Hold on your horses Senator McArthy. If you are unable to do business on such environment it's your problem. Business works and works well here. The fact you can't get a profit of it does not mean that GPL is communism.
I would recomend you to read some books on economics (any book of AMERICAN Economics for dummies is good, start by that please) before blasting such statements.
I wonder if you consider IBM a nest of communist wasps.
Sincerly I wouldn't be so radical about its end. X is a typical UNIX product. You're right about the fact that no one misses them. But X continues to live in several flavours and tastes. Frankly I think this is the way it should go. Diversity generates the market. If there is one thing that proves this thing is UNIX itself. That's the most successful long-living OS ever made.
You're right in the point if I own these machines. However my work does not include only machines I own. And it rises a problem with understanding how "Linux distribution" should be interpreted. We have our own "Linux distribution", based on Mandrake. But is this a distribution in the broad meaning of the word?? In fact it is a overworked, perfectioned and language localized installation, distributed as a disk image. Ok this thing is non-profit. But if it would not? Or if any commercial client asks for it? Specially considering that I have already such requests on the line?
Seriously I don't think this is a "license". Its wording is foggy both on its content and how it is presented. In one place they refer about a license concerning a certain type of OSes. In the license itself there is only a strange "exception point" that refers exclusively to Linux. Besides it does not clearly shows what will happen if I do something in behalf of someone else.
One thing that clearly disturbs me is the apparently freedom of the "Scope of Grant" contrasting with strictness of "Title". The point is not "anti-copyright" mood. It is what I can do if I modify the source and try to make my "own" type of rdist. There is not a single word on this new license about modifying the source. The only indirect reference to the use of sources can only be found on the terms of "Title":
"Title and related rights in the content accessed through the Software is the property of the applicable content owner and may be protected by applicable law"
So this leads to an embroglio. IN FACT we have a slightly modified version of rdist working on a Solaris. Well still on old BSD licensing. But in a future that will mean that I've doubts if I'll continue to use rdist. Specially considering that in the new license:
"MagniComp reserves the right at any time to alter prices, features, specifications, capabilities, functions, licensing terms, general availability of the Software."
This is troubling. So they may modify the license such way that it will not fit my needs and requirements. They may discontinue or price it such way the product so leaving a part of my work in a technic swamp (how many times did this happen to me in M$ world).
A little side note: READ THE LICENSE before using a new version of any product. Even if you use this product for 10 or 100 years. Recently a similar thing happened to a relatively known product on Web conferences. Without any clear notice, the author changed licensing from GPL to a strictly commercial one. I almost made a mistake of upgrading my GPL version with a "free/demo" when I noted some weird wording about "two versions" on the site. I looked at the license and only then I noted it was not GPL any more. Only a little bit later the author clearly recognized that it had changed lines. I respect his decision but clearly I cannot respect how he did it.
In my opinion such kind of licensing is much worse than before. It would be better to have either a free open source licensing or a pure commercial one.
In fact how can I use rdist in a heterogeneous environment? For example I have a network of several advanced workstations on Linux and some Solaris servers. So do I need to buy rdist just because I have such environment? What difference makes that I'm using one system and not another? This would look much like I would pay 50 cents on gas if I'm driving a Ford or 2,5 dollars if I use a Mitsubishi... It's nonsense.
Such "advertising" "save-face" licenses should be avoided. Letting them on will lead us into a lot of bottlenecks. No one uses _ONE_ OS (no matter that one guy tries to lead us to it:) )
Yeah. However Russians had the first robot systems roaming in a foreign planet. Also don't forget that they made a lot more in Space than Americans. Besides until recently they were the only nation having a space station.
On Moon race what was creepy is that both Americans and Russians were running over the weels. Each one tried to overcome the other. In this race Americans had three astronauts cooked inside of the capsule. Also Russians had almost 100 guys vaporized by the blast of a rocket.
That's what's creepy. Telling about who's best on space technology is quite hard. Both nations have a lot of things that overcome each other. But making races in behalf of "I'm better than you" is what lead to most of the mistakes and tragedies.
On Apollo 1 tragedy many talk aboutthe speeding up of the work. On the Russian moon rocket's blast many talk about exactly the same thing.
Please remind that Moon race was a political game. That's why Russians didn't go to the Moon. That's why the Congress cut the program after a few missions. And that's why all the Space race is turned to a swamp. Do you want to get to Mars? Forget it! Until some dirty politicians don't start fighting on "I'm better than you, you bastard!" we will have to contempt ourselves with a few automatic stations, some popcorn, Coca-Cola and StarWars...
The typical "do it all" automatic system. It is pretty interesting that the thing debts accounts *before* transaction is Okyed. And yes "it's not a bug, it's a feature..."
Such features are the most hillarious thing I ever seen. Well we have all these credit card, robberies, electronic frauds and so on. But is pretty funny to see algorithms based on the idea that things are bug, *oops*, feature free.
This is a sad side of such things. The good side is seeing ATM's working like jackpots. One friend of mine got once 5 times more cash than he had required. But the best was that ATM _didn't_ debt him on it!
This discussion about BBC's story has been one of the greatest I ever seen on Slashdot. We have been talking a lot. However things seem to turn to "I believe, I don't believe".
Is BBC's story true? Well I have some scheptics on this simplistic "solution" they write about. It is not NASA's nature. At least then. However some of it is true.
There is one fact discussed many times by several people, and experts included: the lift-off. NASA was not absolutely sure that the charges of the lander would work on the Moon. There was some notes that they had failed sometimes during testing. At least there was some rumour, that they retested the damn thing as far as they could, but still the chance remained that they could not fire up on the Moon. Fortunately they did.
There was also several other problems on Apollo 11's mission not less creepy. Unfortunately it passed some good years since I heards about them. It seems that the hatch either on the Moon or when they were on orbit gave some serious problems. There was also another problem that they could not be sure about the landing site. And that Armstrong had the seconds of his life on trying to do a successful landing. Any small doubt during these seconds and either the lander would crash or fly away from the Moon's surface. And then Collins would not have the bitter chance to get them back.
Yes, the fact about "silencing" the crew sounds rather extraordinary. At least I know that Mission Control would go into the Hell to get them back. But I would not be surprised that some kind of "contingency plan" of this sort would be put in place by any of those media-paranoids that started to roam the agency by then.
The fact that this plan sounds quite dumb ("Truth is *always* out there"), but I also wouldn't be very admired that someone would try to put it into action. Well the fact is that NASA, by then, had some level of IQ bigger than now. So probably such plan would be shot down together with its creator. But who knows? The fact is that historically NASA has become a big and HUGE liar.
The Space Shuttle program was/is a whole pack of lies, damn lies, statistics and NASA. Since the beginning a lot of people warned about the "suicide ship". And even after Challenger's accident it seems that NASA kept lying about Shuttle's real world.
The Shuttle is probably much more reliable now. But not long ago there was a near miss that almost repeated Challenger. What seemed to save the situation is that the boosters had already separated. A few seconds before and a few more astronauts would be making one more historical dive into the Ocean.
:) That's the media... Poor Collins is a "minor part" of the mission. He worked like Hell during the whole thing but that does not matter for these people. Not him nor Mission Control nor all the people that made it reality.
They didn't leave their footprints on the Moon so they mean "nothing". It's the typical media stereotype. The Hero made it. And it seems this the reason why Neil Armstrong hates journalists. He just does not want them to turn him into another "media star". Apollo's team was not there filming Holywood footage.
