That's pretty much it. Those VFDs are around $100 all by themselves. Nowadays you can get OLED displays that look almost as vivid for a fraction of the price, or you could go with a cheaper LCD with a good EL backlight. They made a couple of questionable hardware design decisions that definitely negatively impacted the price.
Sure, no problem. But then don't complain when I come around in a couple of years and ask you for money for those birthday presents I gave you today. Hey, since I bought them, I have the right to change my mind!
> Defining your politics as the opposite of everything > that Bush believes sounds more like an act of whining
I defined my politics long before I even heard of W. I'm curious what HE is defining his in terms of, because he seems to be waffling regarding whom he is pandering to lately.
> As for "if you're not with us you're against us", I've never > heard an actual member of the Right issue such a challenge
> Now THESE are the really revolutionary ideas - the ideas of the American Revolution
That's funny that you should mention the American Revolution. If you examined the founding principles more carefully you'd notice that their spirit is much more in line with what you consider the Left than the Right. Ideas such as equal rights and the protection of personal dignity and human worth, rather than dog-eat-dog, every-man-for-himself anarchy. If you compare these ideas to the standards of their day you'll find that the founding fathers were practically bleeding-heart socialists of the era.
> than sitting like the trained sheep the left > has been attempting to turn them into
The left what? The left hand? The left foot? Oh, you mean the Left! It seems your grasp of history is as tenuous as that of spelling, otherwise you'd know that a lot more social change has taken place because of public disobedience by what you call "the Left" than by (presumably) your own camp. Attributing conformism to the hippies of the 60s, or the civil rights marchers of the 50s, or even what you would probably consider the quintessential Lefties--the Bolsheviks of the Russian Revolution--smacks of ignorance and self delusion.
In fact, in recent history conformism is a trait much more frequently found amongst conservatives, or the Right. Who introduced the doctrine of "if you're not with us you're against us"? Or forwarded the notion that opposing the war in Iraq is paramount to being anti-American? Don't get distracted into addessing those particular issues, focus on the fact that they exemplify conformist thinking--behaving the way your leaders want you to as a matter of policy.
> has in no way demonstrated the (yet) the ability to act as a single entity.
War and the threat of annihilation have a funny way of doing that. Just watch France, Russia, the UK and US during WWII. Still couldn't stand each other, but they certainly had no problem fully cooperating for that duration.
> You assume that military R&D is the only way to way to growth. > The reality is that investing in military technology is not the > most efficient way to advance your economy.
Who is talking about economies here? The topic was total annihilation, R&D for survival rather than Gain & Profit.
> would have to totally abandon all barriers to be effective, > and, like I said, in the last war, the way it went down > was the opposite of what you said.
Sure, because European nations under Nazi rule had no particular motivation to improve themselves and thus help the Nazis. Do you honestly think France under the Nazis could ever have been as productive as under self-governance? Or Holland? Or Poland? Europe at that time was itself torn apart. The (hypothetical) scenario discussed is very different, that of ALL of Europe being under thread from an external enemy.
As another poster said, IF the US wanted, they could nuke Europe. Of course, IF Europe saw the US as that kind of threat, they COULD switch from producing cruise ships, fancy automobiles and high-end electronic schnick-schnacks to producing fancy weapons instead. The sole reason Europe spends just a fraction of the money the US does on defence R&D is because it normally doesn't have to. If it felt it HAD to, the US wouldn't have much of a leg up on Europe anymore in that respect. As European nations have demonstrated plentifully in other areas (e.g. healthcare, public works), they are quite capable of appropriating gargantuan amounts of money, which could then be channelled to more destructive uses.
If Europe started a massive military R&D push today, they could take advantage of the huge advances and cost reductions in digital electronics since the 70s and 80s, when a lot of the current US stock of weapons was developed. Cruise and intelligent anti-aircraft missiles with current technology could be produced for a fraction of the cost, you wouldn't event need equivalents to the F-22 or anything. Stealth is only as good as the next generation of DSP algorithms and chips. The principles of mass production aren't quite the novelty they were during WWII when the US were the only ones churning out hardware on a huge scale.
This is all assuming all-out, take-no-prisoners war between Western nations, which given the economic realities of today is highly unlikely, almost ridiculous--as is the OP'ers flamboyant and boisterous statement.
