Especially since those costs may never be realized by the people running the company -- a lot of the the price is paid by people living in that area, e.g., look what happened to Flint, Michigan after GM closed its plant, almost overnight the crime-rate skyrocketed. GM didn't have to pay for the social costs of that, the taxpayer is. But the taxpayer is also paying the price in greater carbon emissions, lower quality of life (at least for the unemployed), and loss of tax revenue, etc.
It's called Externalities, and the negative externalities are what taxes are meant to compensate for, though imposing import tariffs to discourage off-shoring is considered bad form these days.
Sony always seemed to put a heavy emphasis on miniaturizing home camcorders. One could never figure out why though, since the market didn't really care in the 1980s.
That's simple - the smaller it is, the more likely it is to be adopted by the mass market. No one wants to lug around a big camera when a smaller one can do the job well enough at half the size. Even if you claim the market didn't care during the 80s, were it not for the efforts then you would be 10 years behind in miniaturisation, most likely.
despite the fact the total number of lines per second is almost identical to NTSC... huh?
The PAL standard is defined as 25 fps, while NTSC was defined as 29.xx fps (forget exactly what). No idea why NTSC was defined as such an odd number - the PAL rate is close enough as makes no difference to the film standard of 24 fps.
Why is because Microsoft is still 80+% of the market. No matter the progress of Mac OSX (with its poor implementation of IPv6 until 10.6), Linux or the server OS market, Windows still dominates and without Microsoft's co-operation any attempt to throw the switch to IPv6 is futile and far more liable to cause customer grief.
Not defending Microsoft or their position, but it's a reality that we have to deal with. Legacy exists and cannot be dismissed as a trivial part of the market.
It's only about 30 years late, but it shouldn't be too long before Airstrip One is brought into the Oceania fold properly. Though we might have to find a new name for Ingsoc, not so sure the Inner Tea Party is going to like the word "Socialism" in there.
The US might have some remaining oil reserves, but the Middle East isn't exactly going to be on our side automatically. And let's not forget Chavez is far more sympathetic to China, and he's got a whole lotta oil.
This is the kind of culture they've wrought, where updates typically come annually. After all, if processors double transistor count every 2 years, surely Apple isn't too profligate in updating annually?
(I'll assume GP is an original MBA owner and hasn't noticed processor bumps, or is merely pining for the ability to self-upgrade. In the latter case, you know what you were getting into when you got an Apple, boyo.)
I hardly think that R&D is being totally scrapped - far more likely shelved.
The fact is, citizens can't retrieve the R&D data which would be valuable to producing a commercially viable space program because it is all classified in the manner of "national security".
I can't verify this as fact, but if I take you at your word, do you propose that plans of military hardware should be available to the public in this same manner? More money probably goes into DARPA projects than the space program, but we don't get to access that either.
There's a compelling case to be made for greater access to this stuff, but if it's got a dual military purpose which has been paid out of military budgets, I don't see it getting out without some restrictions on access or use. Surely if you're motivated enough you can get security clearance for the purposes of building a private space access vehicle?
And rather than trying to have a foreign policy that makes it so North Korea, Iran, etc. won't want to attack us when they get ICBM technology, we instead try to make it so they can't get it by crippling our own technological progress in a vain attempt to prevent the development of technology which will eventually come to pass.
I don't know how related the shuttle program is to ICBM technology (sounds unlikely to me, but IANA Rocket Scientist), but this is hardly the only technology classified because its military implications are bad. You're thinking of a utopia - where no-one has issues with America, a country which currently accounts for more than half of the global military spend.
I'm no rightist/neo-con/war hawk, but I'd hardly call it bullying to impose sanctions and work through a diplomatic process against two countries responsible for oppression of freedoms, possible human rights violations and, certainly for Iran, state sponsored terrorism. Sure, we could back away from fighting against all those injustices, looking the other way, but that approach hasn't had much historical success. The US cannot disengage from the world altogether in the hope of making those who bear grudges against us going away.
Thats why I'm so excited about privatization of space exploration - a corporation has a real vested interest in getting something done. Unlike politicians.
Corporations have a vested interest in getting some profits, and they're usually answerable to shareholders looking for a return within a few quarters, maybe a couple of years at the most. Corporatism isn't usually applicable to capital-heavy risky-return enterprises.
Politicians have an interest in getting stuff done - so long as it happens within 4 years and manages to enhance their image in, and provides benefits for, their particular electorate. The President is the only one with a country-wide electorate, so don't expect it to be pushed by anyone less than that.
Hopefully the billionaires of the world will take us places no government has. THAT is what I'm looking forward to.
The richest billionaires are actually slightly more focused on solving problems on this world, like malaria, AIDS, and other gaps between the haves and the have-nots across the world. Some would argue the benefits of that investment, but I think you'd be hard pressed to push your case against that kind of altruism.
