are you seriously comparing mass production in china to custom hand built stuff made in the USA? to be fair, i already knew you were full of shit cause you randomly CAPITALISE your words for emphasis, but that is a utterly unfair comparison you are making there. it does not cost that much more in the price of goods to pay workers on your mass production line located in the USA a reasonable wage. its just a race to the bottom that is the reason everything is made in china.
Yeah. Cause no commercial airline that has lost passengers and large, expensive jumbo jets in a plane crash is still operating today, right? Man, you sure do spout some crap. You even threw some 'think of the children' in there too. Seriously.
Spacex was entirely privately funded. The Falcon 9 was entirely privately developed. No government subsidies involved. And it is profitable without 'government subsidies', selling commercial satellite launches. Time has told, and it says the shuttle did too little for what it cost, and the ares rocket was shaping up to be more of the same, so the obama administration axed it and gave a contract to spacex to do the same for a fraction of the cost, and spacex is delivering. Deal with it.
as we all know, high framerate automatically detracts from good screenplay, actors, etc. through the power of imaginary internet commenter conflicting requirements.
are you seriously comparing something originally filmed in 24 fps then interpolated by software to 120 fps, to something filmed in 48 fps and shown at 48 fps? are you daft? you then go on to realise with your $20,000 BBC statement that its its actually production values for the most part that make film seem like film. except that point seems to completely escape you, and at the same time you confirm the original posters assertion that you will prejudge the quality based on past associations of high framerate with TV programs.
it doesnt exist yet. it hasnt flown, and its still more expensive per pound than the dragon, which has flown twice and is cheaper per pound. so if you could illuminate how the dreamchaser is doing more than spacex in dropping the cost of going to orbit for all of us, were all ears.
ive had a look at where brownsville is on the map, and its about as south and as close to the coast as you can get and still be in the US. i presume spacex chose this location so they could get the most boost from the rotation of the earth and still comply with ITER restrictions that they have to launch in the US, and also so they can launch over water, reducing range safety condcerns. also, it might be so when they get their reusable rocket flying, the first stage can land in florida with having to reverse direction back to its launch point, but im not sure about that reason.
reliability is not a major issue if your rocket can sustain a engine failure at nearly any point in the flight and still have the thrust to get to the needed orbit
those launch abort modes dont mean shit in a challenger type accident. a capsule that detaches and fires retrorockets to get away from a disintergrating rocket does. and launch escape systems work fine before or after a explosion. hell, the astronauts and their cabin survived the initial blast intact in the challenger disaster, and they only died when the cabin hit the water after it broke off. i wonder why they didnt unstrap, crack open the hatch, and parachute to safety in their full pressure suits, while the cabin was in freefall, and probably spinning, in the 2 minutes before they hit the water, as per that reference you have?
if one or more spacex rockets explodes on its way to the space station, the launch escape system will kick in and save the crews life. wheres the space shuttles launch escape system? nowhere! you know why? its because the space shuttle sucks. and now its dead. and now spacex will achieve what the shuttle could for a fraction of the cost. and more safely. or better yet, it will achieve much more than the shuttle could ever do, for the same budget. and do things that should have been started 30 years ago.
i think youll find the length of life hasnt changed that much, and its just the high infant mortality rate skews the lifespan estimates for the "olden days". if you take out mortality rates for those under 1 year old, you find a lifespan not far off modern day life expectancy.
they cant "fake up" 3d on films that were never shot that way. it comes out looking shitty. and then 3d itself gets the blame, instead of the cheapskates filmmakers who tried to pass it off as genuine 3d.
it might be worthwhile to just take a tank of liquid oxygen with you to feed into the battery. considering the oxygen will end up bound up in the battery when its fully depleted anyway, its probably not that much of a loss in specific energy density
they dont even need to improve the materials. at mach 20, you could just leave the atmosphere in well under 3 minutes, and with the addition of a small rocket motor, make adjustments to achieve orbit.
why do we even have suffixes? how important is it really in browsing the web to type in what sort of organization owns the domain name every single time you type the domain in the address bar? instead of typing 'slashdot.org' or 'slashdot.com', why cant i just type 'slashdot'? or 'google' or 'cnn'? is it really a big enough problem where different types of organisations with the exact same name exist such that i have to type at least 4 extra characters every damn time? why cant they just put that info in website metadata or something?
you dont have to run your games at full resolution. but that dosent mean you cant have your UI at a uber resolution. and GPU power surpassed that needed to run those higher resolutions a looong time ago.
Slashdot Mirror
theres something to be said for watching something unfold as it happens. the thrill of the unknown if you will.
a bottle of scotch, duh.
are you seriously comparing mass production in china to custom hand built stuff made in the USA? to be fair, i already knew you were full of shit cause you randomly CAPITALISE your words for emphasis, but that is a utterly unfair comparison you are making there. it does not cost that much more in the price of goods to pay workers on your mass production line located in the USA a reasonable wage. its just a race to the bottom that is the reason everything is made in china.