I said "this type of rapture", meaning the Left-Behind-type you mentioned where people vanish in an instant. All it says it that they will be caught up together in the clouds, and in fact I believe it mentions that they will be visible to all those left behind. None of that now-they're-here-now-they're-gone mentioned anywhere.
Regarding the thousand year reign, where exactly does it say that this will happen on Earth? Nowehere at all! Besides, what is supposed to happen after the thousand years? If Eternity is supposed to last just a literal thousand years, the last two thousand years of wretched Christian persecution seem hardly worth it.
Your "liberal theologians" jibe is pretty amusing, since my background is probably far more religiously conservative than what you're used to. But there's a difference between picking and choosing what is conveninent, and taking it all. You might want to start with the Ten Commandmends, which according to Jesus are the most important thing. Ask yourself why you're worshipping on the day chosen by a pope to demonstrate his power over the word of God, and not on the day Jesus himself--and all Jews--worshipped on. You're breaking the fourth commandmend every single weekend.
Dude, no offense, but this is a very proprietary and highly extrapolated view of what the Bible says. I come from two generations of theologians and do know what the Bible says and doesn't say, even if I personally don't buy into it (black sheep of the family and all). What you're listing as fact is merely the interpretation of a few Christian branches, using lots of artistic license and suspension of skepticism. There is no metion of this type of rapture, nor of the 3.5 years, nor of the 1000 year kingdom, etc. You have to learn to read a bit between the lines when reading the Bible. For example, you have no problem not taking the 666 thing literally and instead interpreting the pope's title as the number or whatever, but then you take the right hand and forehead literally, because it sounds good. A lot of Revelation has to be interpreted a lot more abstractly than that. Like the whole Armageddon thing. As far as God is concerned the people of Isreal have had their chance, the whole world is God's people now; the Jews don't hold any more special significance in God's eyes, they're just like everyone else now. So anyone looking for a final Grand Battle in the Middle East with blood up to the horses' bellies or what have you is simply barking up the wrong tree. Ain't gonna happen, regardless of the somewhat coincidental events there now.
Anyway, this is all just roleplaying within what the Bible says, kind of like arguing about LOTR "facts"--you either stick with what Tolkien (or the Bible) says, or else anything goes. That's the trouble with religion, it's pretty much what people make it, that's why it also holds so little appeal to me.
I'm sorry, that doesn't make any sense. The people most likely and with the power to enforce something like this are political leaders, especially those leading the most powerful nations, i.e. most of the Western world. Western leaders are notorious for spouting Christian rhetoric, so the only thing they're likely to force you to do is pledge allegiance to Christian values or something, which I assume you'd have no problems with. And the only way they're likely to succeed is with wide public support, otherwise they risk civil war and jeopardizing all hope of control. Christian values is something they're likely to get public support on, personal worship or any crap like that most likely not. What or whom exactly do you imagine Bush or one of his followers to require you to pledge allegience to other than Christian Values without losing complete moral authority and credibility?
> So I think the theologians are likely talking out of their expertise here. > What I'm talking about is technologically viable today.
I still don't see how this makes the tag the MOTB. You have to swear allegiance to something in order to recieve it and buy food. What could this Something be? Denouncing terrorism and pledging allegiance to Christian values and the President of the USA or whatever? Because that's pretty much the direction we're going. The most powerful people in the world are the very ones spouting the most Christian rhetoric. Are you saying that all of a sudden Bush or whoever are going to reverse course and say "forget God and all that stuff, say you believe in ME and what I say, or you're not getting any food"? If he did that, he'd lose any moral authority, credibility and public support. If, on the other hand, he would require you to pledge allegiance to All Things Christian to receive your tag, what exactly would be the problem? Doesn't make any sense.
> Given all of biblical history, why would anyone with decent critical > thinking skills believe that God would suddenly, at the end of history, > change his (unchangeable) personality and try to trick people into > accepting the mark?