Well, during CCCP (USSR) there were a lot of lies, damn lies and statistics. However this seems to belong to the past. Right now, a lot of people talk about what happened then. I may say that a lot of poetry went out. And in fact Soviet program lacked a lot of lyrics. Being more a military objective, the media didn't have the chance to scrap too much romantics out of it. It was a story that was kept secret for quite a long time. Frankly this does not make it better than NASA's lies.
What you hear about those times (and present ones also) is a life in the edge. In the real edge. Cosmos is not poetic. That's media bluff and be sure of that. Many missions had problems. Several of them. Sometimes you get excerpts of some of these missions and you get your hair on the tips.
Somewhere around here I told about Leonov's mission. The first spacewalker almost couldn't get back to his cabin. There was also the tragedy of ill-fated Soyuz where three cosmonauts died in reentry. There was Salyut 7's end, where cosmonauts had to enter inside in spacesuits, because all systems went off. There was recently Mir. And there is a lot of many other stories.
People tell about things that happen in space which tell that a lot of them there, had met Miss Death in personal. Fortunaly the majority managed to get out of her grip. On this, one cosmonaut said that you face her always right in front of your helmet.
So don't wonder if those talks are one of all those missions were the crew gets over the edge. A life that the mass-media does not care too much about. And as far as I know this is not only related to the Soviet program. The American had also a lot of it, and probably it has until now. Try to dig up a little about the History of first moonwalk and you'll see a lot of creepy details on it. Even Armstrong had its "to be or not to be" when they landed. In fact there were two situations on Apollo 11 that would have left Eagle laying forever in the Moon. One of them is vaguely described on BBC's article.
There is one thing that contrasts all this. You hear them saying the Hell on the flight records. You listen to their stories. You realize how near Death they were. And they want to go back. Until now I never heard one of those cosmonauts or astronauts that would say "I quit". They even seem to get offended to hear the question "Would you ever go back after all that happened?" "OF COURSE!!!"
Well let's remember Challenger. What we were told of it. NASA said that they were immediately killed. Then there was some story of two "expressions" heard just at the moment of the explosion. Some "Uh-oh" and something else. NASA turned the story that they were "almost" immediately killed.
Yes they showed remains. I remember to see a small piece of bone, presumably a fragment of a jaw, during the recovery of the fragments.
Years later several people started to talk about a strange fact. During the enhacement of the explosion, many noted that the front part of the Shuttle "detaches" from the explosion and goes down. So people started to talk wether anyone realised if these guys were still alive on the moment of impact.
The problem here is not "hearing screams" and seeing bones. The problem here is that someone told one "truth", then another and then another.
Which of them is the real truth? The fact is that NASA had already lied. It lied that the Shuttle was safe. It lies about it even now. So these "ethical lies" do not help in anything. They just throw even more dirt to the fact of what NASA is doing.
Better to take a look at some requirements and specifications for new technologies and weaponry. StarWars was not BS. It was madness. Not the first and not the last I may say.
You know there are some people wishing to hunt for the "ultimate weapon". It may look crazy but these guys seem to have some good positions over power positions in some countries.
If you read the story on how F-111 was created you may see that StarWars is just one more step of this madness
I don't think that this had to do with the concrete lunch of Challenger. As far as I know it seems that since Columbia several engineers kept lobbying NASA's top for a brake in Shuttle launches. They wanted it to make a revision of several problems the ships were facing. One of the were the boosters.
However it seems that NASA's burrocracy tried to shut up these dissidents. There were some hints that several people were put clear that they became "unwelcome". And it seems that this generated a small exodus of experts that had been in NASA since Mercury times.
The info I heard and read about this shows that this had not only to do with Shuttle's project but with NASA's internal structure on the whole. And it seems that what triggered it was the shift of policy seen right after Apollo's 11 landing. Until that moment the techies had a huge power inside NASA. However this was badly seen by some Washington hawks and a small "putch" was made inside the staff. So bureaucrates went into the leadership and they started kicking out the techies out of the main positions of NASA.
So in the beginning of the 80's NASA became an "agency" like any other. A typical bureaucratic state institution. However there were still fights between techies and the burros. And one of the characteristics of this fight was exactly that Shuttle launches were being pushed.
It seems that the burros didn't want to show any sign of weakeness. That things were going not only ok but excellenet. So they blindly pushed any launch. They ignored flaws, breakups, glitches and a whole lot of other problems. They had a job to do: "Shuttle works", and they did that no matter the risks. They wanted to show that they could rule NASA. And they knew how to appease its folks in Washington. So for some time all went well.
However NASA suffered two tragedies due to them. First that several NASA techies went out. Second Challenger.
Well there were a lot of stories, real ones and tales about what happened in several missions. So don't exactly know about what mission ou're maybe talking about. However there is one tragedy happened with a three man crew. It was one of the first Soyuz and the problem is not they got stranded by the doorlock broke in descent.
About stranded cosmonauts there is a very curious episode. The first spacewalker got stranded in Cosmos. His suit started to inflate and he couldn't get back to the cockpit. What he did was a shock to everyone. He lowered the pressure up to dangerous levels. Well he lowered it so much that people can't believe that he did it. Any normal human would loose conscience and die of it. Anyway he says that he managed to do it and with some hard work to get back inside.
Well several years ago I knew some guy that worked for NASA on Appolo and several other projects. The guy was some bright mind picked up in the middle of the 50's in Portugal. In the 80's he returned to his homeland. He was disgusted with many things that happened in NASA and specially some crazyness that seemed to go by on Shuttle's project.
He talked a lot about this on portuguese TV. One thing that he noted a lot was that Shuttle was dangerous. And in one program he noted that the design of the solid propellant rockets was _flawed_. I saw this thing myself. And the guy was tremendously convincing. He also noted that NASA was ignoring all these problems for several political, technical and economic reasons.
The interview where he talked about the flwed boosters ocurred somewhere in 83-84 if I'm well remembered. When Challenger went boom I had the luck to see the special newsflash on portuguese TV right after the event. The guy was there. When e was asked to comment the event he just answered: "I told about this didn't I? I always told about this!" The guy looked tremendously furstrated. He spoke a little bit about the why's and when's of this tragedy. One thing can be resumed from his talk. IT HAD TO HAPPEN. Because NASA was running on the wild.
Well it was years ago I read the last Wired article. It was some sort of idea. Somehow a good one. For some monthes I would make an obligatory stop on wired. But unfortunately it didn't last long.
Wired died quite quickly. One the edge of its popularity its creators made the worst error they could make for such an "original" idea. They stereotyped the "uncommon" and hyperinflated it.
In fact it was a year or two that wired lived its golden moments. People everywhere talked about it, even in Russia. But here there was something that killed it kickly. Its themes became "alien" to us. We know its pretty cool to be "underground". Unfortunately by time this underground seemed to run over Apple or somewhere else. I even couldn't guess where. Besides the stuff became more and more "tabloid". The last times I saw it I wondered if guy from Brittish newspaper Sun have taken charge of it.
The final blow was graphics and html design. When all those cute draws, animations became mastodons. When everything turned Java, ActiveX and CGI it was bye-bye Wired. Since then I have looked two or three times over it.
There is one lesson to take from Wired. If you turn "underground" around two or three bright ideas for too long then you become "establishment". And after that if you keep this stereotype unchangeable, if you even hyperinflate it, then you surely die.
That's a lesson that one of my most respected sites has to learn and quite soon: Slashdot. Damn a year ago I was reading/. everyday day (sometimes every hour). Now sometimes it takes two or three days to get a look at it. There is something wrong going on/. and it looks a bit like Wired story.