You might still find a billionaire willing to push across space boundaries, but don't expect them to do it for an altruistic motive.
If the government would simply let citizens use what they have paid for, I think we'd see private spaceflight soar to new levels.
Ok, sure. Here's the keys to the space shuttle, go for it buddy.
Oh wait, you want the facilities too? ok sure. But you're going to have to pony up for the fuel.
What's that? Private satellites have been going to space for years on the back of NASA and private rockets? Well whoopdeefreakin'do, ain't that some news.
The simple fact is that the publicly visible space program has been seen as government-based because it is based around scientific research, which is paid for by the government. That hasn't prevented thousands of commercial satellites from going up - but there's been no commercial imperative for private, peopled, tourist-style space flight, so you haven't seen the "private" side of access to space. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by letting citizens use what they've paid for, but I'd disagree with the idea that citizens have not had access, nor benefited from the space program just by staying here on earth.
But until we have a sane foreign policy that maintained lasting alliances without either sacrificing the sovereignty of the country or its citizens, I don't think that will happen because rather than use diplomatic means we want to attack anyone who might get a nuke in the unsustainable idea that no one is going to develop that technology independently so the US citizens get harmed.
You mean like with the British and French? They're allies with atomic weapons developed independently of the US. We've survived for years without going toe-to-toe with China. All of whom have space programs. Don't see how that's relevant to the first part of your argument, though.
At least Apple opens up their platform for apps, apps and more apps, as well as 3rd party accessories.
Certainly, unless you're one of the apps that wants a degree of freedom Apple doesn't approve of. Or you want to use the capabilities of the phone and its software but are blocked from doing so because of a carrier agreement in the home market.
All 3rd party manufacturers have to get approved from Apple, or face potential lockout without warning. Apple have even marked as incompatible some of their own earlier accessories and locked them out to push people to upgrade, despite the interface being the same.
Sony has closed theirs to apps despite the units being capable of running them. Again, see Linux on the PS3. The latest firmware patch - in response to the system being hacked - effectivley blocked a large number of 3rd party controllers, remotes etc from working with the PS3.
Sony restricted the class of "apps" allowed on the system to games designed with officially licensed tools and sold through the Playstation store, or through the usual distribution channels with the usual branding. It's a higher barrier to entry than for Apple, but they've never pretended otherwise.
They never sold the PS3 as anything other than a games console, and yes, while it was a dick move to remove the other OS feature, the primary focus of the machine was not the other OS and the uproar has been mostly restricted to the geek community here. It doesn't impact 99% of their userbase who never installed the other OS. The fact that the PS3 can be used for more purposes than those officially sanctioned is no different to iPhones, iPods, or Apple TVs, all hacked at some stage.
The patch to remove the third-party controller attack vector is similar to Apple's firmware updates to lock out jailbreaks. It's not like you have to install it, much like Apple and the iPhone.
I'm not trying to defend Sony here, just point out the idiocy of attacking them for exercising control over the PS3 platform while holding Apple up as an example of openness.
I can't see Sony merging with Android. They've invested in the PSP platform and with the PSP being hacked (earlier software revisions), they'll want to recoup as much of their investment as they can. I recall that in Europe there are/were/planned? Sony-Erikson phones that can play PSP games. Adverts are a pain, but again, at least the platform is open for anyone to develop for it.
1) Sony's not "merging with Android", an analyst has suggested they use Android to provided the OS for a PSP Phone.
2) Other than rumours, there's never been a suggestion Sony Ericsson phones would have PSP game playing capabilities.
3) Sony's platform is open to anyone... with the money for a license and the capability to develop games. As I said, a higher barrier for entry, but not one that reflects anything other than the fact that the PS3 is a different class of device.
Sony wants absolute control of the eco system, but they don't get it like Apple
Say what?! Say what you like about Sony, but don't claim that Apple doesn't want or already exercise a great degree of control.
Until Sony 1.) merges the PSP into a smartphone platform; 2.) loosens their control or at least modifies it in regards to applications and monetizing their platform, and 3.) opens up to partnering with companies that understand how to work with user's needs and wants, they're dead in the water.
Uh, isn't that exactly what is being suggested here? Merging with Android, and partnering with Google (who I presume you view as more in touch with advertis-- user needs and wants)?
Eh? I think the implication is that Google provides the OS layer, not the hardware layer. Sony's got the hardware side fairly well covered, I'd say. In that instance, HTC and Nokia make no sense.
Sony frankly doesn't have a good track record with hardware in general. The hardware tends to be quirky, and after-sales support poor
Wait, what? I'd say the best thing Sony's got going for them is the reliability of their hardware, and their no-fuss attitude to after-sales support, but maybe that's my experience (in 3 countries outside the US). Hell, my PS1 still does duty as a solid CD player in a friend's den, and my dad's Sony music system from 1993 only crapped out earlier this year. Hardware they can do, software not so much.
