Moving on: I really don't see what the big deal is, so what if MS doesn't patch NT? The only people using NT are businesses that are reluctant or unable to upgrade.
Some businesses are reluctant to upgrade because they are running mission critical apps (even on Windows) where changing the OS may force them to go through some sort of lengthy and expensive tests.
I once worked on software running on an archaic version of Unix. The OS was never upraged because doing so would force them to get the entire system recertified by the FDA (it was a system used in medical diagnostics). As it was, it was a pain to recertify individual programs on this system.
Holy shit, GW actually did something right. I mean, I know it's not that hard picking up a pen and putting your signature where your political advisors tell you to. Still, this law rocks. I love it. If I could, I would marry it. I am so on that list A.S.A.P
History is full of examples like the ones that you used. Scientists have a nasty habit of proclaming something as truth only to find out later that it was not the truth after all and must be revised into a new "Truth"
Examples, please
Religion, on the other hand, specifically biblical christianity, has never changed
Please compare what is known about 1st century christianity with your religion and tell us christianity has never changed.
THe problem with Creationism is that it isn't Science, it is Religion. It isn't Science because it can't be disproved
That's a bit simplistic (though not totally wrong). Creationism isn't science because the people involved do no actual science. Read some creationists articles and compare them to articles in real journals and compare what the authors actually do. You'll quickly see the difference.
They need to talk to someone with experience...
on
Meteorite Bowling
·
· Score: 2, Funny
The should contact David Letterman - he has all sorts of experience with this sort of stuff.
I am sure that they would have found a way. We kept 3 men alive for many days with duct tape and baggies on Apollo 13.. never ever underestimate the cleverness of NASA in a tight situation.
Maybe, but NASA was a much more agile organization back then. Plus the Apollo moon missions had many more abort options built in to their flights than the shuttle. Apollo 13 followed a free return trajectory which was built into its flight profile and using the LEM engine was planned contingency, the big bit of improvisation was using the LEM as a lifeboat.
they can even calculate the benefits of an explosive decompression. the science bay could have been used as a propulsion system...
I doubt very much that explosive decompression would be able provide anything near the delta V required.
This isn't 1968 we have many many ways of launching things into space within a couple days notice.
Possibly, but could any of them have been ready in time?
First we have a silly thing we like to call a "space station" that yes, the shuttle was NOT equipped with the docking module but what is so fricking hard about doing a spacewalk?
I agree that it's likely utter bullshit, but Columbia was in a much lower orbit than the ISS and didn't have the fuel to reach it. So even if NASA knew there was a problem, the ISS would not have been an option.
The Saturn V was designed for super-orbital travel (i.e., going to the moon).
But the Saturn V was useful for putting very large payloads into orbit (people forget how big Skylab was). There was also the Saturn 1b for putting smaller payloads into orbit (the Apollo CM/SM).
The real shame is that the Saturn V only had one production run, if they'd kept making them there would have been improvements, and who knows what we could have come up with to do with them?
For example there were plans to make the first stage reusable and the 3rd stage had potential as a space station component. The Saturn 5 never did see its full potential.
There may have been primitive bacteria or algae that were transported to Mars from Earth.
True, but it's more likely to have happened the other way (assuming there was life on Mars).
"interplanetary cross-pollination" from a small
planet to a large planet is easier than the other way around. The escape velocity for the smaller planet is lower and the gravity well of the larger planet make it easier for the debris to "find".
There were several postings, asking him about his writing, and also what he would do to fix ST:5 that would have made for much more interesting fare for an interview...
How to fix ST:5
Invent a time machine
Go back in time and redo the movie with
a different script and director
Well keep in mind that at one point the general scientific community thought the earth was flat
Show that there was anything resembling a "scientific community" before it was shown that
the earch is not flat.
and that electrons were tiny bits of stuff that ran in discrete rings around a nuclei.
At one time, it was a good enough model, but from the beginning it was known to be a flawed model (classical physics predicts that the electrons would spiral into the nucleus of an atom).
Now if you're talking about the absolute origins of life,...
Actually, evolution doesn't attempt to explain th
"absolute origins of life" - this is a seperate issue (though it is ultimately related).
On the other, keeping people in space is important if we want to expand our horizons for manned missions to other planets.
Unfortunately, space stations have always been the "safe" fallback position for manned space flight. When it was clear the Russians lost the moon race, they shifted their program to space stations. Instead of more moon exploration or a manned Mars mission the U.S.A. did the same.
When nobody has the balls to propose anything bold for manned spaceflight, we end up with a space station of somewhat limited utility. It would be cool if we had a space station that served as an assembly and launching point for manned expoloration, but that's not what we have in the ISS.