Yep that's it. It's extraordinary to see the creator of Ethernet going so low and making of himself a shameful picture.
Metcalfe's article is hatred. For what reason he is doing this I can only make guesses. But the worst is the blind way he makes his flamework. It sounds typical of Cold-War times when journalists and politicians droped cheap highly flamatory articles over each other. One may remind that sometimes this propaganda war went quite surrealistic. Disregarding any realities and good-sense, people went just flaming away its enemy.
That is what Metcalfe is doing. He even calls Linux Anti-American. We all know that Linux has a political flavour in it but anti-american?????? Hu-oh well Mr. Metcalfe can you tell me who boosted Linux distribution system more than anyone else? Yes, Linux is international. And this means the americans are in. And means they make a lot in it. Even Linus has gone to America. Strange thing for the founder of the "anti-american" OS...
Maybe for Mr. Metcalfe this "international" characteristic is seen as the greatest threat to America's establishment. Some sort of masonic conspiration to undermine America. If so then it is better to hunt down Intel too. And the founding fathers of the computer industry. And don't forget all those Russians over there. Oh! and the all those Jews, Indians, Chinese and Japanese of course. Save America Mr. Metcalfe, but don't forget to rip off the whole computer industry...
But there is one thing that amazes me more than anything else. The huge blindness of his hatred:
"let's count Linux versus W2K users"
I didn't know that NT and 9x could be considered as W2K... It is amazing how Mr. Metcalfe manipulates statistics. A "magic wand" and suddenly all Windows users become W2K statistics...
I perfectly understand Mr. Metcalfe's acrobacies. One of the reasons why people is turning to Linux is.. after seeing W2K in action. I hold my words on it because I saw this happening. And this seems to worry too much Mr. Metcalfe. So much that he doesn't worry to flame away in fury. and when he catches fire to drop hatred in all ways.
It is hatred and blind hatred. His article is nothing more than a "Hunt for Red October" in the cheapest tone.
Yeap that's quite cool. Microbes... Three years ago NASA made some fuss about microbes from Mars. It got so burned up that forgot completely about the matter. Now it is thinking on making a missionary mission. With microbes. Ok don't forget to send the Bible with them. Lyrics... Maybe NASA should have always take for serious its own "case for the Face". At least it would have got a loot of publicity. Or search for li'll green men. Then it would never quit newspapers last page. Yeap it is time for NASA to turn into a masonic house. Every night a session of shamanism... Hoagland will not loose his job for the next 100 years...
PS: One of you guys was talking about the "lack" of plate tectonics in Mars. Mars had them. There are several relicts of it in Mars. Recently NASA added some fire to this on publishing the results of Surveyor's geomagnetic data. Do not get surprised by this positive note on NASA. That thing is not an organisation. It is a battlefield. Unfortunately the dodos are on some of the tops of it...
Quite lyric comment about who are the hackers and what they're up to. However, even on the letter, the author does not seem to note that he's talking about the double soul of the hacker. The Good and the Evil souls.
Let's stop the lyrics. Hackers are not Good. Nor they are Evil. They are humans like anyone else. The difference between the hacker and the "common mortal/citizen" is that he has a bigger knowledge of a power that moves our civilization today. So their actions can be a lot more constructive/damaging than anyone else.
Hackers have made great achievements. Yes they made the Internet. They made a whole new OS out of nothing. They made most of what is now the modern computer industry today. And they made serious damage also. They invaded, lapidated, robbed, crashed networks, computers, whole systems around the Globe. They even manage to start to ruin businesses.
But there's an assymetry here. Can anyone remember of "evil" actions that can be compared to the make of Linux? With the exception of Linux itself many will scratch their heads...
Yes Linux is by itself an "evil" and we know very well about that. Most of us feel happy to see how some guys in Redmond start to worry about it. There is some sadistic thinking in this feeling.
However no one of us will ever judge Linux. No one will ever dream about it. Why? Because it goes above Good/Evil. It gives freedom. And in the middle of an anarchy it creates order. And the same can be said in relation to Internet.
In fact most of the actions I have done and seen shows that, here, we don't have a problem of Evil/Good. Most Hackers are stranger to these conceptions. At least on how the layman understands it. There is a hacker's Morale. But this set of unwritten laws is made of a rather pragmatic hunt for knowledge and human relations. Justice in hackers world exist but possesses a lot of specificities. I would say that instead of a Evil/Good "emotional" conception, hackers possess a sense of "Right/Wrong" in a very "rational" frame. Somehow this is a typical reflection of a world they dealing with. Computers are quite far from emotions. And it seems that they fanatics are less prone to "emotionalize" their life in this world.
Half year ago I saw a terrible epidemics on cracking. Hackers of different levels who roaming all over turning the work into a warfield. Some guys started to seriously consider a small "sunrise" to hold things. However a change of OSes (guess what!:) ) and the world turned up side down. Yes there are still crackings. But it is several orders down than before. The old "bad crackers" turned "good hackers" and now digged on programs, developed new features and improved the system. Does that mean that the "baddees" turned turned to the "good guy"?
Absolutely not. What changed was the level of freedom given to them. Before they had a crappy, cosmetic OS, that was supposed to work, with a lot of restrictions due to its cosmetic security. Now they face another OS, tremendously incomplete, quite buggy in a few places, with a small piece of "fundamental" security and with a chance to roam nearly everywhere. Freedom changed the relation people had and seems to have changed "Evil" by "Good". The common human morale remains the same in the souls of each one of them. What changed is that minds had a chance to expand they field of action into a more vast environment than before. Before it was a reaction of self-defense. Now the same is a reaction of self-education.
There are of course variations, exceptions in this structure. But they are also specific to each individual and situation. In general the picture was Dr Jekyll turned Mr. Hyde. Or is Mr. Hyde turned Dr. Jekyll?:) Anyway I didn't see that anyone cared about that...
The media's hassle is a cheap borrowing of that typical picture we all see in the comics: The Muscular Hero vs. The Evil Mind. A cheap stupid product that is easy to sell. Because anyone has read comics in his childhood. However they do not see where they are leading us with such freakness.
Do you think that hackers will not start shutting? Ok I am now an admin, some sort of "good guy". But on the first moment I fell that someone is endangering my freedom he can be sure that he will have to deal with me. And as me there are thousands that think the same. Any sort of "Sunrise" on the fast foot. Any type of restriction taken from the magician's hat. Any sort of "collateral damage". Any type of thing that hackers will see as a global danger to their lifestyle and thinking. Nukes will be child toys. III World War would never had so many people stepped in such a mess.
It's about time for society and hackers to think about those things that generate such situations like the present one. There is a massive pressure on turning people to Big Mac's. Some sort of consumer much like the typical TV user. However this is not the world of TV. This is something that deals with the most important part of the human being: his mind. An attempt to christianize the christians, here, can have deep consequences in the future.
The society must think that the hacker is already here. It might be quite a strange guy. Some sort of beer lover ET in blue jeans. But it is here. And made already its part in this world. It is no angel but also no devil. But it can be quite destructive if society tries itself to destroy him.
Volcanic heat is still on in some places. Even Surveyor seems to have catched a plume out of a small one some time ago.
