Jackson was quoted that they moved it into the third movie, so that Frodo and Sam have more screen time in the third movie (they do not have much to do after Shelob). It is a fact.
..And that's exactly what they want. (exept for downloading, rather then renting and verifying)..
And it does not mean one could not make money off doing that..
And, of course, it would fail miserably.. My point was that there is no technology barrier to try to make secure distribution NOW. They just do not want it, and want total control over those who want. Monopoly always try to preserve status quo. Imagine this people on tech committee.. Or, wait, we already have them there.. Adds extra few years for any basic project..
..Why do not they build cheapo secure box, with uild in unhackable clock and security id, distribute it for free to people who want to download and play rental movies. Mass produced box like this will be under $200 cost, and may be distributed with, say, Blockbuster membership...
Will need 400Mhz integrated system-on-chip and video/audio out..
Two years ago I would have started a dot-com to build that..
> It will probably be easier to create a launcher of similar proportions from scratch than try to resurrect the Energiya.
Of, cause, nobody will just keep a vehicle - in working order - for yeears with no use for it. But I would bet the Russians are having a much better chance of doing just that, if needed, then Americans making a Saturn V equivalent. Atlas 5 got russian engine. Delta 3 failed two launches out of 3, and who knows what Delta 4 record would be - and delta 4 justs matches Proton payload in its biggest, most expensive variantions.. And it would be hard for them to match Proton relliability.. There only chance is protectionism of U.S. geovernment - to compete against Arian and Proton..
..American program has several fails in a row jsut recently.. Delta 3, Titan 4 (two in a row) - what is supposed to be a debugged program..
Our satellite launch on a Delta 2 had 18 (!) aborted attempts.
No sir, this shit IS complecated..
BTW -good article here: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.12/rd-180.htm l
If you read and understand this article..
on
Soviet Moon Rocket
·
· Score: 1
..This one you will hear that quite the opposite is true - from the american engineers evaluation, no less..
You, sir, is quite arrogant, making such statements..
Quote from the article: The Russians devised a number of other simple but ingenious strategies to increase reliability and keep costs down. They applied special coatings to internal machine parts to protect them from extreme heat, and routed kerosene around hot rocket nozzles to cool them down. More important, they emphasized what's known as "producibility," handing off designs early in the process to the engineers who were actually going to be building the stuff. "It's a European design philosophy," Ford explains. "Over there, engineers are trained to produce things that work."
Each russian manned launcher did have an emergency esape system - worked well enough to save crew, when the booster exploded on the launch pad.
"Challenger" did not have such system. So who is careing about the crew safety more?
As far as the quality goes - high tech does not always equals quality - more often the opposite is true. Why would you think American were so keen on getting russian to build the central life support module of the ISS? Cared enough, to tolerate financing caused delays, and pay big bucks for the expertise. Guess NASA does not care for lifesupport system for its astranaughts on ISS? Quite the contrary - they wanted the proven, quality system for this.
Case in point: All russian launchers have emergency crew evacuation systems - once it worked well to save the crew when the booster exploded on the launchpad.
Space shuttle does not have such system - that's why 7 people died in the Challenger.
When americans had, what like 4 crashes of Delta's and Titan in a row. A $bil per Titan launch loss..
The reason Delta 3 crashed was that stabilizer was hooked/controlled in wrong order and the system run out of hydrolic fluids (no recurculation).. Sounds like a control problem to me..;)
..It is called Energia, can lift 100 tons - used to lift russian space shuttle ("Buran") that has no engines of its own. It does not blow up (expt for the failed upper stage on the first launch (of the classified payload).
The problem is - they can not get paying customers to justify it. Telecommunications are happy with Proton's 20 ton payload - about the same as the shuttle, or Zenit 3 ("Sea launch") 6 tons. Sending multiple sattelites is too risky. There is simply no commercial use for such a big booster, but it does exist and in working order.. Cheaper then the shuttle...
..it is hard to make a dichotomy of works/doesn't for any complex project. Remember all this Severity 1/2/3/4 bugs? "It's a feature, not a bug"? Convoluted and misunderstood requirements? Customers, who do not know what the heck do they actually want.. tech writers guessing how it should be..
Anything, exept for "Hello, world" falls into the grey area of "kinda works, but we are not sure if that's what you need" or "works on my machine.." It would have been easier to have it "Good/Bad"...
He actually would. When you are painting a whole cathedral, especially in fresco style, you better be very well organized and efficient.
I have a number of friends in arts. Their level of organization, planning and business/customer relations is above that most of my programming friends. (I do both science and coding, so can not tell where do I fall in the classification..;0 )
..On anything but the most critical portions of the code I greatly prefer to have 10 lines instead of 5 - with good comments to them. Makes for a much easier to understand - and ultimately more efficient code. I hate all this ++i=j++; style hacks - god damn, write it out in three lines and comment. You can prove how clever you are by wining obfuscated C contest, not by testing you collegues and yourself patience. (and, yes, I can write and understand ultra hackerish code myself just fine, thank you) Ultratight C and Co. code is bad.
To sum it up - efficient code is not 5 lines instead of 20. It is 500 lines of good design instead of 1000 of uncommented hack.
It is NOT required. Open QuickTime player. Go to FILE, open URL: http://starwars.apple.com/ep2/clone_war/media/gate/ep2_clone_war_p640.mov
Then it will just play - full screen at all. Apple people are f&cking clowns.
...insist that one need "PRO" version of the QuickTime to watch big version?
I just opened this URL http://starwars.apple.com/ep2/clone_war/media/gate/ep2_clone_war_p640.mov in regular QUickTIme player and got nice, full screen trailer - not some smallish window they force you to see on the web page. And even on the web page this bullshit about getting a paid Pro version. What a bunch of crap.