Slashdot Mirror
Some businesses are reluctant to upgrade because they are running mission critical apps (even on Windows) where changing the OS may force them to go through some sort of lengthy and expensive tests.
I once worked on software running on an archaic version of Unix. The OS was never upraged because doing so would force them to get the entire system recertified by the FDA (it was a system used in medical diagnostics). As it was, it was a pain to recertify individual programs on this system.
Now we'll have a bunch of people running around and saying things like "Stapling machine, Mrs Zambesi"
Sometimes, even a blind squirrel finds a nut.
They're so bankrupt of ideas they're starting to remake shows that sucked. On the bright side, it probably can't be any worse than the original.
There are some problems with that statement:
And what he calls biblical Christianity is largely a 19th century American invention.
Examples, please
Religion, on the other hand, specifically biblical christianity, has never changed
Please compare what is known about 1st century christianity with your religion and tell us christianity has never changed.
Oh goody, it looks like some creationists have moderation points. Notice at this time, all the anti creationist post have been modded offtopic.
While we're at it check out my suggestion for Slashdot's moderation system.
That's a bit simplistic (though not totally wrong). Creationism isn't science because the people involved do no actual science. Read some creationists articles and compare them to articles in real journals and compare what the authors actually do. You'll quickly see the difference.
The should contact David Letterman - he has all sorts of experience with this sort of stuff.
Maybe, but NASA was a much more agile organization back then. Plus the Apollo moon missions had many more abort options built in to their flights than the shuttle. Apollo 13 followed a free return trajectory which was built into its flight profile and using the LEM engine was planned contingency, the big bit of improvisation was using the LEM as a lifeboat.
they can even calculate the benefits of an explosive decompression. the science bay could have been used as a propulsion system...
I doubt very much that explosive decompression would be able provide anything near the delta V required.
This isn't 1968 we have many many ways of launching things into space within a couple days notice.
Possibly, but could any of them have been ready in time?
That is utter bullshit and you know it.
First we have a silly thing we like to call a "space station" that yes, the shuttle was NOT equipped with the docking module but what is so fricking hard about doing a spacewalk?
I agree that it's likely utter bullshit, but Columbia was in a much lower orbit than the ISS and didn't have the fuel to reach it. So even if NASA knew there was a problem, the ISS would not have been an option.
I think the problem with Insurrection was that if felt like a two hour episode of the series (and a fairly mediocre epsisode, too).
The Saturn V was designed for super-orbital travel (i.e., going to the moon).
But the Saturn V was useful for putting very large payloads into orbit (people forget how big Skylab was). There was also the Saturn 1b for putting smaller payloads into orbit (the Apollo CM/SM).
The real shame is that the Saturn V only had one production run, if they'd kept making them there would have been improvements, and who knows what we could have come up with to do with them?
For example there were plans to make the first stage reusable and the 3rd stage had potential as a space station component. The Saturn 5 never did see its full potential.
Since you can't prove evolution as the beginning of life
Since evolution doesn't attempt to explain the beginning of life, that statement is pointless.
Evolution is just as much a religion as Creationism.
Saying that over and over doesn't make it true.
Now all we need are a tequila volcanoe, a triple sec volcanoe and a lime juice volcanoe.
That would be a waste of time. One of the attractions to sending work to India is that Indian IT workers speak english.
You'd be better of learning Korean, Japanese, or Chinese.
Which is ironic, considering Mission to Mars is widely regarded as a cure for insomnia.
Probably, but if the conditions for life on earth and Mars were equally favorable when the solar system was younger, then it shifts to Mars.
True, but it's more likely to have happened the other way (assuming there was life on Mars). "interplanetary cross-pollination" from a small planet to a large planet is easier than the other way around. The escape velocity for the smaller planet is lower and the gravity well of the larger planet make it easier for the debris to "find".
How to fix ST:5
Show that there was anything resembling a "scientific community" before it was shown that the earch is not flat.
and that electrons were tiny bits of stuff that ran in discrete rings around a nuclei.At one time, it was a good enough model, but from the beginning it was known to be a flawed model (classical physics predicts that the electrons would spiral into the nucleus of an atom).
Now if you're talking about the absolute origins of life,Actually, evolution doesn't attempt to explain th "absolute origins of life" - this is a seperate issue (though it is ultimately related).
Unfortunately, space stations have always been the "safe" fallback position for manned space flight. When it was clear the Russians lost the moon race, they shifted their program to space stations. Instead of more moon exploration or a manned Mars mission the U.S.A. did the same.
When nobody has the balls to propose anything bold for manned spaceflight, we end up with a space station of somewhat limited utility. It would be cool if we had a space station that served as an assembly and launching point for manned expoloration, but that's not what we have in the ISS.