Yeah. Cause no commercial airline that has lost passengers and large, expensive jumbo jets in a plane crash is still operating today, right? Man, you sure do spout some crap. You even threw some 'think of the children' in there too. Seriously.
Spacex was entirely privately funded. The Falcon 9 was entirely privately developed. No government subsidies involved. And it is profitable without 'government subsidies', selling commercial satellite launches. Time has told, and it says the shuttle did too little for what it cost, and the ares rocket was shaping up to be more of the same, so the obama administration axed it and gave a contract to spacex to do the same for a fraction of the cost, and spacex is delivering. Deal with it.
yeah thats brilliant. now you can prove which way you voted, enabling vote buying and coercion. juuuust brilliant
as we all know, high framerate automatically detracts from good screenplay, actors, etc. through the power of imaginary internet commenter conflicting requirements.
are you seriously comparing something originally filmed in 24 fps then interpolated by software to 120 fps, to something filmed in 48 fps and shown at 48 fps? are you daft? you then go on to realise with your $20,000 BBC statement that its its actually production values for the most part that make film seem like film. except that point seems to completely escape you, and at the same time you confirm the original posters assertion that you will prejudge the quality based on past associations of high framerate with TV programs.
this. id much prefer 1 x 42 inch 3840x2160 display than 4 x 21 inch 1920x1080 displays
it doesnt exist yet. it hasnt flown, and its still more expensive per pound than the dragon, which has flown twice and is cheaper per pound. so if you could illuminate how the dreamchaser is doing more than spacex in dropping the cost of going to orbit for all of us, were all ears.
that thing is gonna kill more mice from tiny mice heart attacks than it did when its alive.
ive had a look at where brownsville is on the map, and its about as south and as close to the coast as you can get and still be in the US. i presume spacex chose this location so they could get the most boost from the rotation of the earth and still comply with ITER restrictions that they have to launch in the US, and also so they can launch over water, reducing range safety condcerns. also, it might be so when they get their reusable rocket flying, the first stage can land in florida with having to reverse direction back to its launch point, but im not sure about that reason.
reliability is not a major issue if your rocket can sustain a engine failure at nearly any point in the flight and still have the thrust to get to the needed orbit
that only strengthens my argument, and my original claim that the shuttle had no launch escape system.
those launch abort modes dont mean shit in a challenger type accident. a capsule that detaches and fires retrorockets to get away from a disintergrating rocket does. and launch escape systems work fine before or after a explosion. hell, the astronauts and their cabin survived the initial blast intact in the challenger disaster, and they only died when the cabin hit the water after it broke off. i wonder why they didnt unstrap, crack open the hatch, and parachute to safety in their full pressure suits, while the cabin was in freefall, and probably spinning, in the 2 minutes before they hit the water, as per that reference you have?
so yeah. to reiterate, shuttles launch escape system = fucking joke, spacex launch escape system = taking a lesson from the pages of fucking history, idiot
if one or more spacex rockets explodes on its way to the space station, the launch escape system will kick in and save the crews life. wheres the space shuttles launch escape system? nowhere! you know why? its because the space shuttle sucks. and now its dead. and now spacex will achieve what the shuttle could for a fraction of the cost. and more safely. or better yet, it will achieve much more than the shuttle could ever do, for the same budget. and do things that should have been started 30 years ago.
i think youll find the length of life hasnt changed that much, and its just the high infant mortality rate skews the lifespan estimates for the "olden days". if you take out mortality rates for those under 1 year old, you find a lifespan not far off modern day life expectancy.
its not like being able to fire employees on a whim is good for the economy anyway
they cant "fake up" 3d on films that were never shot that way. it comes out looking shitty. and then 3d itself gets the blame, instead of the cheapskates filmmakers who tried to pass it off as genuine 3d.
guess it really will be a diablo 3 launch.
it might be worthwhile to just take a tank of liquid oxygen with you to feed into the battery. considering the oxygen will end up bound up in the battery when its fully depleted anyway, its probably not that much of a loss in specific energy density
they dont even need to improve the materials. at mach 20, you could just leave the atmosphere in well under 3 minutes, and with the addition of a small rocket motor, make adjustments to achieve orbit.
speaking in leading caps is a cool skill they learned in the terry pratchett book "guards! guards!"
why do we even have suffixes? how important is it really in browsing the web to type in what sort of organization owns the domain name every single time you type the domain in the address bar? instead of typing 'slashdot.org' or 'slashdot.com', why cant i just type 'slashdot'? or 'google' or 'cnn'? is it really a big enough problem where different types of organisations with the exact same name exist such that i have to type at least 4 extra characters every damn time? why cant they just put that info in website metadata or something?
you dont have to run your games at full resolution. but that dosent mean you cant have your UI at a uber resolution. and GPU power surpassed that needed to run those higher resolutions a looong time ago.