However it is less probable to see such guys like Olympus on work. Mars internal structure possesses a high assymetry on mass over Tharsis Region which suggest that the internal structure has "frozen" quite a bit. However in geological terms this does not mean that temperatures dropped below zero. It is probable that temperatures are ranging some hundreds or even thousands degrees, tens of kilometers below surface. However under underground pressure that is not enough to allow the fluidity of rock. So in terms of rocks Mars looks frozen.
Yep and Earth is flat or else we would tumble down all the way... Malin has some pretty ideas of his own. How a huge planet-dimentional strike would keep its "circularity"?..
Yes one of the chances of Mars assymetry is the fact that something quite big stuck Mars some time ago. Much like the story about Earth and its Moon. Recently some data resurfaced the chance that the Moon is part of that "hole" we see on the Pacific.
However this is a chance. Mars does not possess any secondary strucutures that would suggest remains of that strike. Phobos & Deimos are not fully to be taken into account. Several data suggests that these bodies are much more like to be captured asteroids from the belt.
Besides one thing that messes the study of Northern Hemisphere is the fact that many places suggest the presence of large water basins at levels much like those seen on Black or Caspian Sea. So that's still a big question.
Meanwhile Southern Hemisphere is no less "cryptic". It possesses a heavily cratered land that seems to sorround that huge hole over there. Some people suggest that it's all the other way round. Southern Hemisphere is higher because it took a lot of mass from a huge struck.
Yes the atmosphere is very thin compared to Earth. But yet tremendously powerful to hold up a large concentration of micro-particles and even large dust particles. Viking have landed in regions were these storms are yet not too "wild". However in regions near the Equator and specially in Marineris these storms can become a mess for a landing expedition. Some people think that burst speeds can reach 500km/h. This is one of the reasons why landings are made on average latitudes, where such storms are less frequent and more mild.
When Pathfinder came down there was the risk of falling in one dust storm that had reached quite significative proportions. This took some nerves on JPL people even if we considered that Pathfinder would be less prone to wind effects during landing.
Meanwhile one of the first human probes on Mars, soviet Mars 3 seems to have failed due to the fact that it was caught on landing in a dust storm.
I don't know who's Tim Rue. An Hoagland-like fellow? If so it ain't my party.
I know one thing. Some years ago I had my site kicked out of Yahoo! and tried several times to have my link back. Unsuccessful. A year later, in a matter of a few days, all my links on Altavista, Webcrawler, Lycos, Infoseek had also gone. Some people "explained" that this was due to the fact that my link remained down for some time and it was dropped. However I work for the ISP of my webpage and I know that at that time there weren't any problems that could suggest such thing. Meanwhile a two-year old and dead link "resurfaced" on Altavista and Webcrawler. At least I remember to have taken it away on Webcrawler. Besides one friend of mine digged up on Yahoo! people and they told him that they did some changes on links related to Mars after some "scientific authority" has asked them to do so. It seems that this "authority" was hidden somewhere in Stanford.
I don't claim to hold "the Truth". But I perfectly know what I think and that some people didn't like it. And I know what happened to a whole bunch of people during their "hunts for aliens" in Mars. It is highly probable that we are not correct. But there's the chance, even thin, that we may be on our way. However this happens to stuck on some dude brains in some high positions who are more worried about their status rather than scientific and human exploration. Yes these guys use their power to shut down the dissidents. However this goes far away from the romantic picture of Smoking Man. These are people who smile at you and whisper things about "you are not very correct" or "you know it looks crazy to everyone else". And meanwhile they worridly try to dig on your back.
That happened. Now my site is still half-alive but I had to drop out this work. At least for the moment. It is mad, it is crazy, it is a work of nights and days in full. But why I haven't the right to express my thoughts?
http://www.kcn.ru/~prosa/cydonia Have a good trip to Hell...
I just saw some of the comments around here and tought how the lyric view of the future deals with one of the darkest nightmares of the past.
Mars is not a planet for a honeymoon trip. Nor it is a place to send a bunch of missionares to christinise the christians and civilize the civilized.
Mars is a piece of rock carrying just three words: RIP. And it would be better to take care about that.
It might be that from the distance we are from Mars we may not fully see the huge hecatomb that happened there. Yes you see channels in Mars. And these channels do exist. There is the probability that they are the result of a game of light on a chaotic atmosphere which until now could not fully stabilize.
Mars is a planet with an relatively unstable orbit. Apart of Mercury it is the planet with the most elyptical orbit. This orbit should have come stable long ago. However some data says that not only the orbit but also the "proper movements" of the planet are somewhat unstable in relation to some theories of celestial mechanics. I am not an expert on this field but I worked in other field that shows some correlation to these things. I have worked on other field of Mars that looks a little like a tale from the crypt: its geology.
Looking already from far away, Mars presents some strange "features": a landscape coloration that does not correspond to its topography, mega-storms visible from Earth and a strange assymetry on two hemispheres. Looking a little closer and you'll see things like gigantic volcanoes, an "irrational" canyon and huge craters. Make some measurements and you'll find that the mass of this planet is distributed assymetrically. Take a look at tectonics and you'll get a "it had plates/it didn't have plates". Look at topology and it looks that Marsquakes were mainly "vertical". Look at the geomagnetics and you'll get a mess in a place where poles don't seem to exist any more. Look at the atmosphere and you'll get a 100 year old question for the next 200 years: "What happened?"
Looking closer is even more wired. You see remains of huge water movements (Armageddon is child tale compared to it, even Cretacious). You see huge blocks of the crust that suddenly moved. You see canyons made in a few weeks or even days.
An even closer look may be scary. Yes you may start thinking about aliens. There are a lot of places in Mars which may suggest such things and there's not the huge need to look at them through the microscope. However there is still a question whether these aliens were intelligent. That's a big question that for the moment I think we shall wait to answer. My opinion is that out of some little features in a few places that we could think about artifacts. And this is just not the Fussy Face.
In fact the Face is nothing of a face. But it is something to think. Out of looking like a Face. At least this formation presents a thing not very well understood. It possesses a near double-mirror symmetry perpendicular to each other. Maybe it's a chance in a million. Maybe it is the thing we may start to look for.
However there are a lot of other places that present a lot of interesting things. But here I want to warn that all aliens, "intelligent" and "stupid" are possible. Apart of a scary peculiarity among some places in Mars.
But apart from these things, if you think that "Truth is Out There" you may bet it. It's there and Smoking Man also. But he is a little more gentle and more coward than the film...
I respect the weight of NASA. It is a great institution that gave a large contribution to present human knowledge. However I cannot respect its tendency to make History out of some pieces of dust.
The so-called "Age of the Universe" is something I would call rather childish. At least, in the way they show the public these things.
Maybe we can determine that such metaformations such as our "Universe" could carry an age. However we must look at two major problems when we face such things.
We don't know all factors that determined the formation of the "Universe". Recent Hubble discoveries even had risen a lot of questions on whether old ideas or hypotesis are correct at all. Not long ago there was a little squirmish about Hubble's constant itself. Not to count on such things as finiding galaxies near the "edge" of the Universe.
Do we know the Universe? Aren't we missing anything? Up to the last century many people were convinced that the World and subsequently the Universe were not older than 6000 years. In fact this belief, based mostly on the human experience of something called "civilization", was proved wrong. Today this same civilization possesses a wider reaching eye and manages to see things supposedely 12 billion years old. However beyond that "eye" there might be a lot more. Besides it seems that this "eye" possesses some short-sightness due of a strong belief that it can't be wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Hold on your horses Senator McArthy. If you are unable to do business on such environment it's your problem. Business works and works well here. The fact you can't get a profit of it does not mean that GPL is communism.
