Re: as if we were the only country on earth with such a problem
You’re actually both wrong about the president equating fascists with “anti-fascists.”
He said there were “good people on both sides” of the _statue debate._
422 posts • joined 20 Apr 2007
“We want to ask developers … Give us examples of what you are trying to do.”
I’m trying to figure out which framework I’m to build an app with so it’s not deprecated by the time the product is released.
I’m trying to figure out how to use the APIs you got when the documentation is spotty and google can’t distinguish the myriad of nearly identical but incompatible Microsoft frameworks.
These “technologies” were stable by the 1980s. We don’t need them refactored every other year.
"You get to deduct any foreign tax paid from your US taxes, so unless you are working in some tax-free expat middle east job you don't actually pay any US taxes."
No; you can't deduct from SE tax. Any work not done for a foreign corporation is subject to this tax, so for example if he gets paid to go speak at some event, or if you freelance, or whatever.
This is not even a clever lie.
For this to be true – that only software engineers colluded to make this happen – is to say the software engineers were the _only_ ones to predict the problem. It's to say that experienced mechanical and chemical engineers built an engine, were unaware of the chemical reactions that went on inside it, and failed to notice when the software people caught _and masked_ their error.
I've listened to them, a lot, and I share Craigness's opinion. I am not even remotely conservative on these issues and I view the regressive approach with much disdain and I'm far happier with most MRAs than Good Men Project. I've seen conservatards here and there, like Janet Bloomfield, but I don't think that's an honest way to judge a movement nor is it a good reason to smear people. I've also seen the extent to which people, particularly journalists, will trip over themselves in a mad dash to smear them and will just make things up if they need to. God knows what you're even basing your opinion on.
"because they are using a position of power to keep people oppressed"
The idea that MRAs have a position of power is absolutely insane and you have to be insane to hold this position. You shouldn't be taken seriously on the topic.
So in other words the headline "we found another Earth" is bullshit, just like the last two thousand times we've heard it.
At least it's not a star-hugger with a six day orbit and an atmosphere made of vaporized lead and death this time.
Exciting stuff for sure but people probably learned to ignore "new Earth found" headlines a decade ago.
JAXA got a solar sail out to Venus. No mention? Does nobody in the press even Google?
Reminds me of back when they shot down USA 193 and I kept seeing in the news that anti-sat technology had never been done except – perhaps! – in secret. Not only did the USAF do it in the 80s (with an F-15) but they put out pictures and the rockets themselves are in museums for public viewing.
His net worth is reduced but he hasn't actually lost any money unless he _sells_ the stock right now at the suddenly and slightly reduced price. Which would be pretty daft, hypothetically. And the _intention_ of telling people that it's slightly overpriced is for them to sell it. When it's convenient to do so, that is, and not some massive horrible bubble burst. In short; all perfectly fine and frankly more fine than anyone else on the stock market.
"For good or bad, Skype has momentum"
I like Skype and use it, I just wanna say, that every time I've ever seen people start to bring up the "momentum" defense it was right before a brand or technology hit the ground and died. I actually made an investment decision once where I bought stock X when I noticed financial journalists describing their opponent as having "momentum" and I made a fair bit of money. Messenger, MySpace, Real Player, SGI and scores of other dead brands were said to have momentum right about the time they were getting their asses kicked off the market. Planets have momentum. Products have life cycles.
Disrupting enemy mortars is equivalent to causing the enemy not to use them. If the enemy can't rely on them and abandons them, than you don't even need perfect coverage.
You're suggesting that they can do without them, and I would have to ask, why have them in the first place if they can do so?
"The Aries rocket was tested and ready to go"
I heard Michio Kaku say that on Fox News.
Rage rage rage.
The _Ares_I_X_ was flown; if you don't think the difference is significant than listen up.
It was an aerodynamic test article made by taking a Space Shuttle rocket booster, replacing the avionics with prototypes and stacking EMPTY METAL on top to make it SHAPED LIKE an Ares-I, in the same way that a toy Ferrari is SHAPED LIKE a Ferrari.
