14 posts • joined Friday 19th November 2010 18:43 GMT
This is pointless.
The White House (aka Executive Branch) has no authority to set budgets... only to implement them.
That power is reserved for Congress, who doesn't particularly care about petition sites unless they appear to somehow impact their local constituency or chance of getting personally reelected.
Many years of accumulated legislation and special-interest lobbying have effectively tied the hands of the executive to do anything useful. While this petition sounds like a good idea, and I'm personally interested in this particular special-interest, this ends up being more of the same thing that's causing the problem that cut NASA in the first place (special interests pushing through requirements that X% goes here and Y% goes there). The same sort of process is, IMHO, the real reason for California's current crisis... over-specification in legislation that leads to general non-liquidity. The Fed should not repeat those errors, if it can help itself.
All Hail the Electron!
I was priviledged to learn about the Boltzman distribution (among other things) from Professor Mead.
He also always has had a very specific style... highly patterened silk shirts and a proper "Devil's Beard".
When I was his student his big thing was using transistors in their sub-threshold realm as analog devices instead of just treating them as the binary logic they were designed for. It's been that ability to look beyond how something is historically utilized to what it actually does underneath and is capable of that is why he is how spectacularly awesome as he is.
Give them Hell Dr. Mead.
Re: still not really sure about this
They don't land at the launchpad.
They land at a landing pad located suitably downrange (adjusting for planet rotation, etc).
If they -wer-e to land at the same pad they'd make a full orbit first. Nobody is suggesting any sort of "turning around" which, as you note, is impractical, requires many tonnes of fuel, and just isn't done.
These guys know their rocket science pretty well.
I'm going to have to call for your credentials before I let you keep dissing them like that without more cited science.
Dear Register (Re: Standards Video)
Please have your sound tech/intern soundly flogged with the archaic implement of your choosing.
While the content in this broadcast seemed fine, the balance between speech (both narrator and host) and sound effects was glaringly off-kilter. I had to either struggle to hear the barely audible (YET EXTREMELY IMPORTANT) definitions of standard measurements or have my eardrums violently pierced by sound effects. I do applaud the choice of sound effects (the radio "breaking news" in particular) but the sound balance renders them all totally useless and, frankly, a menace to society.
In the interests of our future survival as a species, please take the following actions:
1) Rebalance the bloody video so that it is headphone-watchable.
2) Chastize those resonsible as you see fit. (There were images from the "Temperature" section that suggest a reasonable course of action... and I am referring to those more "bent over" rather than the "by the pool".
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Not quite that simple
"rare Earths not because they physically happen to be located only in China"
"rare" earth metals are -everywhere-. EVERYWHERE.
The interesting thing is where they are sufficiently concentrated to make extracting them at current prices worthwhile. China has quite a few of those deposits, but (since the stuff is EVERYWHERE) they aren't remotely the only ones. This has been the classic business tactic where China undersold everyone else until they all went out of business, then restricted supply and pumped up the price. Mid-long term investors are looking to re-start rare earth extraction elsewhere, but in today's fast-paced market the delays to roll up the infrastructure are relatively substantial.
It's just better
I'm not sure what exactly it is (probably related to porousness), but wood and leather just *FEEL* nice to hold and use.
While I appreciate your enthusiastic tinfoil-hattery as an amusing diversion, I really must take issue with your chain of reasoning and conclusions.
My understanding is that this device is to the current wafer process what waterjet CNC systems and 3D printers have been to physical manufacturing. It makes small-batch runs affordable. This would be an incredible boon to small manufacturers and hobbyists, as it would enable them to do things on silicon on a smaller scale than is currently possible, which means more designs and experiments will be made and tested.
It has nothing to do with "slipstreaming" malicious changes into a normal production run. For one thing, normal production runs will almost certainly continue to use the current wafer process, as the economy of scale catches up quickly there once the masks are made. For another thing, making any changes to the layout of an ASIC requires at the very least that the entire chip be re-floorplanned, timing checked, etc., which is neither trivial nor guaranteed to actually work. It's actually much easier for entities to get your malicious routines inserted in the current model, by working together with the proprietary mega-chip designers behind the scenes in the first place.
Besides, if this device fufills it's promise, I'd look forward to a growing community of open-source ASIC plans that you could have chipped out by the reputable company of your choice, after you review them for malicious government transistors. And, when it's discovered that Motorola backdoored your cellphone for the government for you, it's at least possible that a company or group could get together and spin out a compatible yet safe version of the chip in question (something that the high costs of masks prohibits currently).
- IT bloke publishes comprehensive maps of CALL CENTRE menu HELL
- Analysis Who is the mystery sixth member of LulzSec?
- Comment Congress: It's not the Glass that's scary - It's the GOOGLE
- Analysis Hey, Teflon Ballmer. Look, isn't it time? You know, time to quit?
- Murdoch Facebook gloat: You're like my $580m, 'CRAPPY' MySpace