I would recomend you to read some books on economics (any book of AMERICAN Economics for dummies is good, start by that please) before blasting such statements.
I wonder if you consider IBM a nest of communist wasps.
A communist from the Iron Curtain
Sincerly I wouldn't be so radical about its end. X is a typical UNIX product. You're right about the fact that no one misses them. But X continues to live in several flavours and tastes. Frankly I think this is the way it should go. Diversity generates the market. If there is one thing that proves this thing is UNIX itself. That's the most successful long-living OS ever made.
You're right in the point if I own these machines. However my work does not include only machines I own. And it rises a problem with understanding how "Linux distribution" should be interpreted. We have our own "Linux distribution", based on Mandrake. But is this a distribution in the broad meaning of the word?? In fact it is a overworked, perfectioned and language localized installation, distributed as a disk image. Ok this thing is non-profit. But if it would not? Or if any commercial client asks for it? Specially considering that I have already such requests on the line?
Seriously I don't think this is a "license". Its wording is foggy both on its content and how it is presented. In one place they refer about a license concerning a certain type of OSes. In the license itself there is only a strange "exception point" that refers exclusively to Linux. Besides it does not clearly shows what will happen if I do something in behalf of someone else.
One thing that clearly disturbs me is the apparently freedom of the "Scope of Grant" contrasting with strictness of "Title". The point is not "anti-copyright" mood. It is what I can do if I modify the source and try to make my "own" type of rdist. There is not a single word on this new license about modifying the source. The only indirect reference to the use of sources can only be found on the terms of "Title":
"Title and related rights in the content accessed
through the Software is the property of the applicable content owner and may be protected by applicable law"
So this leads to an embroglio. IN FACT we have a slightly modified version of rdist working on a Solaris. Well still on old BSD licensing. But in a future that will mean that I've doubts if I'll continue to use rdist. Specially considering that in the new license:
"MagniComp reserves the right at any time
to alter prices, features, specifications, capabilities, functions, licensing terms, general availability of the Software."
This is troubling. So they may modify the license such way that it will not fit my needs and requirements. They may discontinue or price it such way the product so leaving a part of my work in a technic swamp (how many times did this happen to me in M$ world).
A little side note: READ THE LICENSE before using a new version of any product. Even if you use this product for 10 or 100 years. Recently a similar thing happened to a relatively known product on Web conferences. Without any clear notice, the author changed licensing from GPL to a strictly commercial one. I almost made a mistake of upgrading my GPL version with a "free/demo" when I noted some weird wording about "two versions" on the site. I looked at the license and only then I noted it was not GPL any more. Only a little bit later the author clearly recognized that it had changed lines. I respect his decision but clearly I cannot respect how he did it.
In my opinion such kind of licensing is much worse than before. It would be better to have either a free open source licensing or a pure commercial one.
:) )
In fact how can I use rdist in a heterogeneous environment? For example I have a network of several advanced workstations on Linux and some Solaris servers. So do I need to buy rdist just because I have such environment? What difference makes that I'm using one system and not another? This would look much like I would pay 50 cents on gas if I'm driving a Ford or 2,5 dollars if I use a Mitsubishi... It's nonsense.
Such "advertising" "save-face" licenses should be avoided. Letting them on will lead us into a lot of bottlenecks. No one uses _ONE_ OS (no matter that one guy tries to lead us to it
Yeah. However Russians had the first robot systems roaming in a foreign planet. Also don't forget that they made a lot more in Space than Americans. Besides until recently they were the only nation having a space station.
On Moon race what was creepy is that both Americans and Russians were running over the weels. Each one tried to overcome the other. In this race Americans had three astronauts cooked inside of the capsule. Also Russians had almost 100 guys vaporized by the blast of a rocket.
That's what's creepy. Telling about who's best on space technology is quite hard. Both nations have a lot of things that overcome each other. But making races in behalf of "I'm better than you" is what lead to most of the mistakes and tragedies.
On Apollo 1 tragedy many talk aboutthe speeding up of the work. On the Russian moon rocket's blast many talk about exactly the same thing.
Please remind that Moon race was a political game. That's why Russians didn't go to the Moon. That's why the Congress cut the program after a few missions. And that's why all the Space race is turned to a swamp. Do you want to get to Mars? Forget it! Until some dirty politicians don't start fighting on "I'm better than you, you bastard!" we will have to contempt ourselves with a few automatic stations, some popcorn, Coca-Cola and StarWars...
The typical "do it all" automatic system. It is pretty interesting that the thing debts accounts *before* transaction is Okyed. And yes "it's not a bug, it's a feature..."
Such features are the most hillarious thing I ever seen. Well we have all these credit card, robberies, electronic frauds and so on. But is pretty funny to see algorithms based on the idea that things are bug, *oops*, feature free.
This is a sad side of such things. The good side is seeing ATM's working like jackpots. One friend of mine got once 5 times more cash than he had required. But the best was that ATM _didn't_ debt him on it!
This discussion about BBC's story has been one of the greatest I ever seen on Slashdot. We have been talking a lot. However things seem to turn to "I believe, I don't believe".
Is BBC's story true? Well I have some scheptics on this simplistic "solution" they write about. It is not NASA's nature. At least then. However some of it is true.
There is one fact discussed many times by several people, and experts included: the lift-off. NASA was not absolutely sure that the charges of the lander would work on the Moon. There was some notes that they had failed sometimes during testing. At least there was some rumour, that they retested the damn thing as far as they could, but still the chance remained that they could not fire up on the Moon. Fortunately they did.
There was also several other problems on Apollo 11's mission not less creepy. Unfortunately it passed some good years since I heards about them. It seems that the hatch either on the Moon or when they were on orbit gave some serious problems. There was also another problem that they could not be sure about the landing site. And that Armstrong had the seconds of his life on trying to do a successful landing. Any small doubt during these seconds and either the lander would crash or fly away from the Moon's surface. And then Collins would not have the bitter chance to get them back.
Yes, the fact about "silencing" the crew sounds rather extraordinary. At least I know that Mission Control would go into the Hell to get them back. But I would not be surprised that some kind of "contingency plan" of this sort would be put in place by any of those media-paranoids that started to roam the agency by then.
The fact that this plan sounds quite dumb ("Truth is *always* out there"), but I also wouldn't be very admired that someone would try to put it into action. Well the fact is that NASA, by then, had some level of IQ bigger than now. So probably such plan would be shot down together with its creator. But who knows? The fact is that historically NASA has become a big and HUGE liar.
The Space Shuttle program was/is a whole pack of lies, damn lies, statistics and NASA. Since the beginning a lot of people warned about the "suicide ship". And even after Challenger's accident it seems that NASA kept lying about Shuttle's real world.
The Shuttle is probably much more reliable now. But not long ago there was a near miss that almost repeated Challenger. What seemed to save the situation is that the boosters had already separated. A few seconds before and a few more astronauts would be making one more historical dive into the Ocean.
Nope. The F-111. I'll try to make a resume of what Pentagon wished it to be. Remember it was 1958:
All weather
Vertical or short lift-off
Landing at maximum speed!!!! (Yeah higher than sound barrier)
The first two could be called "challenging". But the third one...
:)
That's the media...
Poor Collins is a "minor part" of the mission. He worked like Hell during the whole thing but that does not matter for these people. Not him nor Mission Control nor all the people that made it reality.
They didn't leave their footprints on the Moon so they mean "nothing". It's the typical media stereotype. The Hero made it. And it seems this the reason why Neil Armstrong hates journalists. He just does not want them to turn him into another "media star". Apollo's team was not there filming Holywood footage.
