Uh, DOS most certainly did have drivers. I know for fact you weren't plugging an SB16 into a DOS machine and expecting it t work just by modifying your autoexec.bat and config.sys files. You had to install the drivers for it, first.

Wrong. DOS did NOT have *any* support for audio drivers. Instead *applications* had the support. An application would have to select the 2 or 3 most common types and then write code to interface with the different drivers separately. At no point did DOS interact with this process at all because DOS simply had no concept of audio outside of the BEEP command for honking the inbuilt speaker.

Both the Dems and Republicans are as bad as each other on this point. To their credit the Dems haven't bowed to the denialism PR campaign by going full retard on the pseudoscience, but instead seem to be just doing as little as possible to seem like they are doing something and practically doing fuck all.

Is it any wonder its the states that are really taking the lead on carbon reduction. I grant thats partly due to how US federalism works, but staunch action from the whitehouse would certainly send a message that no its not OK to shit in the commons without consequence.

I'd recommend reading "The Conquest of Bread" by Peter Kropotkin.

My perspective is that governments and economies are command and control technologies for civilizations, and the ones we have are ill suited to a world without scarcity. They destroy wealth to make the system work as it is, and with the technologies emerging, it's going to become ridiculous. So, the imperative is to create a better command and control technology, one that is fair, makes everyone feel suitability represented, elevates the right people at the right time and works toward abundance instead of destroying it.

The Government did not invent roads. Roads existed long before the Government made them, in fact most towns and cities had roads without a Government mandating and taxing people for using and building them. If you are referring to the Highway programs, those were not Federal Government ideas. Those were citizen and business owner ideas. The program went to the Feds because it was easy at the time, and saved States from having to negotiate connecting points.

The Government may have expedited some of the process, but we don't know how much because we only implemented one Federal highway program. In other words, it's impossible to measure help or harm from the Federal program. Did it add some benefit, sure, but you can't truthfully claim that it's all because of Government.

I'm not sure how many photos you have seen from the 1800s, back before the Government handled trash pickup, but I have never seen any that show giant trash piles in every lot. As with roads, trash pickup was happening without Government intervention as well. The Government didn't come up with concepts like "If you drink water with trash in it, it's not good water", we knew that well before a take over by the Government.

Your last example is the worst. Firefighters used to be all volunteers, and many fire departments still run on a measurable percentage of volunteers. Large cities collect taxes for dedicated people, and people can choose to live there or out in the sticks where they lack the services and don't pay the premiums. Believe it or not, Firefighting has happened in communities for as long as we have had communities without Government intervention.

In all of your examples, there is not a single case where you can claim that Government is needed. You can in some cases claim it adds benefits, but at the same time it's difficult to measure how much. Road building (construction in general) has, and historically has had, significant levels of political corruption.

It's impossible to provide hundreds of pages of concept in a post, so I'll recommend you read Stephan Molyneux or listen to his podcasts on anarchism. I don't agree with him on everything, but it's good for the brain to contemplate alternative opinion.

Seriously? This is NOT a hard thing to find out. The guy's name is Michael Taylor, and he's been bouncing back and forth between Monsanto lobbyist or executive, the FDA, and the USDA for decades. Of course, on his official FDA page, you need to read to the very last sentence to find out that he was tied to Monsanto. (I'll have to give them a little credit for mentioning it at all.) I mean, really -- this is a pretty high profile thing. There's even a petition with over 463,000 signatures online to get this guy removed.

You're right about one thing, though -- he never actually became "head" of the FDA, if by which you mean the actual "Commissioner of Food and Drugs." He was only appointed as "Senior Advisor to the FDA Commissioner." So I guess he wasn't the head of the FDA -- but he was chosen for a top position, just one of the top guys who had the most influence and input to the head of the FDA.

I know nothing about this guy's personal policies or integrity or whatever. But I do agree that this guy is a perfect example of the "revolving door" of some dude working for a big corporation, then going to a government agency which is supposed to regulate that corporation, then back to the corporation, then back to the government, etc. And whether this guy is good or evil or whatever, that general trend is a bad one.

But, they are moving slower than expected, in part because of the wheel worries.

http://irwinallentvseries.wiki...
"Don and John come out of the ship asking about carbon tetrachloride. Smith says he uses it to remove stains--he's used it and left the top off. John asks him if he has any thoughts besides his immediate needs---without the carbon tetrachloride they will lose their food supply. They use it as food preservation (NOTE: how is a mystery---it is highly toxic). They will have to eat only non-perishable items and now face a food shortage (what about the hydroponic garden?). ..." :-)

Will Robinson saved the day on that episode, but he had to come all the way to Earth via an alien matter transporter to do it.

Kidding aside, you make a great point!

Mesh might not do well in sand because sand particles get inside the wheel easily. Keep in mind they are driving up a slope.

More bad luck than bad planning because the type of terrain they landed on had not been observed on Mars before.

It's not "bad luck", it's why you explore. If you send out a scout to the east, and he comes back with an arrow in his back, bummer for the scout, but at least you now know the east is dangerous before sending the rest of the troops to the east.

Better we find out about stiff rocks now instead of when humans are driving a rover there, without AAA.

Note this rover is better able to handle sand based on lessons from the last rovers.

As they actually have to produce the stuff to set it free, that is not a plausible scenario.

You must do IT consulting. While satisfying as a business strategy, I guess it limits revenue.

But the wheels aren't failing. The skin on the wheels is failing but the wheels will work fine with structure alone.

Not exactly. The bent skin can potentially rub against cables, sawing them up, goofing up wheel control and other parts of the electrical system. Plus, they may start sinking in sand without skin. Sand was a big problem for earlier rovers.

Sure, and there are no other radio technologies. Or fibers. Or wires. Or lasers.

As in any good police state, if the police does not like you, the relevant US police force will just shoot you in your home and either claim they had the wrong address, or place some drugs or hints of terror-support. Bricking phones is for children.

A post from me to comp.robotics.misc in 1999 about Silent Running drones which spawned a thread with 32 messages:
https://groups.google.com/foru...
---
Anyone remember the drones (Huey, Dewey, and Louie) from the sci-fi movie Silent Running?

Some links: ...

They have always captivated me, and were an early influence in getting me interested in robotics and AI.

I particularly liked the scene where all three worked together to perform a medical operation.

I've long wanted to build some robots like these for gardening and maintenance. It seems to me that multifuncional drones such as those (with changeable end effectors) would be very valuable in agriculture, by reducing the need for pesticides and fertilizers through picking off pests, pulling weeds, and spot applying fertilizer, and by not compacting the soil like tractors.

Has anyone given any though to what it would take to make such drones today?
How much would it cost to build such a system (part cost, design time cost, assembly time cost)?
How long would it take?
How much could it lift?
How long would the battery (fuel cell?) life be?
How well could they be made to walk or climb stairs with today's technology?

Anyone out there started such a project to clone these drones?

Any advice on where to find more information on their design, or maybe the originals made for the movies?

Would that design concept (one armed, collaborative walking robots, three feet high) now be considered obsolete (i.e. compared to the post model in Hans Moravec's latest book "Robot")?

Could a business case be made today for a company to build such robots? Or instead, would anyone be interested in collaborating on an open source design for robots that looked like those?