Now I'm not criticising the having of an Ares-IX or on Griffin's project planning; he's the one with seven degrees in engineering, aerospace and business. He's the one who got Congress to pay for this stuff. He's the one who ran NASA.
However certain things are without dispute which you can read about here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ares_I#Schedule_and_cost
"due to technical and financial problems Ares I was not likely to have had its first crewed launch until 2017–2019 under the current budget, or late 2016 with an unconstrained budget ... Ares I and Orion would have an estimated recurring cost of almost $1 billion per flight ... Charlie Bolden testified to congress that the Ares I would cost $4–4.5 billion a year, and $1.6 billion per flight"
Look around. The year is 2013. Falcon 9 has flown repeatedly. And the cost gap is wide enough to safely fly a rocket through.
I'm not sorry if it doesn't happen to work on whatever phone you happen to have on release day. They have nothing to feel sorry about. In any case, they have finite funds – which you can donate to, if you wish – and in any case you can rig it up yourself for the good of the world. That's what this is for, by the way; good of the world.
I've watched every single episode and movie. Recently. They play real fast & loose with the continuity and there isn't a single Trek series that isn't half crap on an episode to episode basis. So I'm frequently astounded by the way trekkies talk about it.
You, for example, seem to take real seriously a point that isn't even relevant:
"Any federation planet was governed by a single government"
There had to be a single top government, but nations and states we're familiar with were routinely mentioned including France, Florida, Ukraine and Iowa. These are together with various off-Earth colonies under a common Earth government; think of the US with its federal government, constituent state & territory governments, counties, towns, etc.
There was even a ship in TNG labeled as built in the USSR.
Now you might say these are "regions" and I can accept "France" being a region.
But not Iowa.
If the American states were to all disband and be folded into one actual single government, there is no way each individual flyover state is going to retain its identity. The whole region would be seen as a great big cornfield with cities in it.
Star Trek is a silly show. It was silly when Kirk asked an alien "Are there any men on your planet?" and it was silly when Janeway solved yet another problem by blowing up the ship.
Let it be silly.
The exhaust is actually the part that vectors. If you watch launch footage of the second stage in flight you can see it steer to perform attitude control. This way the main engine nozzle doesn't have to vector.
Here's a fantastic clip of the Space Shuttle main engine vectoring in a test fire: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BK0nG9aY6qU
Flame, because, you know.
I agree with all y'all on this thread; universities teach computer science, not a programming language. One has to be mentally equipped to pick up a new language when needed. If you move from one platform to another, you may need to learn Java, Objective-C, even the native assembly language or a new scripting language. That's just how it is.
Ahem, just to add, I didn't mean to imply CERN is a US agency. The LHC did however cost a few billion of public money and does not have an obvious, immediate material benefit compared to other things that European states could have spent a few billion on. But I stand by its existence because it's important and it's not the only few billion around.
I'm sorry but it's a false choice. I too know what poverty is, and I'm glad to see someone going. I will never begrudge the few billion spent on the public Mars program, because it – along with anything we can do end poverty – is what a great society does. Unfortunately you are going to have to _convince_ people to help the poor because not everyone agrees with you on if or how to do that. That, not the fact that a sliver of the public money is spent on exploration, is your enemy. You can tear down NASA, DARPA, CERN, hell even the DoD and every gun we have and it'll still be in your way. Deal with _that_ and stop throwing poo at one of the most amazing things we're doing right now.
Ahh, that special indignance that only ever appears in the presence of space or science. I assume the untold billions spent around the world on other luxuries are of course perfectly legit and far more noble, since this topic is literally the only one where people spam the threads with this drivel.
Now if he spends his money on a private jet fleet to carry his furniture while he travels like the Saudi monarchs, nobody would say shit. You know it's true.