Well, during CCCP (USSR) there were a lot of lies, damn lies and statistics. However this seems to belong to the past. Right now, a lot of people talk about what happened then. I may say that a lot of poetry went out. And in fact Soviet program lacked a lot of lyrics. Being more a military objective, the media didn't have the chance to scrap too much romantics out of it. It was a story that was kept secret for quite a long time. Frankly this does not make it better than NASA's lies.
What you hear about those times (and present ones also) is a life in the edge. In the real edge. Cosmos is not poetic. That's media bluff and be sure of that. Many missions had problems. Several of them. Sometimes you get excerpts of some of these missions and you get your hair on the tips.
Somewhere around here I told about Leonov's mission. The first spacewalker almost couldn't get back to his cabin. There was also the tragedy of ill-fated Soyuz where three cosmonauts died in reentry. There was Salyut 7's end, where cosmonauts had to enter inside in spacesuits, because all systems went off. There was recently Mir. And there is a lot of many other stories.
People tell about things that happen in space which tell that a lot of them there, had met Miss Death in personal. Fortunaly the majority managed to get out of her grip. On this, one cosmonaut said that you face her always right in front of your helmet.
So don't wonder if those talks are one of all those missions were the crew gets over the edge. A life that the mass-media does not care too much about. And as far as I know this is not only related to the Soviet program. The American had also a lot of it, and probably it has until now. Try to dig up a little about the History of first moonwalk and you'll see a lot of creepy details on it. Even Armstrong had its "to be or not to be" when they landed. In fact there were two situations on Apollo 11 that would have left Eagle laying forever in the Moon. One of them is vaguely described on BBC's article.
There is one thing that contrasts all this. You hear them saying the Hell on the flight records. You listen to their stories. You realize how near Death they were. And they want to go back. Until now I never heard one of those cosmonauts or astronauts that would say "I quit". They even seem to get offended to hear the question "Would you ever go back after all that happened?" "OF COURSE!!!"
Well let's remember Challenger. What we were told of it. NASA said that they were immediately killed. Then there was some story of two "expressions" heard just at the moment of the explosion. Some "Uh-oh" and something else. NASA turned the story that they were "almost" immediately killed.
Yes they showed remains. I remember to see a small piece of bone, presumably a fragment of a jaw, during the recovery of the fragments.
Years later several people started to talk about a strange fact. During the enhacement of the explosion, many noted that the front part of the Shuttle "detaches" from the explosion and goes down. So people started to talk wether anyone realised if these guys were still alive on the moment of impact.
The problem here is not "hearing screams" and seeing bones. The problem here is that someone told one "truth", then another and then another.
Which of them is the real truth? The fact is that NASA had already lied. It lied that the Shuttle was safe. It lies about it even now. So these "ethical lies" do not help in anything. They just throw even more dirt to the fact of what NASA is doing.
Better to take a look at some requirements and specifications for new technologies and weaponry. StarWars was not BS. It was madness. Not the first and not the last I may say.
You know there are some people wishing to hunt for the "ultimate weapon". It may look crazy but these guys seem to have some good positions over power positions in some countries.
If you read the story on how F-111 was created you may see that StarWars is just one more step of this madness
I don't think that this had to do with the concrete lunch of Challenger. As far as I know it seems that since Columbia several engineers kept lobbying NASA's top for a brake in Shuttle launches. They wanted it to make a revision of several problems the ships were facing. One of the were the boosters.
However it seems that NASA's burrocracy tried to shut up these dissidents. There were some hints that several people were put clear that they became "unwelcome". And it seems that this generated a small exodus of experts that had been in NASA since Mercury times.
The info I heard and read about this shows that this had not only to do with Shuttle's project but with NASA's internal structure on the whole. And it seems that what triggered it was the shift of policy seen right after Apollo's 11 landing. Until that moment the techies had a huge power inside NASA. However this was badly seen by some Washington hawks and a small "putch" was made inside the staff. So bureaucrates went into the leadership and they started kicking out the techies out of the main positions of NASA.
So in the beginning of the 80's NASA became an "agency" like any other. A typical bureaucratic state institution. However there were still fights between techies and the burros. And one of the characteristics of this fight was exactly that Shuttle launches were being pushed.
It seems that the burros didn't want to show any sign of weakeness. That things were going not only ok but excellenet. So they blindly pushed any launch. They ignored flaws, breakups, glitches and a whole lot of other problems. They had a job to do: "Shuttle works", and they did that no matter the risks. They wanted to show that they could rule NASA. And they knew how to appease its folks in Washington. So for some time all went well.
However NASA suffered two tragedies due to them. First that several NASA techies went out. Second Challenger.
Well there were a lot of stories, real ones and tales about what happened in several missions. So don't exactly know about what mission ou're maybe talking about. However there is one tragedy happened with a three man crew. It was one of the first Soyuz and the problem is not they got stranded by the doorlock broke in descent.
About stranded cosmonauts there is a very curious episode. The first spacewalker got stranded in Cosmos. His suit started to inflate and he couldn't get back to the cockpit. What he did was a shock to everyone. He lowered the pressure up to dangerous levels. Well he lowered it so much that people can't believe that he did it. Any normal human would loose conscience and die of it.
Anyway he says that he managed to do it and with some hard work to get back inside.
Well several years ago I knew some guy that worked for NASA on Appolo and several other projects. The guy was some bright mind picked up in the middle of the 50's in Portugal. In the 80's he returned to his homeland. He was disgusted with many things that happened in NASA and specially some crazyness that seemed to go by on Shuttle's project.
He talked a lot about this on portuguese TV. One thing that he noted a lot was that Shuttle was dangerous. And in one program he noted that the design of the solid propellant rockets was _flawed_. I saw this thing myself. And the guy was tremendously convincing. He also noted that NASA was ignoring all these problems for several political, technical and economic reasons.
The interview where he talked about the flwed boosters ocurred somewhere in 83-84 if I'm well remembered. When Challenger went boom I had the luck to see the special newsflash on portuguese TV right after the event. The guy was there. When e was asked to comment the event he just answered:
"I told about this didn't I? I always told about this!" The guy looked tremendously furstrated. He spoke a little bit about the why's and when's of this tragedy. One thing can be resumed from his talk. IT HAD TO HAPPEN. Because NASA was running on the wild.
Well it was years ago I read the last Wired article. It was some sort of idea. Somehow a good one. For some monthes I would make an obligatory stop on wired. But unfortunately it didn't last long.
/. everyday day (sometimes every hour). Now sometimes it takes two or three days to get a look at it. There is something wrong going on /. and it looks a bit like Wired story.
Wired died quite quickly. One the edge of its popularity its creators made the worst error they could make for such an "original" idea. They stereotyped the "uncommon" and hyperinflated it.
In fact it was a year or two that wired lived its golden moments. People everywhere talked about it, even in Russia. But here there was something that killed it kickly. Its themes became "alien" to us. We know its pretty cool to be "underground". Unfortunately by time this underground seemed to run over Apple or somewhere else. I even couldn't guess where. Besides the stuff became more and more "tabloid". The last times I saw it I wondered if guy from Brittish newspaper Sun have taken charge of it.
The final blow was graphics and html design. When all those cute draws, animations became mastodons. When everything turned Java, ActiveX and CGI it was bye-bye Wired. Since then I have looked two or three times over it.
