It is so inspiring to see that shuttle blast into orbit. Such a technological achievement, such an affirmation of the power and beauty science has brought to us.
And yet, here alongside these feelings of grandeur in my heart are these off-putting notions of what the shuttle actually means. How, even though it's one of the most amazing creations in the history of mankind, it represents so many of our failings.
The cost of a shuttle launch, while great, is dwarfed by the day-to-day costs of modern wars.
The shuttle, while technologically impressive, is still very much a cut-back version of what it was intended to be.
If you have the time I recommend watching and listening to Rutan's adress to the National Space Society.
Rutan makes many points to ponder - which highlight questions I myself have wondered. For instance, why can't I fly to space yet? Why is it so hard?
Burt Rutan makes the observation that when he saw the Redstone rocket at the national air museum he wondered, "why don't we fly this anymore?".
Indeed why! It's cheap, it's simple - simpler can and often does mean safer. The Redstone can get a person or two into orbit. And why not launch a couple a week? Burt Rutan goes on to point out that after each new space vehicle is created the old designs are never used again.
He states that if we followed this philosophy with aircraft we would have only one airplane flying right now, the B2 bomber!
I don't mean to be a naysayer on this great launch day. I don't mean to steal thunder from such a remarkable achievement (and few are greater fans of the space shuttle than myself). But I think there is a problem with NASA's philosophy of what space exploration is - what it means to the average person.
For me, space exploration means the exploration of space. And I want to be the explorer.
As far as I know, NASA doesn't have me slated for any launches in the foreseeable future.
I said it in another thread - but I do love it when we get to see actual video of astronomical footage.
Don't get me wrong, I love astronomy and the photographs gleaned from it are simply the most profound images ever seen by mankind. Please understand the significance of what I mean there.
But when we can actually see these objects in motion, in-vivo so to speak, it's just so remarkable!
I only hope that when the next generation space telescopes are in orbit that they will be able to capture the streams of x-rays shooting from the poles of neutron stars exciting the gas of the surrounding nebula like a gigantic cosmic northern lights.
There are frames that weigh less than that frame - but it's made from freakin nanotubes!
The bike is made of nanotubes kind of the same way you can make a pile of legos. The legos aren't being used as they should or could, but the pile is made of legos nonetheless.
perhaps it has something to do with nanotubes being akin to (or perhaps actual) metamaterials. In that case it would seem that they posses some electromagnetic properties that greatly alter their interaction with certain materials.
Perhaps this increased flow is an indication that nanotubes are also very resitant to atmospheric wear (which would be a boon to using them for large-scale structures). Or perhaps it's an indication that they wear down at an accelerated pace.
All I know is that it is so awesome that these little macro-molecules (nice oxymoron there) keep surprising us with their strange and unusual properties. it's the strange and unusual that I so love about science in general.
I've heard it said that materials science is the slowest science - and it's almost certainly true. It is taking forever to get consumer products from carbon nanotubes (with a few exceptions).
But all the uses found for a new material and all the new applications discovered - in many respects it certaily seems to be the most fruitful science (at least in the engineering and day-to-day sense).
I'm always skeptical about anything that puts webcasting and broadcasting in the same boat.
Yes, superficially they appear very similar. A single originating source distributing to the masses. But there the similarities stop.
With broadcasting there are certain physical limitations to take into account - for instance, if I want 100 people to hear/see my broadcast I need a signal of a certain power and frequency. If I want 1000 people to be able to hear it I must increase the broadcast power and I may need to change frequencies (depending upon what certain areas of the spectrum are defined for). Now, if I pay for 1000 people to listen to me, but only 1 actually tunes in the radio - it doesn't matter: I'm still paying the same amount for if 10,000 or 1 person hears me. I need to keep pumping the signal strength.
With webcasting I only pay bandwidth based upon how many users are actively connected to me. Furthermore - by using p2p technologies I can emmensely leverage the bandwith problem. Suddenly the differential between reaching one listener and reaching 10,000 is greatly altered in webcasting from that of broadcasting.
Webcasting and broadcasting are essentially two different entities.
actually, by combining this technology with this technology you could have a pretty cool visual representation of the earth and it's current space traffic.
Am I correct in assuming much of this spam will originate internationally (meaning outside the US and major European countries)?
