And your contribution to this discussion has been zero. You've come along here with a snarky comment that (shock! horror!) posts on a web forum don't strictly follow the scientific method. You incite my anger (which, by the way, doesn't make you intellectually superior to me, just more of a wanker) because you use the same line of 'reasoning' as young Earth creationists; you make petty and irrelevant jabs at the methodology of your opponent as if that someone in itself proves your position. You then proceed to act smug as if you've made some deep intellectual point and added something to the debate, except that you are the only person who thinks so.
ISS components have (after some delay) gone up on Proton - so they must've had an autonomous flight capabiltiy.
The European ATV has autonomous flight capability, and has plenty of capacity. In fact, there have been proposals in Europe to use the ATV as a building block for interplanetary space craft. This will be possible without the development of any new launchers at all (assuming European nations cough up the cash, which is the main pitfall).
Seeing as nobody is going to do a fucking control study about a Slashdot thread, your comment is less than worthless.
Of course I am giving an anecdote. Nothing else is appropriate in this context. All I can do is recount an experience, and if that annoys you then I really don't give a shit.
It ran classic Quark. Given that a good portion of Apples long-term customer base had been in the print industry, it was important that the shiny new revamped apples could be guaranteed to run Quark even if the people who bought them didn't upgrade it.
Given that most computers coming off production lines now have multiple cores, surely compiler designers (being an largely non-stupid bunch) are going to start aiming for parallel execution as standard? The question is of course, if your code is designed for 2 cores how does it scale to 4?
Are you serious? I've seen Vista running like a dog on hardware that's still got bits of polystyrene packaging hanging off it. Swapping the same machine to Ubuntu produced a shocking increase in performance, even with as many visual effects as I could find turned on.
And no, I didn't 'stick with windows 98SE' because I was on Windows 2K when XP came out, like most professional users. Now I am on OS X and Debian and couldn't be happier as a non-windows user.
Fine, so you just have to add one extra launch to your moon/mars ship. It still sounds like a better option than spending a load of money on a new vehicle. We've developed the capability of getting ~100t craft in orbit using 20t chunks, why not use it?
I very seriously doubt that Ares V, for all is good points, is going to kick the arse of the 20t range launchers (especially Ariane 5) in terms of launch costs.
On a serious note, I don't see why an interplanetary mission can't be assembled from a bunch of ~20t pieces instead of putting it all up in one shot. There are a lot of working, proven 20t launchers (Ariane 5, Delta IV, Proton, Long March 5) so international cooperation would be relatively simple.
It is stated US policy to completely control space, and deny access to it for anybody not friendly. China wants independent access to space, which is seen as unacceptable, so in order to be able to secure this access they need to be able to fight the US in space. If they can't blast American satellites to pieces they won't be able to have any serious space programme.
I've already got to fill in some homeland security forms just to be let off the plane. It is a very intimidating environment for a visitor, and I am going to be concerned that MI5 is going to casually pass my name as a possible subversive to them, and suddenly I'm classed as a threat.
They choose is from a limited selection of choices. The limitations are imposed by a tiny majority of the population, and frame the choice of media in such a way that people who wouldn't necessarily align themselves with the Fox party line in the first place watch it, and begin to be turned towards the Fox line.
The market (I won't use the term 'free market' because it doesn't liberate us at all, that is just a propaganda term) isn't actually any good at deciding what to transmit, so Fox News doesn't necessarily reflect badly on Americans intelligence.
It reflects on Fox News managements opinion of Americans intelligence.
I have to believe that is just a horrific coincidence, because not even the worst US military planners would do that. Although, all cluster bombs are bad for that reason. Small, brightly coloured unexploded munitions are not something we should be spreading around.
True; but stopping members of the mesh implicating each other is a technical problem, and seems quite solvable, and for your second point - history has shown no matter how many people they publicly beat to death for owning a phone or mesh networking laptop, there will always be someone willing to take risks and get the message out.
A scholar using Wikipedia has great access to information, because they can get the overview from the wiki page then check out the sources. Having an abundance of information is only problematic for people who don't know how to process it, and we are talking about experts using the information gathered on the ground to plan efficient responses to humanitarian crises.
It isn't a perfect solution. Sure, someone will get a bullet through the head for owning a mobile phone - but I think overall that it will improve desperate situations around the world.
1) Being poor doesn't necessarily make you stupid, or even uneducated. Sometimes people are hit by really shitty circumstances
2) Clever user interfaces can give some functionality to people even if they can't read
If higher echelons are indeed taking a deeper role in their subordinates actions then it makes the old "bad apples" denial far less credible, and that is saying something. A government can't claim "we didn't know about this" if they've spent billions developing a system that lets them know everything thats going on everywhere.
Slashdot Mirror
How has everything you've written not been modded troll yet?