When talking to fundies, they never have a satisfactory answer to this one. I mean, if the Mark Of The Beast is something physical that could be forced on you against your will (say, by holding you down and implanting the tag), how would that reflect your own personal choice? After all, the whole underlying moral of the Bible is that of free will and personal choice and the consequences thereof. Most theologians today consider the MOTB to be something abstract, a personal choice and allegiance to the side of Good or Evil (or whatever), not an actual physical mark.
> www.newegg.com [...] They are a fairly reputable dealer.
OH MY GOD! A heretic! Someones pass me the noose! Dude, calling The Egg "fairly reputable" amongst geeks is like drinking your gruel with extended pinky on a Viking longboat.
Re:Applications for space flight
on
Son of Concorde
·
· Score: 1
> [Size, weight, fuel use] doesn't matter unless it affects the cost per pound of people/cargo.
Well, duh, which of course they all do. If size didn't matter, I could build a backyard rocket that could put a grapefruit into orbit for $50,000, except that it wouldn't be much use to any paying customer. Once you scale up existing technology it becomes less efficient and more complex as it gets bigger. All things being equal it takes a heck of a lot more fuel and increases the cost-per-pound to push a cross section of ten meters through the air than one of four meters. It also requires more structural rigidity and thus weight, all decreasing payload capacity. The less payload per pound of starting weight, the higher the cost-per-pound. The more complex the system and the less reusable (where I wouldn't rate the current shuttle as terribly reusable in this sense), the more ground personnell it requires, and the higher the cost-per-pound.
What I'm trying to say is that the type and amount of fuel used currently implies a certain type of technology, which implies a certain ground infrastructure, which implies proven costs. IOW, with the non- or only slightly reusable technology as used till now you're never going to lower the cost-per-pound by the two or more orders of magnitude required to put masses of passengers into space, no matter how you shuffle the numbers around. The only thing that will do that is a vehicle that lands on a regular runway, can be refueled by Billy-Bob in an hour or so, and takes off again without having much more rebuilt than its food supply.
> In fact, worrying about them for the last forty years has > been the exact reason for the lack of progress to date
Man, where were you when all those dumbasses were designing all that crap? PLEASE do apply at NASA tout de suite lest we waste more precious time!
Re:Applications for space flight
on
Son of Concorde
·
· Score: 1
> The cost is the WHOLE POINT. There is no other good reason to try to reduce fuel usage.
That's called setting up a straw man, which you then bang up pretty good. Another VERY GOOD reason to reduce fuel usage is so that most of your cargo ISN'T fuel. Like that really huge blimp under the belly of the space shuttle, plus the two SSBs. In fact that would be the main reason. If you could get (close) to orbit with only the fuel of a few 747s, you'd save enormously on weight and extra system and structural complexities, which could instead be replaced by paying customers. The space shuttle is a plane the size of a 707 with a fuel tank the size of a submarine that can transport a few people into orbit (let's replace the payload with a few more people as well). What you want is a shuttle the size of a 777 with a self-contained fuel tank that can transport 300 people through space. That's the real cost of fuel, not its purchase cost.
Of the 13 listed, I would only consider 5, 6, maybe 11, 13 as controlled landings. Which is pretty impressive, but in no way disproves the fact that a passenger aircraft makes a very poorly controllable glider. Still, with some fly-by-wire magic they may be able to inject a few extra degrees of controllability during gliding landings into future planes.
That's not the market they're addressing with this.
Re:Applications for space flight
on
Son of Concorde
·
· Score: 1
> This is so misguded it's not funny.
Your only objection was to the cost. Why did you quote the whole paragraph? In fact the rest of his ideas were right, that's after all why scramjets are so attractive.
> The Concorde (and its successor) appeals to a different market (i.e. not you and me).
Hollywood isn't a market large passenger airplanes are planned for. When the Concorde was first developed, they certainly hoped to make mega-bucks on it and move loads of people, thus bringing the price down over time. If they'd known that only the Stones and their buddies would fly it, they wouldn't have bothered. I think you have the entirely wrong idea about how these passenger planes are planned. You must be thinking about Lear.
Slashdot Mirror
> I think they just really really wanted that display.
And a nice display it is. But it would have been equally nice to also offer a cheaper unit with a lesser display.
> The bright, big, green display?