There is one lesson to take from Wired. If you turn "underground" around two or three bright ideas for too long then you become "establishment". And after that if you keep this stereotype unchangeable, if you even hyperinflate it, then you surely die.
That's a lesson that one of my most respected sites has to learn and quite soon: Slashdot. Damn a year ago I was reading
Yep that's it. It's extraordinary to see the creator of Ethernet going so low and making of himself a shameful picture.
Metcalfe's article is hatred. For what reason he is doing this I can only make guesses. But the worst is the blind way he makes his flamework. It sounds typical of Cold-War times when journalists and politicians droped cheap highly flamatory articles over each other. One may remind that sometimes this propaganda war went quite surrealistic. Disregarding any realities and good-sense, people went just flaming away its enemy.
That is what Metcalfe is doing. He even calls Linux Anti-American. We all know that Linux has a political flavour in it but anti-american?????? Hu-oh well Mr. Metcalfe can you tell me who boosted Linux distribution system more than anyone else? Yes, Linux is international. And this means the americans are in. And means they make a lot in it. Even Linus has gone to America. Strange thing for the founder of the "anti-american" OS...
Maybe for Mr. Metcalfe this "international" characteristic is seen as the greatest threat to America's establishment. Some sort of masonic conspiration to undermine America. If so then it is better to hunt down Intel too. And the founding fathers of the computer industry. And don't forget all those Russians over there. Oh! and the all those Jews, Indians, Chinese and Japanese of course. Save America Mr. Metcalfe, but don't forget to rip off the whole computer industry...
But there is one thing that amazes me more than anything else. The huge blindness of his hatred:
"let's count Linux versus W2K users"
I didn't know that NT and 9x could be considered as W2K... It is amazing how Mr. Metcalfe manipulates statistics. A "magic wand" and suddenly all Windows users become W2K statistics...
I perfectly understand Mr. Metcalfe's acrobacies. One of the reasons why people is turning to Linux is.. after seeing W2K in action. I hold my words on it because I saw this happening. And this seems to worry too much Mr. Metcalfe. So much that he doesn't worry to flame away in fury. and when he catches fire to drop hatred in all ways.
It is hatred and blind hatred. His article is nothing more than a "Hunt for Red October" in the cheapest tone.
Yeap that's quite cool. Microbes... Three years ago NASA made some fuss about microbes from Mars. It got so burned up that forgot completely about the matter.
Now it is thinking on making a missionary mission. With microbes. Ok don't forget to send the Bible with them.
Lyrics...
Maybe NASA should have always take for serious its own "case for the Face". At least it would have got a loot of publicity. Or search for li'll green men. Then it would never quit newspapers last page.
Yeap it is time for NASA to turn into a masonic house. Every night a session of shamanism... Hoagland will not loose his job for the next 100 years...
PS: One of you guys was talking about the "lack" of plate tectonics in Mars. Mars had them. There are several relicts of it in Mars. Recently NASA
added some fire to this on publishing the results of Surveyor's geomagnetic data. Do not get surprised by this positive note on NASA. That thing is not an organisation. It is a battlefield. Unfortunately the dodos are on some of the tops of it...
Quite lyric comment about who are the hackers and what they're up to. However, even on the letter, the author does not seem to note that he's talking about the double soul of the hacker. The Good and the Evil souls.
:) ) and the world turned up side down. Yes there are still crackings. But it is several orders down than before. The old "bad crackers" turned "good hackers" and now digged on programs, developed new features and improved the system. Does that mean that the "baddees" turned turned to the "good guy"?
:) Anyway I didn't see that anyone cared about that...
Let's stop the lyrics. Hackers are not Good. Nor they are Evil. They are humans like anyone else. The difference between the hacker and the "common mortal/citizen" is that he has a bigger knowledge of a power that moves our civilization today. So their actions can be a lot more constructive/damaging than anyone else.
Hackers have made great achievements. Yes they made the Internet. They made a whole new OS out of nothing. They made most of what is now the modern computer industry today. And they made serious damage also. They invaded, lapidated, robbed, crashed networks, computers, whole systems around the Globe. They even manage to start to ruin businesses.
But there's an assymetry here. Can anyone remember of "evil" actions that can be compared to the make of Linux? With the exception of Linux itself many will scratch their heads...
Yes Linux is by itself an "evil" and we know very well about that. Most of us feel happy to see how some guys in Redmond start to worry about it. There is some sadistic thinking in this feeling.
However no one of us will ever judge Linux. No one will ever dream about it. Why? Because it goes above Good/Evil. It gives freedom. And in the middle of an anarchy it creates order. And the same can be said in relation to Internet.
In fact most of the actions I have done and seen shows that, here, we don't have a problem of Evil/Good. Most Hackers are stranger to these conceptions. At least on how the layman understands it. There is a hacker's Morale. But this set of unwritten laws is made of a rather pragmatic hunt for knowledge and human relations. Justice in hackers world exist but possesses a lot of specificities. I would say that instead of a Evil/Good "emotional" conception, hackers possess a sense of "Right/Wrong" in a very "rational" frame. Somehow this is a typical reflection of a world they dealing with. Computers are quite far from emotions. And it seems that they fanatics are less prone to "emotionalize" their life in this world.
Half year ago I saw a terrible epidemics on cracking. Hackers of different levels who roaming all over turning the work into a warfield. Some guys started to seriously consider a small "sunrise" to hold things. However a change of OSes (guess what!
Absolutely not. What changed was the level of freedom given to them. Before they had a crappy, cosmetic OS, that was supposed to work, with a lot of restrictions due to its cosmetic security. Now they face another OS, tremendously incomplete, quite buggy in a few places, with a small piece of "fundamental" security and with a chance to roam nearly everywhere. Freedom changed the relation people had and seems to have changed "Evil" by "Good". The common human morale remains the same in the souls of each one of them. What changed is that minds had a chance to expand they field of action into a more vast environment than before. Before it was a reaction of self-defense. Now the same is a reaction of self-education.
There are of course variations, exceptions in this structure. But they are also specific to each individual and situation. In general the picture was Dr Jekyll turned Mr. Hyde. Or is Mr. Hyde turned Dr. Jekyll?
The media's hassle is a cheap borrowing of that typical picture we all see in the comics: The Muscular Hero vs. The Evil Mind. A cheap stupid product that is easy to sell. Because anyone has read comics in his childhood. However they do not see where they are leading us with such freakness.
Do you think that hackers will not start shutting? Ok I am now an admin, some sort of "good guy". But on the first moment I fell that someone is endangering my freedom he can be sure that he will have to deal with me. And as me there are thousands that think the same. Any sort of "Sunrise" on the fast foot. Any type of restriction taken from the magician's hat. Any sort of "collateral damage". Any type of thing that hackers will see as a global danger to their lifestyle and thinking. Nukes will be child toys. III World War would never had so many people stepped in such a mess.
It's about time for society and hackers to think about those things that generate such situations like the present one. There is a massive pressure on turning people to Big Mac's. Some sort of consumer much like the typical TV user. However this is not the world of TV. This is something that deals with the most important part of the human being: his mind. An attempt to christianize the christians, here, can have deep consequences in the future.
The society must think that the hacker is already here. It might be quite a strange guy. Some sort of beer lover ET in blue jeans. But it is here. And made already its part in this world. It is no angel but also no devil. But it can be quite destructive if society tries itself to destroy him.
Volcanic heat is still on in some places. Even Surveyor seems to have catched a plume out of a small one some time ago.