And your contribution to this discussion has been zero. You've come along here with a snarky comment that (shock! horror!) posts on a web forum don't strictly follow the scientific method. You incite my anger (which, by the way, doesn't make you intellectually superior to me, just more of a wanker) because you use the same line of 'reasoning' as young Earth creationists; you make petty and irrelevant jabs at the methodology of your opponent as if that someone in itself proves your position. You then proceed to act smug as if you've made some deep intellectual point and added something to the debate, except that you are the only person who thinks so.
ISS components have (after some delay) gone up on Proton - so they must've had an autonomous flight capabiltiy.
The European ATV has autonomous flight capability, and has plenty of capacity. In fact, there have been proposals in Europe to use the ATV as a building block for interplanetary space craft. This will be possible without the development of any new launchers at all (assuming European nations cough up the cash, which is the main pitfall).
Seeing as nobody is going to do a fucking control study about a Slashdot thread, your comment is less than worthless.
Of course I am giving an anecdote. Nothing else is appropriate in this context. All I can do is recount an experience, and if that annoys you then I really don't give a shit.
MS should get all their developers to start contributing to Wine, then develop their next GUI as a skin for Ubuntu.
It ran classic Quark. Given that a good portion of Apples long-term customer base had been in the print industry, it was important that the shiny new revamped apples could be guaranteed to run Quark even if the people who bought them didn't upgrade it.
Given that most computers coming off production lines now have multiple cores, surely compiler designers (being an largely non-stupid bunch) are going to start aiming for parallel execution as standard? The question is of course, if your code is designed for 2 cores how does it scale to 4?
Are you serious? I've seen Vista running like a dog on hardware that's still got bits of polystyrene packaging hanging off it. Swapping the same machine to Ubuntu produced a shocking increase in performance, even with as many visual effects as I could find turned on.
And no, I didn't 'stick with windows 98SE' because I was on Windows 2K when XP came out, like most professional users. Now I am on OS X and Debian and couldn't be happier as a non-windows user.
What do you call the international space station then? I thought half the point of making it was to gain experience assembling big things in space?
Fine, so you just have to add one extra launch to your moon/mars ship. It still sounds like a better option than spending a load of money on a new vehicle. We've developed the capability of getting ~100t craft in orbit using 20t chunks, why not use it?
I very seriously doubt that Ares V, for all is good points, is going to kick the arse of the 20t range launchers (especially Ariane 5) in terms of launch costs.
On a serious note, I don't see why an interplanetary mission can't be assembled from a bunch of ~20t pieces instead of putting it all up in one shot. There are a lot of working, proven 20t launchers (Ariane 5, Delta IV, Proton, Long March 5) so international cooperation would be relatively simple.
It is stated US policy to completely control space, and deny access to it for anybody not friendly. China wants independent access to space, which is seen as unacceptable, so in order to be able to secure this access they need to be able to fight the US in space. If they can't blast American satellites to pieces they won't be able to have any serious space programme.
It isn't your choice - it is the choice of the random schmuck who gets to die, and of course you can ID them in advance.
I've already got to fill in some homeland security forms just to be let off the plane. It is a very intimidating environment for a visitor, and I am going to be concerned that MI5 is going to casually pass my name as a possible subversive to them, and suddenly I'm classed as a threat.
I've been critical of the US on Internet forums; is this going to give me hassle getting in when I visit next month?
They choose is from a limited selection of choices. The limitations are imposed by a tiny majority of the population, and frame the choice of media in such a way that people who wouldn't necessarily align themselves with the Fox party line in the first place watch it, and begin to be turned towards the Fox line.
The market (I won't use the term 'free market' because it doesn't liberate us at all, that is just a propaganda term) isn't actually any good at deciding what to transmit, so Fox News doesn't necessarily reflect badly on Americans intelligence.
It reflects on Fox News managements opinion of Americans intelligence.
Throwing arms into a crisis situation rarely makes it better
I have to believe that is just a horrific coincidence, because not even the worst US military planners would do that. Although, all cluster bombs are bad for that reason. Small, brightly coloured unexploded munitions are not something we should be spreading around.
True; but stopping members of the mesh implicating each other is a technical problem, and seems quite solvable, and for your second point - history has shown no matter how many people they publicly beat to death for owning a phone or mesh networking laptop, there will always be someone willing to take risks and get the message out.
A scholar using Wikipedia has great access to information, because they can get the overview from the wiki page then check out the sources. Having an abundance of information is only problematic for people who don't know how to process it, and we are talking about experts using the information gathered on the ground to plan efficient responses to humanitarian crises.
It isn't a perfect solution. Sure, someone will get a bullet through the head for owning a mobile phone - but I think overall that it will improve desperate situations around the world.
1) Being poor doesn't necessarily make you stupid, or even uneducated. Sometimes people are hit by really shitty circumstances 2) Clever user interfaces can give some functionality to people even if they can't read
Its really to keep the brass magnates rich churning out stars and medals....
If higher echelons are indeed taking a deeper role in their subordinates actions then it makes the old "bad apples" denial far less credible, and that is saying something. A government can't claim "we didn't know about this" if they've spent billions developing a system that lets them know everything thats going on everywhere.