That's pretty much it. Those VFDs are around $100 all by themselves. Nowadays you can get OLED displays that look almost as vivid for a fraction of the price, or you could go with a cheaper LCD with a good EL backlight. They made a couple of questionable hardware design decisions that definitely negatively impacted the price.
Sure, no problem. But then don't complain when I come around in a couple of years and ask you for money for those birthday presents I gave you today. Hey, since I bought them, I have the right to change my mind!
> Defining your politics as the opposite of everything
> that Bush believes sounds more like an act of whining
I defined my politics long before I even heard of W. I'm curious what HE is defining his in terms of, because he seems to be waffling regarding whom he is pandering to lately.
> As for "if you're not with us you're against us", I've never
> heard an actual member of the Right issue such a challenge
Dude, you've just lost all credibility! How about some public records?
[snip mostly knee-jerk cries for anarchy]
> Now THESE are the really revolutionary ideas - the ideas of the American Revolution
That's funny that you should mention the American Revolution. If you examined the founding principles more carefully you'd notice that their spirit is much more in line with what you consider the Left than the Right. Ideas such as equal rights and the protection of personal dignity and human worth, rather than dog-eat-dog, every-man-for-himself anarchy. If you compare these ideas to the standards of their day you'll find that the founding fathers were practically bleeding-heart socialists of the era.
> than sitting like the trained sheep the left
> has been attempting to turn them into
The left what? The left hand? The left foot? Oh, you mean the Left! It seems your grasp of history is as tenuous as that of spelling, otherwise you'd know that a lot more social change has taken place because of public disobedience by what you call "the Left" than by (presumably) your own camp. Attributing conformism to the hippies of the 60s, or the civil rights marchers of the 50s, or even what you would probably consider the quintessential Lefties--the Bolsheviks of the Russian Revolution--smacks of ignorance and self delusion.
In fact, in recent history conformism is a trait much more frequently found amongst conservatives, or the Right. Who introduced the doctrine of "if you're not with us you're against us"? Or forwarded the notion that opposing the war in Iraq is paramount to being anti-American? Don't get distracted into addessing those particular issues, focus on the fact that they exemplify conformist thinking--behaving the way your leaders want you to as a matter of policy.
> Put up or shut up.
You have a lot in common with your president. Let's find out who's stronger by starting a war, just for the heck of it.
> has in no way demonstrated the (yet) the ability to act as a single entity.
War and the threat of annihilation have a funny way of doing that. Just watch France, Russia, the UK and US during WWII. Still couldn't stand each other, but they certainly had no problem fully cooperating for that duration.
> You assume that military R&D is the only way to way to growth.
> The reality is that investing in military technology is not the
> most efficient way to advance your economy.
Who is talking about economies here? The topic was total annihilation, R&D for survival rather than Gain & Profit.
> would have to totally abandon all barriers to be effective,
> and, like I said, in the last war, the way it went down
> was the opposite of what you said.
Sure, because European nations under Nazi rule had no particular motivation to improve themselves and thus help the Nazis. Do you honestly think France under the Nazis could ever have been as productive as under self-governance? Or Holland? Or Poland? Europe at that time was itself torn apart. The (hypothetical) scenario discussed is very different, that of ALL of Europe being under thread from an external enemy.
> For every person shooting from the hip their flamboyant statements
;-)
> is an equal voice of reason (on both sides of the Atlantic).
As a European living in the US I know that
As another poster said, IF the US wanted, they could nuke Europe. Of course, IF Europe saw the US as that kind of threat, they COULD switch from producing cruise ships, fancy automobiles and high-end electronic schnick-schnacks to producing fancy weapons instead. The sole reason Europe spends just a fraction of the money the US does on defence R&D is because it normally doesn't have to. If it felt it HAD to, the US wouldn't have much of a leg up on Europe anymore in that respect. As European nations have demonstrated plentifully in other areas (e.g. healthcare, public works), they are quite capable of appropriating gargantuan amounts of money, which could then be channelled to more destructive uses.
If Europe started a massive military R&D push today, they could take advantage of the huge advances and cost reductions in digital electronics since the 70s and 80s, when a lot of the current US stock of weapons was developed. Cruise and intelligent anti-aircraft missiles with current technology could be produced for a fraction of the cost, you wouldn't event need equivalents to the F-22 or anything. Stealth is only as good as the next generation of DSP algorithms and chips. The principles of mass production aren't quite the novelty they were during WWII when the US were the only ones churning out hardware on a huge scale.