What it does explain is that Republicans did not get their share of bribes from entertainment industry, and now can use the case against the Dems.
On the next election cycle, GOP will be properly lubricated as well, and will shut up and pass any law RIAA/MPAA wants..
.. Creating fusion induced by a breakdown in heavy water was topic of my honor project and master thesis.. And no - you can not make energy this way - it takes much more to induce a breakdown (we used a powerful laser, and registered neutron emmission in a large liquid scintillator) to cause a few atoms to fuse.. Neat effect anyway...
Slashdot Mirror
Jackson was quoted that they moved it into the third movie, so that Frodo and Sam have more screen time in the third movie (they do not have much to do after Shelob). It is a fact.
They look like that: when kilo means 10^3, kebi means 2^10, mebi - 2^20 - from mega 10^6, etc. So we have Gebi-bit network, and so on.
It is an actual, international standard nobody uses..
And, of course, it would fail miserably.. My point was that there is no technology barrier to try to make secure distribution NOW. They just do not want it, and want total control over those who want. Monopoly always try to preserve status quo. Imagine this people on tech committee.. Or, wait, we already have them there.. Adds extra few years for any basic project..
Two years ago I would have started a dot-com to build that..
Of, cause, nobody will just keep a vehicle - in working order - for yeears with no use for it. But I would bet the Russians are having a much better chance of doing just that, if needed, then Americans making a Saturn V equivalent. Atlas 5 got russian engine. Delta 3 failed two launches out of 3, and who knows what Delta 4 record would be - and delta 4 justs matches Proton payload in its biggest, most expensive variantions.. And it would be hard for them to match Proton relliability.. There only chance is protectionism of U.S. geovernment - to compete against Arian and Proton..
Our satellite launch on a Delta 2 had 18 (!) aborted attempts.
No sir, this shit IS complecated..
BTW -good article here: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.12/rd-180.htm l
You, sir, is quite arrogant, making such statements..
Quote from the article: The Russians devised a number of other simple but ingenious strategies to increase reliability and keep costs down. They applied special coatings to internal machine parts to protect them from extreme heat, and routed kerosene around hot rocket nozzles to cool them down. More important, they emphasized what's known as "producibility," handing off designs early in the process to the engineers who were actually going to be building the stuff. "It's a European design philosophy," Ford explains. "Over there, engineers are trained to produce things that work."
"Challenger" did not have such system. So who is careing about the crew safety more?
As far as the quality goes - high tech does not always equals quality - more often the opposite is true. Why would you think American were so keen on getting russian to build the central life support module of the ISS? Cared enough, to tolerate financing caused delays, and pay big bucks for the expertise. Guess NASA does not care for lifesupport system for its astranaughts on ISS? Quite the contrary - they wanted the proven, quality system for this.
Case in point: All russian launchers have emergency crew evacuation systems - once it worked well to save the crew when the booster exploded on the launchpad.
Space shuttle does not have such system - that's why 7 people died in the Challenger.
So who cares about life of the crew?
The reason Delta 3 crashed was that stabilizer was hooked/controlled in wrong order and the system run out of hydrolic fluids (no recurculation).. Sounds like a control problem to me.. ;)
The problem is - they can not get paying customers to justify it. Telecommunications are happy with Proton's 20 ton payload - about the same as the shuttle, or Zenit 3 ("Sea launch") 6 tons. Sending multiple sattelites is too risky. There is simply no commercial use for such a big booster, but it does exist and in working order.. Cheaper then the shuttle...
..And russians launch such boosters one after another with no problems - if not for dumb U.S. export restriction they will be thriving..
Anything, exept for "Hello, world" falls into the grey area of "kinda works, but we are not sure if that's what you need" or "works on my machine.." It would have been easier to have it "Good/Bad"...
I have a number of friends in arts. Their level of organization, planning and business/customer relations is above that most of my programming friends. (I do both science and coding, so can not tell where do I fall in the classification.. ;0 )
To sum it up - efficient code is not 5 lines instead of 20. It is 500 lines of good design instead of 1000 of uncommented hack.
It seems to be not the cae since Windows 2000 - did not they redo the stack for it? Am I right?
Quadaphi, Kahdafee, Cadaffee...
Dare I say: Boob job? In one big go..:)
http://starwars.apple.com/ep2/clone_war/media/gate /ep2_clone_war_p640.mov
It is NOT required. Open QuickTime player. Go to FILE, open URL: http://starwars.apple.com/ep2/clone_war/media/gate /ep2_clone_war_p640.mov
Then it will just play - full screen at all. Apple people are f&cking clowns.
...insist that one need "PRO" version of the QuickTime to watch big version? I just opened this URL http://starwars.apple.com/ep2/clone_war/media/gate /ep2_clone_war_p640.mov in regular QUickTIme player and got nice, full screen trailer - not some smallish window they force you to see on the web page. And even on the web page this bullshit about getting a paid Pro version. What a bunch of crap.
Why do I HATE YOU ALL so much today? Must be something with this virtual nuclear tests - I got virtual radioactive poisoning.. It spreads over wires..
What it does explain is that Republicans did not get their share of bribes from entertainment industry, and now can use the case against the Dems. On the next election cycle, GOP will be properly lubricated as well, and will shut up and pass any law RIAA/MPAA wants..
.. Creating fusion induced by a breakdown in heavy water was topic of my honor project and master thesis.. And no - you can not make energy this way - it takes much more to induce a breakdown (we used a powerful laser, and registered neutron emmission in a large liquid scintillator) to cause a few atoms to fuse.. Neat effect anyway...
Did they have a rad-hard version of 4004? I thought it was some mil-spec rad-hard custom chip, but the type evades my memory..