I would imagine that the "do not call" registry will still apply to VOIP and that national companies will still have to abide by it.
If this is the case, could not a VOIP inbox be set to filter unsollicited international calls to a spam-inbox?
Yes, I understand that there is still the possibility that an unsolicited, international call may be warrented for some or even many - but this seems like at least one way of combating the enevitable deluge of voice advertisement.
I agree that music is even on iTunes still overpriced.
It is my feeling that music should be offered for free by default. It costs me NOTHING to turn on the radio - only my time - and I can hear the music for absolute free there.
What maybe would be a good idea is rather than pay for a song pay for a subscription service - you know, $.99 "subscription" to the song which would give you emailed updates on remixes - live versions and such that you could then subsequently download for free.
I think that sounds like a nifty idea.
But at it's core, music should be free;) - artists should make money through commissions and performances.
The real thing the 'AAs have lost is the power of distribution.
20 years ago if you wanted a movie you had to hop in the car. Even for home viewing of a VHS you had to go to the video store.
The MPAA and RIAA need to face the fact that the internet is essentially a broadcast/time-shifted medium which casts to a broader audience than ever. And how do broadcaster's make their money? Advertising.
This may or may not be a popular notion - but it is my opinion that the best way to support movies and music in the future is via product endorsement. Yes, that's right. You might see wayne's world-esqe product placement rise - but isn't everyday life just product placement anyhow? look around you and count the consumer items that have no labeling on them. Our movies and music should follow suit and become freely distributable.
They cannot hold back the tide forever - I think it is inevitable.
I had always thought that wars of attrition happened because two sides were so evenly matched that neither could gain an advantage. In this respect it would seem that attrition is the most "fair" type of warfare.
However it now seems obvious to me that the concept of attrition can also arise and be used in very unfair and inequal ways.
When losing a court case in a particular scope to greatly expand that scope? It seems preposterious to me - if I attempt to claim ownership of B, D, and F, but begin to lose how could it possibly make sense to now claim that I own A thorough G?
Perhaps this is just the first scope-creep in a long overarching strategy which can only lead to one inevitable outcome!
This makes a lot of sense - even if just speculation and rumor. After all, how many of us played our first home video games on an apple?
I remember hours and hours wasted on my Franklin (an Apple IIe clone) computer playing "Flight Simulator"!
I remember banging my head against the wall trying to figure out how to get those lines to show up on the ground. When I realized it was impossible I fantasized about the day when computers would be powerful enough to render some kind of wireframe terrain!
This is an interesting problem isn't it; the fact that the physical layer of the internet is wholly owned while the logical layer is so distributed. It's amazing the internet has stayed neutral for as long as it has - though as you originally pointed out, there is a bit of blocking of certain traffics currently happening (p2p - comcast blocking voip).
I must say that I abhor the idea of my ISP dictating where my packets go and what packets I can recieve.
I must also say that I am glad to see that you can post an idea as unpopular as not being deathly afraid of network nuetrality on slashdot and still get modded pretty fairly.
It is always good to hear both sides of the argument - and we should always be open to and actively seek the reasoning behind ideas and opinions that differ from our own.
I hope my original responses to you points didn't sound hostile or sarcastic - I simply wished to set up counterpoints to those which seemed most relevant to me.
bandwidth is already plentiful; we're talking about hypothetical harms here. (For the record, I actually downgraded my broadband a few months ago, with absolutely no complaints).
I would replace "already" with "currently". And YOU downgraded your broadband, would you still have no complaints if your were downgraded by your ISP?
2)companies already pay for ISP's and webhosting; tiered service is not anything new. Anyway, webhosting costs have been decreasing in price. I find it highly unlikely that this downward trend won't continue across the board.
It would be likely that the price would continue to fall - unless some kind of artificial system were put into place so that the telecoms could start increasing the price for "extranet-access" and a "media connection". Currently, you host a website, someone in Japan can browse to it. "media connection" is just called "bandwidth" currently.
4)So what if SBC decides to implement a tiered system of bandwidth! Consumers just stop renewing their contracts if they hate it enough. That's much better than making courts and legislators do a lot of hairsplitting about what legislative intent was/should be.