I'd like to add, while the entity in question might be 26k years old, the delay means we are _looking_ at a 1k-year-old object. If you study it what we can see, than you are studying a 1k year old black hole. For all practical purposes, it might as well be a one thousand year old remnant, and we all know how this time thing works, so it's okay to call it as we see it.
Don't get all "space time is curved" on us.
If they're in a moving group then they're subject to roughly the same forces and will follow the same trajectory. If an asteroid "swooped" – they don't, by the way – you'd expect everything traveling with it to swoop along with. Unless, of course, they're not the same cluster.
Gravity is not selective. It drops with the inverse square law and at these scales and distances the gravity gradient is irrelevant to a cluster of meteoroids. It's not going to pluck one out and send it on some winding path.
"IIRC they mothballed one for "emergency" re-commissioning"
I think that's from a Family Guy episode.
The shuttle is not for emergencies even when the program is fully active; it is very complicated and time consuming to prepare it for launch and sensitive to weather. Delays are rampant. Even when the fleet was live, it could take months to prepare a shuttle for flight and it usually would not do so immediately.
Which is fine for what it is, but what it isn't for is emergencies.
If they wanted to rush one up right now and money were no object, I'd bet it'd take 1 year absolute minimum and have a high risk of loss of mission or crew.
Finallly; the Shuttle cannot do missions beyond low earth orbit. It only has about 300 m/second of delta-v. This is about 1/10 what the Apollo CSM could do. Intercepting an asteroid is even harder. When one is _passing_ by the Earth you'd have to get up past Earth escape velocity. If it's coming _at_ the Earth, things get much hairier.
Again, totally OK for what it is, but what it isn't for is intercepting asteroids.
Interestingly, "duck and cover" is actually good advice here as well as in nuclear attacks and this event illustrates why _perfectly_.
People were injured by glass debris. If you saw the flash from inside and stared out the window while your friend ducks and covers, only one of you is going to get a shitload of glass in your face.
Nuclear bombs shit out lots of radiating. The flux drops off with the inverse square law, while the atmosphere in the device's vicinity is superheated and rushes outward. In a small area, everyone will die; in a much, much larger area, people staring at it will get a face full of glass, photons and more. They will be scalded, blind and cut while anyone who ducks and covers will not. If it has a moderate effect on the building, people under desks will be safer.
In short; the vast majority of people effected by a given nuclear detonation _will_ be better off if they duck and cover. Unless you know factually that you're in the minority of people who are 100% auto-screwed – and you don't – it is totally legit to duck and cover.
Mushroom cloud, because, boom.
"They would have seen intelligence arising before we even recognized ourselves."
No, not if there's a billion or so living planets to look at, and not if they don't actually send a probe all the way here.
Statistical data including the article in question suggest there may be _at_least_ several tens of billions of habitable-zone, terrestrial planets. We don't yet know what fraction of those are actually alive, but if it's even only 1% than you have an astounding number of planets.
We wonder what subset of those have civilization, but for the fermi paradox to be an actual paradox, we _also_ have to assume that it's common to obsessively probe and ping the shocking number of worlds out there.
There could be a civilization 10 lightyears away that doesn't even know Earth is alive _at_all_ simply because it doesn't transit the Sun from their viewing angle and there isn't another way to make good observations.
We. Don't. Know. And our ignorance is not evidence of anything.
"Only because they are forced too after blowing $100 billion on a space station they can't even get to on their own. A fool tends to be thrifty after he is parted from his money."
The HSF program is mandated from on high (Congress) and explicitly designed to cost a lot without looking too cool.
Can't piss on them for that.
It's maybe a 10 year old digital camera connected to a computer from the 90s, trained on a radically far, small and dim target.
If you expect it to look any better, it's your ignorance talking.
Can NASA make it look better? Yes, for barrels and barrels of money, by sending a new, purpose-built probe to the object in question.
Instead they did the fiscally responsible thing; use an asset they have that still works to get pictures good enough to be useful.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019