Yeah, SUCK IT.
Yeah, SUCK IT.
Let me guess, you're also a cage fighter, 6'6" tall, and have a 10 inch wang?
And all the other *Kits - for making things fancy and GUI and creating a generation of Linux admins who don't actually know how things work.
The bottom line is that families were split apart and have remained apart for 60 years directly because of squabbling between the US and the former Soviet Union.
Directly because? Certainly the USA and the Soviet Union encouraged the hostility but the Korean people aren't robots. The reason North and South Korea are apart and have such lousy relations is because of Koreans. Non Europeans are also responsible for their actions.
Come on man. The USA and USSR literally drew the DMZ line at the end of World War II. Koreans didn't have much to do with that. Instead of reintegrating Korea into 1 republic, the two countries set up their own preferred style of government in each part of Korea. Nobody can argue that for the first few years after World War II, that the governments were anything but a puppet government. The US set up a South Korean constitution modeled after the US constitution, and the USSR set up communisim in the North with a hand-selected autocrat as the leader.
Korea and Vietnam were cold war fights by proxy. Maybe they would have had a conflict without foreign powers interfering, but the resources that the USSR and USA poured into the fight ensured that it was a far bigger, nastier, and longer war than it would have been otherwise. If either of the superpowers had stayed out of it, one or the other side would have won the war reasonably quickly. Both countries were responsible in creating the stalemate and both are responsible for the poor decisions of the past.
Its also important to keep in mind that outsiders of all types have been fiddling around in Korea since the 1600s- first the Chinese, then an incident with the American-owned ship "General Sherman", then the Japanese, then the USSR and USA. The History of Korea is not a very uplifting read. Korea has been shit upon by every country in their neighborhood and most of the superpowers as well. Given that history, it shouldn't be surprising that they turned inward and cut ties with the West and South Korea, which is strongly aligned with the USA.
I just have to wonder if it's not just a PR stunt. These kind of threats from hackers does indeed sound unbelievable. Hacking a pc and setting up a terrorist strike are quite different skill sets. Am i the only one wondering if this is just a hoax from Sony/the authorities to make people change their stance on the hacks? In the beginning everybody was like "serves them right". Now everybody is like "Omg, poor Sony, i would watch the movie if i could".
These threats seem like the best thing that could happen to them after the hack. I'm kind of wondering if it isn't a bit too convenient.
I'm thinking they made a financial calculation. If the value of the materials which the hackers have, but have not yet released, exceeds the expected revenue of the movie, then it makes sense to trash the movie and just move on. I can easily imagine that such materials (especially if they implicate Sony in illegal or questionable activities) having a value of millions of dollars to be kept secret.
Plus, the Korea situation isn't that funny. The bottom line is that families were split apart and have remained apart for 60 years directly because of squabbling between the US and the former Soviet Union. That's not a joke, its just sad.
I hope he meant "inside" or possibly "under" those conditions. I'm normally not that hung up on grammar but this is the opposite of what was probably meant.
I don't think the issue is attempting a landing on land, but rather that the proposed site for landing (I think they are proposing to use the site originally designed to become 39C before NASA scrapped that location for Apollo Saturn V launches) is so close to other critical infrastructure.
If they landed on some use spot of semi-wilderness like where Russia does landings for the Soyuz spacecraft, the Australian outback, or some other similar sized far from civilization, they wouldn't have any problem with attempting a landing on land. The problem is that the eastern coast of Florida is hardly what I would describe as unpopulated wilderness. The chance of the Falcon 9 landing in Miami or even Disney World is just too great. That is why the pinpoint accuracy is so needed, especially with the suicide burn approach that SpaceX is using for the core recovery.
No, the current goal is to land on the barge. Preferably they would like to land on an island down range from KSC, but that island simply doesn't exist.
Yes, the long term end goal is landing preferably on a landing pad about a mile or so away from the launch site at KSC, where it appears to be roughly at the location of pad 39C (or rather where that pad was supposed to be built during the Apollo program.... but never happened).
On the other hand, it may very well be that boosting back to the site at KSC is not a realistic option simply because the delta-v (change in velocity) is insufficient for a proper return given the other constraints for delivering payloads to orbit. Even now, there are payloads that SpaceX is taking that will use so much fuel that even landing on a barge is out of the question... and the 1st stage is going to simply burn up in the upper atmosphere and break up during reentry.