Just like if people hate spam so much they would just stop opening it. Sorry, not a great example. But you do realise that for many there is little other choice than SBC. Additionally, if I decide to go with another DSL provider they will still have to traverse SBC's network - and without nuetrality SBC can charge that ISP what they wish for access to "their" section of the internet
5)I worry less about tiered service than I do about ISPs blocking p2p traffic. Then again, I see no need to enact legislation merely to keep certain ports open.
Tiered service and blocking types of traffic are essentially the same thing - except tiered services is much more a hammer than a chisel. How can you less worried about the superset problem?
6)as an independent content producer (and soon a distributor), I want the Net environment to be as unregulated as possible (even from laws that purport to ensure acess). If some ISPs are going to charge for tiered service, either they better offer substantial benefits to customers or people will abandon them in droves.
Microsoft:"as an independent software producer, I want trade to be as unregulated as possible (even from laws that purport free trade)."
A little regulation is neccessary sometimes - I don't like the idea, I think we have too many laws as is. But bandwidth is gold. The internet only operates as it currently does because of neutrality. Remember the internet.
What would have been nice is if the space shuttle had been built as it was supposed to be built. The space shuttle was originally a two part system - not entirely dissimilar to the spaceship one paradigm.
The original specs for the space shuttle entailed the orbiter (pretty much the same as it is today) and a "reusable booster" vehicle. The "booster" was going to be a hybrid jet/rocket about the size of a 747 (which explains why the shuttle fits so nicely on one) and was going to fly right to the edge of space and deploy the orbiter for the rest of the journey.
The idea was scrapped primarily because of budget contraints. It seems likely these cutbacks were brought on by the vietnam war and the civil unrest occuring around the southern states.
It is a fact that both shuttle disasters have in no way been the fault of the orbiter in any way whatsoever. The Challenger was lost due to the booster rocket and the Columbia from the external fuel tank.
IMO - Rotating the shuttle 90 degrees and strapping it onto a big fat rocket is the biggest kludge in engineering history. Now NASA has no choice but to continue to shoe shine that billion dollar...you know what.
I hate it so much because I love the idea of the Shuttle so much. I love how that thing flipping LOOKS! It's the greatest spacecraft in history! But now it's got such a reputation when it was never the orbiter's fault. And now we take a leap backwards and go with a capsule again (yes, it's tried and tested - but so is walking, but it's not the best means of travel).
Citing "technical difficulties" with the booster vehicle idea is a cop-out. If we had built the shuttle with the booster vehicle then I think it likely we would have learned much more than we have about reusability and runway-to-runway space flight. Heck, I venture to speculate we may have solved the single-stage-to-orbit problem already.
Let's just hope we don't get stuck some other war which will sap the budgets out of our technological development...
When you put it that way I guess so:) - of course I'm thinking of it more as a hybrid wired/wireless approach. Because you essentially need line of sight for UWB to work properly (excepting the article's apparent breakthrough) you would place a trancieving element in every room of a building. However, within the room you would have the wireless access.
It would be somewhat like running antennas around - but these elements could be completely passive, requiring no power to propagate the signal between rooms.
You would have some of the benifits and some of the drawbacks of both wired and wireless. But as I conceded - I am just spouting ill-informed speculation here. I'm not as familiar with UWB as I will be in a few hours.
yes, somewhat. However in this case it would be an antenna between two rooms without anything being used to boost the signal. No power, completely passive, but allowing the UWB to flow freely between the rooms (where the wall would otherwise block the signal).
I wonder, if, as you say, it's something like light could it be routed through a "fiber-optic"-like material? This way you could have some kind of passive recieving element on one end of this fiber and then run it through the wall or through the ceiling just like cat 5, and on the other end you have another passive trancieving material.
I don't know enough about UWB yet for this to be more than fantastical speculation - but if this range of frequency can be reflected and refracted like light it would seem to me that this is at least a possibility.
After all, fiber optics are used for routing ordinary lighting - could the uwb signal be captured and transmitted along an element of some sort without the need to use active electronics?
Slashdot Mirror
It is so inspiring to see that shuttle blast into orbit. Such a technological achievement, such an affirmation of the power and beauty science has brought to us.
And yet, here alongside these feelings of grandeur in my heart are these off-putting notions of what the shuttle actually means. How, even though it's one of the most amazing creations in the history of mankind, it represents so many of our failings.
The cost of a shuttle launch, while great, is dwarfed by the day-to-day costs of modern wars.