However it is less probable to see such guys like Olympus on work. Mars internal structure possesses a high assymetry on mass over Tharsis Region which suggest that the internal structure has "frozen" quite a bit. However in geological terms this does not mean that temperatures dropped below zero. It is probable that temperatures are ranging some hundreds or even thousands degrees, tens of kilometers below surface. However under underground pressure that is not enough to allow the fluidity of rock. So in terms of rocks Mars looks frozen.
Yep and Earth is flat or else we would tumble down all the way... Malin has some pretty ideas of his own. How a huge planet-dimentional strike would keep its "circularity"?..
Yes one of the chances of Mars assymetry is the fact that something quite big stuck Mars some time ago. Much like the story about Earth and its Moon. Recently some data resurfaced the chance that the Moon is part of that "hole" we see on the Pacific.
However this is a chance. Mars does not possess any secondary strucutures that would suggest remains of that strike. Phobos & Deimos are not fully to be taken into account. Several data suggests that these bodies are much more like to be captured asteroids from the belt.
Besides one thing that messes the study of Northern Hemisphere is the fact that many places suggest the presence of large water basins at levels much like those seen on Black or Caspian Sea. So that's still a big question.
Meanwhile Southern Hemisphere is no less "cryptic". It possesses a heavily cratered land that seems to sorround that huge hole over there. Some people suggest that it's all the other way round. Southern Hemisphere is higher because it took a lot of mass from a huge struck.
Yes the atmosphere is very thin compared to Earth. But yet tremendously powerful to hold up a large concentration of micro-particles and even large dust particles. Viking have landed in regions were these storms are yet not too "wild". However in regions near the Equator and specially in Marineris these storms can become a mess for a landing expedition. Some people think that burst speeds can reach 500km/h. This is one of the reasons why landings are made on average latitudes, where such storms are less frequent and more mild.
When Pathfinder came down there was the risk of falling in one dust storm that had reached quite significative proportions. This took some nerves on JPL people even if we considered that Pathfinder would be less prone to wind effects during landing.
Meanwhile one of the first human probes on Mars, soviet Mars 3 seems to have failed due to the fact that it was caught on landing in a dust storm.
I don't know who's Tim Rue. An Hoagland-like fellow? If so it ain't my party.
I know one thing. Some years ago I had my site kicked out of Yahoo! and tried several times to have my link back. Unsuccessful. A year later, in a matter of a few days, all my links on Altavista, Webcrawler, Lycos, Infoseek had also gone. Some people "explained" that this was due to the fact that my link remained down for some time and it was dropped. However I work for the ISP of my webpage and I know that at that time there weren't any problems that could suggest such thing. Meanwhile a two-year old and dead link "resurfaced" on Altavista and Webcrawler. At least I remember to have taken it away on Webcrawler.
Besides one friend of mine digged up on Yahoo! people and they told him that they did some changes on links related to Mars after some "scientific authority" has asked them to do so. It seems that this "authority" was hidden somewhere in Stanford.
I don't claim to hold "the Truth". But I perfectly know what I think and that some people didn't like it. And I know what happened to a whole bunch of people during their "hunts for aliens" in Mars. It is highly probable that we are not correct. But there's the chance, even thin, that we may be on our way. However this happens to stuck on some dude brains in some high positions who are more worried about their status rather than scientific and human exploration. Yes these guys use their power to shut down the dissidents. However this goes far away from the romantic picture of Smoking Man. These are people who smile at you and whisper things about "you are not very correct" or "you know it looks crazy to everyone else". And meanwhile they worridly try to dig on your back.
That happened. Now my site is still half-alive but I had to drop out this work. At least for the moment. It is mad, it is crazy, it is a work of nights and days in full. But why I haven't the right to express my thoughts?
http://www.kcn.ru/~prosa/cydonia
Have a good trip to Hell...
I just saw some of the comments around here and tought how the lyric view of the future deals with one of the darkest nightmares of the past.
Mars is not a planet for a honeymoon trip. Nor it is a place to send a bunch of missionares to christinise the christians and civilize the civilized.
Mars is a piece of rock carrying just three words: RIP. And it would be better to take care about that.
It might be that from the distance we are from Mars we may not fully see the huge hecatomb that happened there. Yes you see channels in Mars. And these channels do exist. There is the probability that they are the result of a game of light on a chaotic atmosphere which until now could not fully stabilize.
Mars is a planet with an relatively unstable orbit. Apart of Mercury it is the planet with the most elyptical orbit. This orbit should have come stable long ago. However some data says that not only the orbit but also the "proper movements" of the planet are somewhat unstable in relation to some theories of celestial mechanics. I am not an expert on this field but I worked in other field that shows some correlation to these things. I have worked on other field of Mars that looks a little like a tale from the crypt: its geology.
Looking already from far away, Mars presents some strange "features": a landscape coloration that does not correspond to its topography, mega-storms visible from Earth and a strange assymetry on two hemispheres. Looking a little closer and you'll see things like gigantic volcanoes, an "irrational" canyon and huge craters. Make some measurements and you'll find that the mass of this planet is distributed assymetrically. Take a look at tectonics and you'll get a "it had plates/it didn't have plates". Look at topology and it looks that Marsquakes were mainly "vertical". Look at the geomagnetics and you'll get a mess in a place where poles don't seem to exist any more. Look at the atmosphere and you'll get a 100 year old question for the next 200 years: "What happened?"
Looking closer is even more wired. You see remains of huge water movements (Armageddon is child tale compared to it, even Cretacious). You see huge blocks of the crust that suddenly moved. You see canyons made in a few weeks or even days.
An even closer look may be scary. Yes you may start thinking about aliens. There are a lot of places in Mars which may suggest such things and there's not the huge need to look at them through the microscope. However there is still a question whether these aliens were intelligent. That's a big question that for the moment I think we shall wait to answer. My opinion is that out of some little features in a few places that we could think about artifacts. And this is just not the Fussy Face.
In fact the Face is nothing of a face. But it is something to think. Out of looking like a Face. At least this formation presents a thing not very well understood. It possesses a near double-mirror symmetry perpendicular to each other. Maybe it's a chance in a million. Maybe it is the thing we may start to look for.
However there are a lot of other places that present a lot of interesting things. But here I want to warn that all aliens, "intelligent" and "stupid" are possible. Apart of a scary peculiarity among some places in Mars.
But apart from these things, if you think that "Truth is Out There" you may bet it. It's there and Smoking Man also. But he is a little more gentle and more coward than the film...
I respect the weight of NASA. It is a great institution that gave a large contribution to present human knowledge. However I cannot respect its tendency to make History out of some pieces of dust.
The so-called "Age of the Universe" is something I would call rather childish. At least, in the way they show the public these things.
Maybe we can determine that such metaformations such as our "Universe" could carry an age. However we must look at two major problems when we face such things.
We don't know all factors that determined the formation of the "Universe". Recent Hubble discoveries even had risen a lot of questions on whether old ideas or hypotesis are correct at all. Not long ago there was a little squirmish about Hubble's constant itself. Not to count on such things as finiding galaxies near the "edge" of the Universe.
Do we know the Universe? Aren't we missing anything? Up to the last century many people were convinced that the World and subsequently the Universe were not older than 6000 years. In fact this belief, based mostly on the human experience of something called "civilization", was proved wrong. Today this same civilization possesses a wider reaching eye and manages to see things supposedely 12 billion years old. However beyond that "eye" there might be a lot more. Besides it seems that this "eye" possesses some short-sightness due of a strong belief that it can't be wrong.