This is all assuming all-out, take-no-prisoners war between Western nations, which given the economic realities of today is highly unlikely, almost ridiculous--as is the OP'ers flamboyant and boisterous statement.
I said "this type of rapture", meaning the Left-Behind-type you mentioned where people vanish in an instant. All it says it that they will be caught up together in the clouds, and in fact I believe it mentions that they will be visible to all those left behind. None of that now-they're-here-now-they're-gone mentioned anywhere.
Regarding the thousand year reign, where exactly does it say that this will happen on Earth? Nowehere at all! Besides, what is supposed to happen after the thousand years? If Eternity is supposed to last just a literal thousand years, the last two thousand years of wretched Christian persecution seem hardly worth it.
Your "liberal theologians" jibe is pretty amusing, since my background is probably far more religiously conservative than what you're used to. But there's a difference between picking and choosing what is conveninent, and taking it all. You might want to start with the Ten Commandmends, which according to Jesus are the most important thing. Ask yourself why you're worshipping on the day chosen by a pope to demonstrate his power over the word of God, and not on the day Jesus himself--and all Jews--worshipped on. You're breaking the fourth commandmend every single weekend.
Yet another 23 year old implements an OS. I like that very cool squinting sideways glance on Robert, though, so maybe I should try his OS after all.
Dude, no offense, but this is a very proprietary and highly extrapolated view of what the Bible says. I come from two generations of theologians and do know what the Bible says and doesn't say, even if I personally don't buy into it (black sheep of the family and all). What you're listing as fact is merely the interpretation of a few Christian branches, using lots of artistic license and suspension of skepticism. There is no metion of this type of rapture, nor of the 3.5 years, nor of the 1000 year kingdom, etc. You have to learn to read a bit between the lines when reading the Bible. For example, you have no problem not taking the 666 thing literally and instead interpreting the pope's title as the number or whatever, but then you take the right hand and forehead literally, because it sounds good. A lot of Revelation has to be interpreted a lot more abstractly than that. Like the whole Armageddon thing. As far as God is concerned the people of Isreal have had their chance, the whole world is God's people now; the Jews don't hold any more special significance in God's eyes, they're just like everyone else now. So anyone looking for a final Grand Battle in the Middle East with blood up to the horses' bellies or what have you is simply barking up the wrong tree. Ain't gonna happen, regardless of the somewhat coincidental events there now.
Anyway, this is all just roleplaying within what the Bible says, kind of like arguing about LOTR "facts"--you either stick with what Tolkien (or the Bible) says, or else anything goes. That's the trouble with religion, it's pretty much what people make it, that's why it also holds so little appeal to me.
I'm sorry, that doesn't make any sense. The people most likely and with the power to enforce something like this are political leaders, especially those leading the most powerful nations, i.e. most of the Western world. Western leaders are notorious for spouting Christian rhetoric, so the only thing they're likely to force you to do is pledge allegiance to Christian values or something, which I assume you'd have no problems with. And the only way they're likely to succeed is with wide public support, otherwise they risk civil war and jeopardizing all hope of control. Christian values is something they're likely to get public support on, personal worship or any crap like that most likely not. What or whom exactly do you imagine Bush or one of his followers to require you to pledge allegience to other than Christian Values without losing complete moral authority and credibility?
> So I think the theologians are likely talking out of their expertise here.
> What I'm talking about is technologically viable today.
I still don't see how this makes the tag the MOTB. You have to swear allegiance to something in order to recieve it and buy food. What could this Something be? Denouncing terrorism and pledging allegiance to Christian values and the President of the USA or whatever? Because that's pretty much the direction we're going. The most powerful people in the world are the very ones spouting the most Christian rhetoric. Are you saying that all of a sudden Bush or whoever are going to reverse course and say "forget God and all that stuff, say you believe in ME and what I say, or you're not getting any food"? If he did that, he'd lose any moral authority, credibility and public support. If, on the other hand, he would require you to pledge allegiance to All Things Christian to receive your tag, what exactly would be the problem? Doesn't make any sense.