The shuttle, while technologically impressive, is still very much a cut-back version of what it was intended to be.
If you have the time I recommend watching and listening to Rutan's adress to the National Space Society.
Rutan makes many points to ponder - which highlight questions I myself have wondered. For instance, why can't I fly to space yet? Why is it so hard?
Burt Rutan makes the observation that when he saw the Redstone rocket at the national air museum he wondered, "why don't we fly this anymore?".
Indeed why! It's cheap, it's simple - simpler can and often does mean safer. The Redstone can get a person or two into orbit. And why not launch a couple a week? Burt Rutan goes on to point out that after each new space vehicle is created the old designs are never used again.
He states that if we followed this philosophy with aircraft we would have only one airplane flying right now, the B2 bomber!
I don't mean to be a naysayer on this great launch day. I don't mean to steal thunder from such a remarkable achievement (and few are greater fans of the space shuttle than myself). But I think there is a problem with NASA's philosophy of what space exploration is - what it means to the average person.
For me, space exploration means the exploration of space. And I want to be the explorer.
As far as I know, NASA doesn't have me slated for any launches in the foreseeable future.
awesome! simply awesome!
:D
Thanks
I said it in another thread - but I do love it when we get to see actual video of astronomical footage.
:]
Don't get me wrong, I love astronomy and the photographs gleaned from it are simply the most profound images ever seen by mankind. Please understand the significance of what I mean there.
But when we can actually see these objects in motion, in-vivo so to speak, it's just so remarkable!
I only hope that when the next generation space telescopes are in orbit that they will be able to capture the streams of x-rays shooting from the poles of neutron stars exciting the gas of the surrounding nebula like a gigantic cosmic northern lights.
I *heart* astronomy
There are frames that weigh less than that frame - but it's made from freakin nanotubes!
The bike is made of nanotubes kind of the same way you can make a pile of legos. The legos aren't being used as they should or could, but the pile is made of legos nonetheless.
perhaps it has something to do with nanotubes being akin to (or perhaps actual) metamaterials. In that case it would seem that they posses some electromagnetic properties that greatly alter their interaction with certain materials.
Perhaps this increased flow is an indication that nanotubes are also very resitant to atmospheric wear (which would be a boon to using them for large-scale structures). Or perhaps it's an indication that they wear down at an accelerated pace.
All I know is that it is so awesome that these little macro-molecules (nice oxymoron there) keep surprising us with their strange and unusual properties. it's the strange and unusual that I so love about science in general.
I've heard it said that materials science is the slowest science - and it's almost certainly true. It is taking forever to get consumer products from carbon nanotubes (with a few exceptions).
But all the uses found for a new material and all the new applications discovered - in many respects it certaily seems to be the most fruitful science (at least in the engineering and day-to-day sense).
I'm always skeptical about anything that puts webcasting and broadcasting in the same boat.
Yes, superficially they appear very similar. A single originating source distributing to the masses. But there the similarities stop.
With broadcasting there are certain physical limitations to take into account - for instance, if I want 100 people to hear/see my broadcast I need a signal of a certain power and frequency. If I want 1000 people to be able to hear it I must increase the broadcast power and I may need to change frequencies (depending upon what certain areas of the spectrum are defined for). Now, if I pay for 1000 people to listen to me, but only 1 actually tunes in the radio - it doesn't matter: I'm still paying the same amount for if 10,000 or 1 person hears me. I need to keep pumping the signal strength.
With webcasting I only pay bandwidth based upon how many users are actively connected to me. Furthermore - by using p2p technologies I can emmensely leverage the bandwith problem. Suddenly the differential between reaching one listener and reaching 10,000 is greatly altered in webcasting from that of broadcasting.
Webcasting and broadcasting are essentially two different entities.
actually, by combining this technology with this technology you could have a pretty cool visual representation of the earth and it's current space traffic.
Rain dances have begun working, since water has started to fall from the sky.
The GPL is like a nude beach. It's an agreement that you are no going to wear any clothes on this beach.
Microsoft wants to hang out on that beach but not remove thier clothing.
I can't blame them; but The sunbathers all know that Microsoft is just there to ogle.
Am I correct in assuming much of this spam will originate internationally (meaning outside the US and major European countries)?
