while I recognize this as being good, why post it here? For me, the articles on /. are secondary to the intelligent discussions that come about as a result of their being posted here.
Having said that, what kind of engaging conversation other than everyone agreeing that "this is a good thing," is this article going to generate?
Perhaps.
I think both the NSA and the government itself (though the legislature is slower to accept it because they don't UNDERSTAND it) finally realize that they actually LOST this encryption battle when Phil Zimmermann released PGP and it put military grade encryption in the hands of the masses.
The final nail in their coffin was when CLIPPER crashed and burned.
The cat has been out of the proverbial bag for 1/2 a decade and it's all just a simple matter of monolithic institutions taking a LONG time to adjust to realizations like these.
Eventually (probably sooner than later) all crypto will be freely exportable and this will be a non-issue. All the legislators need to THINK is that they CHOSE to do it, as opposed to having it rammed down their throats like actually happened, and they'll be happy. Since we all know they fear things like technology, and even though they know they actually can't control it, they need to think they can so that their egos stay adequately inflated so that they remain happy.
I for one would welcome a complete audio editng suite not unlike Protools for linux. I would more over to it instantly in my studio.
In previous studios in which I've worked we used Macs, with Protools and Logic audio in complete synchronism with both our analog and digital tape machines. Except they crashed like crazy.
I have also used Protools under NT, and as much as it pains me to say it, it is more stable with these apps than is MacOS.
HOWEVER, a powerful GPL'd editing tool under linux would make me the happiest engineer on the planet.
Not only would it allow me to alienate all of the other engineers who don't know what linux is (and think the Mac is the be-all-end-all platform on the planet). It would make for crashproof editing sessions! :-)
It's times like these when I wish I was a programmer. I would dedicate all of my free time to programming for such an effort.
Yes, all lunar eclipses occur when the moon is full. Think of it this way, the only way that the earth can block the sun's light from getting to the moon would be if the sun was at 6-O'clock, and the moon was at 12-O'clock (using that crazy military reference where 6-o'clock is exactly behind you and 12-o'clock is exactly in front of you).
The greatest irony is that the moon is at it's fullest at precisely the time that we can't see it. When it is totally eclipsed.