In fairness to Elon Musk, he actually wanted to blow about a half billion dollars on sending a greenhouse to the surface of Mars.... pretty much as a philanthropic venture or as just blowing the money for the hell of it. He even got so far as going to Russia and trying to negotiate the purchase of an ICBM to get the project to happen (where they even offered the nuclear warhead with the deal... something he turned down).
Along the way, one of those in Russia insulted him big time and basically challenged him to try and do this himself. After a little investigating about the topic, he went to Los Angeles County to recruit a few aerospace engineers who were building rockets capable of going into orbit as a hobby, and offered them a full time job to make a clean-sheet new rocket from scratch. That company is now SpaceX. The hobby guys are still making rockets that are being launched in the Mojave desert, but a great many of those guys are getting hired by a new set of space-related companies building stuff now.
The headline is wrong. This is not at all a cargo ship. It's more like an free-floating platform on which a gas refinery has been built. It will stay in place during its entire lifetime.
It should not even be compared to ships.
It may be freed from having to think too much about propulsion, but it still has to float, weather storms, and keep the crew alive and comfortable with water treatment, sewage treatment, laundry, cooking, etc. Not to mention providing all the functions of a refinery on an island made out of steel. It's an FPSO but for LNG. That kind of vessel is considered a ship, and not an rig, for the purposes of most class societies such as Lloyds or the American Bureau of Shipping.
At Warsash there is a similar set of systems: http://www.warsashacademy.co.u...
The engine room simulation looks pretty nice: http://www.warsashacademy.co.u...
My alma mater has a few simulators, but the main training tool is a 450ft ship. When studying to be a ship engineer or a bridge officer, there is no substitute for the real thing, so we had the real thing. Each of the serious maritime universities in the USA (of which there are about 7) has a ship. Usually, the ships actually are owned by the government and can be called up by the government in times of need for disaster response or other reasons.
Except there are judicial opinions and legal precedence with regards to the GPL. This isn't 1990 when there are six websites on the internet and the GPL was brand new with everybody speculating about what a judge might say about the GPL. SCO v. IBM is one example of a set of legal opinions written (in this case from federal courts) by actual judges where the GPL was a central point of contention and real legal precedence can be found.
Fortunately the GPL was written to be understood by those who were using the license, where violations of the terms of the license are very clear and almost everybody who is out of compliance knows they are out of compliance. It is usually jerks and idiots who push the terms of the license to the point you even need a judicial opinion on the matter.
In contract law you're not assumed to know anything about the background or history of the license except as written.
That isn't true either, particularly with standard contracts that are in widespread usage. A good example of such a contract is the standard Screen Actors' Guild contract, which is something frequently that goes to trial and has had nearly every provision tested in one way or another. Legal precedence in particular (previous court cases that have occurred with regards to that contract) are definitely something you would be wise to pay attention to, in particular any cases argued in Los Angeles County.
Generally the history of the license or contract is not quite so known, particularly from a legal standpoint, but you can't say that about the GPL. And I might point out that there is legal precedence with regards to enforcement of several parts of the GPL. Any lawyer who does not know what those cases are with regards to the GPL is just showing their incompetence, particularly when a Google search or even searching Wikipedia can get you links to the actual judicial opinions.
RMS actually wrote the version 1 of the license. He did get some legal assistance in terms of crafting the language of the license, and Eben Moglen was frequently involved in those legal discussion including enforcement of the GPL with regards to software owned (aka the primary copyright holder through various agreements) by the Free Software Foundation (primarily GNU related software). Another significant contributor was Mike Godwin, of Godwin's Law fame, although you could also point to several other people who contributed too.
By the time it got to the version 3 of the GPL license, legal commentary and assistance was very widespread where it would be very hard to point to any single author, although RMS is clearly selecting the language as a sort of editor with regards to how the final wording of the license turned out.
It definitely was not RMS sitting back and hiring a lawyer to draft the language for him like you would a business contract.
There is also a step between permanent resident and somebody qualified to work on ITAR related projects. It takes special State Department investigations and approval to make that happens.... usually with a pile of money spent on lawyers to make it happen.