I would imagine that the "do not call" registry will still apply to VOIP and that national companies will still have to abide by it.
If this is the case, could not a VOIP inbox be set to filter unsollicited international calls to a spam-inbox?
Yes, I understand that there is still the possibility that an unsolicited, international call may be warrented for some or even many - but this seems like at least one way of combating the enevitable deluge of voice advertisement.
Keep dreaming.
I always have, and I always will
Bye bye, EFF. It's been nice but all good things must come to an end.
So shouldn't bad things also?
I agree that music is even on iTunes still overpriced. It is my feeling that music should be offered for free by default. It costs me NOTHING to turn on the radio - only my time - and I can hear the music for absolute free there.
;) - artists should make money through commissions and performances.
What maybe would be a good idea is rather than pay for a song pay for a subscription service - you know, $.99 "subscription" to the song which would give you emailed updates on remixes - live versions and such that you could then subsequently download for free.
I think that sounds like a nifty idea.
But at it's core, music should be free
The real thing the 'AAs have lost is the power of distribution.
20 years ago if you wanted a movie you had to hop in the car. Even for home viewing of a VHS you had to go to the video store.
The MPAA and RIAA need to face the fact that the internet is essentially a broadcast/time-shifted medium which casts to a broader audience than ever. And how do broadcaster's make their money? Advertising.
This may or may not be a popular notion - but it is my opinion that the best way to support movies and music in the future is via product endorsement. Yes, that's right. You might see wayne's world-esqe product placement rise - but isn't everyday life just product placement anyhow? look around you and count the consumer items that have no labeling on them. Our movies and music should follow suit and become freely distributable.
They cannot hold back the tide forever - I think it is inevitable.
if you change one word I think your point becomes fallible.
People with old world business experience going up against young idealists
In either case, new ideas actually quite often do win.
The Chinese are upset that Google continues to do business with the democratic west.
I had always thought that wars of attrition happened because two sides were so evenly matched that neither could gain an advantage. In this respect it would seem that attrition is the most "fair" type of warfare.
However it now seems obvious to me that the concept of attrition can also arise and be used in very unfair and inequal ways.
I find this behaviour reprehensible
When losing a court case in a particular scope to greatly expand that scope? It seems preposterious to me - if I attempt to claim ownership of B, D, and F, but begin to lose how could it possibly make sense to now claim that I own A thorough G?
Perhaps this is just the first scope-creep in a long overarching strategy which can only lead to one inevitable outcome!
This makes a lot of sense - even if just speculation and rumor. After all, how many of us played our first home video games on an apple?
I remember hours and hours wasted on my Franklin (an Apple IIe clone) computer playing "Flight Simulator"!
I remember banging my head against the wall trying to figure out how to get those lines to show up on the ground. When I realized it was impossible I fantasized about the day when computers would be powerful enough to render some kind of wireframe terrain!
How awesome would that be!
This is an interesting problem isn't it; the fact that the physical layer of the internet is wholly owned while the logical layer is so distributed. It's amazing the internet has stayed neutral for as long as it has - though as you originally pointed out, there is a bit of blocking of certain traffics currently happening (p2p - comcast blocking voip).
I must say that I abhor the idea of my ISP dictating where my packets go and what packets I can recieve.
I must also say that I am glad to see that you can post an idea as unpopular as not being deathly afraid of network nuetrality on slashdot and still get modded pretty fairly.
It is always good to hear both sides of the argument - and we should always be open to and actively seek the reasoning behind ideas and opinions that differ from our own.
I hope my original responses to you points didn't sound hostile or sarcastic - I simply wished to set up counterpoints to those which seemed most relevant to me.
bandwidth is already plentiful; we're talking about hypothetical harms here. (For the record, I actually downgraded my broadband a few months ago, with absolutely no complaints).
I would replace "already" with "currently". And YOU downgraded your broadband, would you still have no complaints if your were downgraded by your ISP?
2)companies already pay for ISP's and webhosting; tiered service is not anything new. Anyway, webhosting costs have been decreasing in price. I find it highly unlikely that this downward trend won't continue across the board.
It would be likely that the price would continue to fall - unless some kind of artificial system were put into place so that the telecoms could start increasing the price for "extranet-access" and a "media connection". Currently, you host a website, someone in Japan can browse to it. "media connection" is just called "bandwidth" currently.