> Given all of biblical history, why would anyone with decent critical
> thinking skills believe that God would suddenly, at the end of history,
> change his (unchangeable) personality and try to trick people into
> accepting the mark?
When talking to fundies, they never have a satisfactory answer to this one. I mean, if the Mark Of The Beast is something physical that could be forced on you against your will (say, by holding you down and implanting the tag), how would that reflect your own personal choice? After all, the whole underlying moral of the Bible is that of free will and personal choice and the consequences thereof. Most theologians today consider the MOTB to be something abstract, a personal choice and allegiance to the side of Good or Evil (or whatever), not an actual physical mark.
==> Start|Settings|Control Panel|Microsoft Office XP Professional with FrontPage|Remove
Best one yet!
> www.newegg.com [...] They are a fairly reputable dealer.
OH MY GOD! A heretic! Someones pass me the noose! Dude, calling The Egg "fairly reputable" amongst geeks is like drinking your gruel with extended pinky on a Viking longboat.
> [Size, weight, fuel use] doesn't matter unless it affects the cost per pound of people/cargo.
Well, duh, which of course they all do. If size didn't matter, I could build a backyard rocket that could put a grapefruit into orbit for $50,000, except that it wouldn't be much use to any paying customer. Once you scale up existing technology it becomes less efficient and more complex as it gets bigger. All things being equal it takes a heck of a lot more fuel and increases the cost-per-pound to push a cross section of ten meters through the air than one of four meters. It also requires more structural rigidity and thus weight, all decreasing payload capacity. The less payload per pound of starting weight, the higher the cost-per-pound. The more complex the system and the less reusable (where I wouldn't rate the current shuttle as terribly reusable in this sense), the more ground personnell it requires, and the higher the cost-per-pound.
What I'm trying to say is that the type and amount of fuel used currently implies a certain type of technology, which implies a certain ground infrastructure, which implies proven costs. IOW, with the non- or only slightly reusable technology as used till now you're never going to lower the cost-per-pound by the two or more orders of magnitude required to put masses of passengers into space, no matter how you shuffle the numbers around. The only thing that will do that is a vehicle that lands on a regular runway, can be refueled by Billy-Bob in an hour or so, and takes off again without having much more rebuilt than its food supply.
> In fact, worrying about them for the last forty years has
> been the exact reason for the lack of progress to date
Man, where were you when all those dumbasses were designing all that crap? PLEASE do apply at NASA tout de suite lest we waste more precious time!
> The cost is the WHOLE POINT. There is no other good reason to try to reduce fuel usage.
That's called setting up a straw man, which you then bang up pretty good. Another VERY GOOD reason to reduce fuel usage is so that most of your cargo ISN'T fuel. Like that really huge blimp under the belly of the space shuttle, plus the two SSBs. In fact that would be the main reason. If you could get (close) to orbit with only the fuel of a few 747s, you'd save enormously on weight and extra system and structural complexities, which could instead be replaced by paying customers. The space shuttle is a plane the size of a 707 with a fuel tank the size of a submarine that can transport a few people into orbit (let's replace the payload with a few more people as well). What you want is a shuttle the size of a 777 with a self-contained fuel tank that can transport 300 people through space. That's the real cost of fuel, not its purchase cost.
Of the 13 listed, I would only consider 5, 6, maybe 11, 13 as controlled landings. Which is pretty impressive, but in no way disproves the fact that a passenger aircraft makes a very poorly controllable glider. Still, with some fly-by-wire magic they may be able to inject a few extra degrees of controllability during gliding landings into future planes.
> 2 hours flight time
That's not the market they're addressing with this.
> This is so misguded it's not funny.
Your only objection was to the cost. Why did you quote the whole paragraph? In fact the rest of his ideas were right, that's after all why scramjets are so attractive.
> The Concorde (and its successor) appeals to a different market (i.e. not you and me).
Hollywood isn't a market large passenger airplanes are planned for. When the Concorde was first developed, they certainly hoped to make mega-bucks on it and move loads of people, thus bringing the price down over time. If they'd known that only the Stones and their buddies would fly it, they wouldn't have bothered. I think you have the entirely wrong idea about how these passenger planes are planned. You must be thinking about Lear.