4)So what if SBC decides to implement a tiered system of bandwidth! Consumers just stop renewing their contracts if they hate it enough. That's much better than making courts and legislators do a lot of hairsplitting about what legislative intent was/should be.
Just like if people hate spam so much they would just stop opening it. Sorry, not a great example. But you do realise that for many there is little other choice than SBC. Additionally, if I decide to go with another DSL provider they will still have to traverse SBC's network - and without nuetrality SBC can charge that ISP what they wish for access to "their" section of the internet
5)I worry less about tiered service than I do about ISPs blocking p2p traffic. Then again, I see no need to enact legislation merely to keep certain ports open. Tiered service and blocking types of traffic are essentially the same thing - except tiered services is much more a hammer than a chisel. How can you less worried about the superset problem?
6)as an independent content producer (and soon a distributor), I want the Net environment to be as unregulated as possible (even from laws that purport to ensure acess). If some ISPs are going to charge for tiered service, either they better offer substantial benefits to customers or people will abandon them in droves.
Microsoft:"as an independent software producer, I want trade to be as unregulated as possible (even from laws that purport free trade)."
A little regulation is neccessary sometimes - I don't like the idea, I think we have too many laws as is. But bandwidth is gold. The internet only operates as it currently does because of neutrality. Remember the internet.
What would have been nice is if the space shuttle had been built as it was supposed to be built. The space shuttle was originally a two part system - not entirely dissimilar to the spaceship one paradigm.
The original specs for the space shuttle entailed the orbiter (pretty much the same as it is today) and a "reusable booster" vehicle. The "booster" was going to be a hybrid jet/rocket about the size of a 747 (which explains why the shuttle fits so nicely on one) and was going to fly right to the edge of space and deploy the orbiter for the rest of the journey.
The idea was scrapped primarily because of budget contraints. It seems likely these cutbacks were brought on by the vietnam war and the civil unrest occuring around the southern states.
It is a fact that both shuttle disasters have in no way been the fault of the orbiter in any way whatsoever. The Challenger was lost due to the booster rocket and the Columbia from the external fuel tank.
IMO - Rotating the shuttle 90 degrees and strapping it onto a big fat rocket is the biggest kludge in engineering history. Now NASA has no choice but to continue to shoe shine that billion dollar...you know what.
I hate it so much because I love the idea of the Shuttle so much. I love how that thing flipping LOOKS! It's the greatest spacecraft in history! But now it's got such a reputation when it was never the orbiter's fault. And now we take a leap backwards and go with a capsule again (yes, it's tried and tested - but so is walking, but it's not the best means of travel).
Citing "technical difficulties" with the booster vehicle idea is a cop-out. If we had built the shuttle with the booster vehicle then I think it likely we would have learned much more than we have about reusability and runway-to-runway space flight. Heck, I venture to speculate we may have solved the single-stage-to-orbit problem already.
Let's just hope we don't get stuck some other war which will sap the budgets out of our technological development...
Ha!
:) - of course I'm thinking of it more as a hybrid wired/wireless approach. Because you essentially need line of sight for UWB to work properly (excepting the article's apparent breakthrough) you would place a trancieving element in every room of a building. However, within the room you would have the wireless access.
When you put it that way I guess so
It would be somewhat like running antennas around - but these elements could be completely passive, requiring no power to propagate the signal between rooms.
You would have some of the benifits and some of the drawbacks of both wired and wireless. But as I conceded - I am just spouting ill-informed speculation here. I'm not as familiar with UWB as I will be in a few hours.
hehe, nice.
yes, somewhat. However in this case it would be an antenna between two rooms without anything being used to boost the signal. No power, completely passive, but allowing the UWB to flow freely between the rooms (where the wall would otherwise block the signal).
I wonder, if, as you say, it's something like light could it be routed through a "fiber-optic"-like material? This way you could have some kind of passive recieving element on one end of this fiber and then run it through the wall or through the ceiling just like cat 5, and on the other end you have another passive trancieving material.
I don't know enough about UWB yet for this to be more than fantastical speculation - but if this range of frequency can be reflected and refracted like light it would seem to me that this is at least a possibility.
After all, fiber optics are used for routing ordinary lighting - could the uwb signal be captured and transmitted along an element of some sort without the need to use active electronics?