It's not like the people paying for this don't have some disposable income to be spending, and if it fails to happen I'm sure most of them have a damn good accountant who can write that off in tax.
What if Richard Branson keels over tomorrow?
The first space-plane would be renamed the Branson One, and the rest of the company would probably still go ahead with it. It's not like Richard is the pilot or something.
I think that many people would reuse their existing hardware to install a new OS and learn it rather than dump their library of existing digital "assets" and expertise in favour of an unknown solution delivered at an unknown point in the future by an unknown competitor.
I guess my unstated point was that I'm a fan of the Android "side-load" mechanism - you can find the app through Google or have a friend email it to you, load it up like you would an app on a computer, and you're done. No enforcement of the marketplace as the golden source of all apps.
Slashdot Mirror
It's called Externalities, and the negative externalities are what taxes are meant to compensate for, though imposing import tariffs to discourage off-shoring is considered bad form these days.
Sony always seemed to put a heavy emphasis on miniaturizing home camcorders. One could never figure out why though, since the market didn't really care in the 1980s.
That's simple - the smaller it is, the more likely it is to be adopted by the mass market. No one wants to lug around a big camera when a smaller one can do the job well enough at half the size. Even if you claim the market didn't care during the 80s, were it not for the efforts then you would be 10 years behind in miniaturisation, most likely.
despite the fact the total number of lines per second is almost identical to NTSC... huh?
The PAL standard is defined as 25 fps, while NTSC was defined as 29.xx fps (forget exactly what). No idea why NTSC was defined as such an odd number - the PAL rate is close enough as makes no difference to the film standard of 24 fps.
Even the Apple Airport Extreme does 5 GHz, IPv6, and 6to4. Basic research.
Why is because Microsoft is still 80+% of the market. No matter the progress of Mac OSX (with its poor implementation of IPv6 until 10.6), Linux or the server OS market, Windows still dominates and without Microsoft's co-operation any attempt to throw the switch to IPv6 is futile and far more liable to cause customer grief.
Not defending Microsoft or their position, but it's a reality that we have to deal with. Legacy exists and cannot be dismissed as a trivial part of the market.
It's only about 30 years late, but it shouldn't be too long before Airstrip One is brought into the Oceania fold properly. Though we might have to find a new name for Ingsoc, not so sure the Inner Tea Party is going to like the word "Socialism" in there.
The US might have some remaining oil reserves, but the Middle East isn't exactly going to be on our side automatically. And let's not forget Chavez is far more sympathetic to China, and he's got a whole lotta oil.
This is the kind of culture they've wrought, where updates typically come annually. After all, if processors double transistor count every 2 years, surely Apple isn't too profligate in updating annually?
(I'll assume GP is an original MBA owner and hasn't noticed processor bumps, or is merely pining for the ability to self-upgrade. In the latter case, you know what you were getting into when you got an Apple, boyo.)
Didn't they try selling the shuttle?
I hardly think that R&D is being totally scrapped - far more likely shelved.
The fact is, citizens can't retrieve the R&D data which would be valuable to producing a commercially viable space program because it is all classified in the manner of "national security".
I can't verify this as fact, but if I take you at your word, do you propose that plans of military hardware should be available to the public in this same manner? More money probably goes into DARPA projects than the space program, but we don't get to access that either.
There's a compelling case to be made for greater access to this stuff, but if it's got a dual military purpose which has been paid out of military budgets, I don't see it getting out without some restrictions on access or use. Surely if you're motivated enough you can get security clearance for the purposes of building a private space access vehicle?
And rather than trying to have a foreign policy that makes it so North Korea, Iran, etc. won't want to attack us when they get ICBM technology, we instead try to make it so they can't get it by crippling our own technological progress in a vain attempt to prevent the development of technology which will eventually come to pass.
I don't know how related the shuttle program is to ICBM technology (sounds unlikely to me, but IANA Rocket Scientist), but this is hardly the only technology classified because its military implications are bad. You're thinking of a utopia - where no-one has issues with America, a country which currently accounts for more than half of the global military spend.
I'm no rightist/neo-con/war hawk, but I'd hardly call it bullying to impose sanctions and work through a diplomatic process against two countries responsible for oppression of freedoms, possible human rights violations and, certainly for Iran, state sponsored terrorism. Sure, we could back away from fighting against all those injustices, looking the other way, but that approach hasn't had much historical success. The US cannot disengage from the world altogether in the hope of making those who bear grudges against us going away.
Thats why I'm so excited about privatization of space exploration - a corporation has a real vested interest in getting something done. Unlike politicians.
Corporations have a vested interest in getting some profits, and they're usually answerable to shareholders looking for a return within a few quarters, maybe a couple of years at the most. Corporatism isn't usually applicable to capital-heavy risky-return enterprises.
Politicians have an interest in getting stuff done - so long as it happens within 4 years and manages to enhance their image in, and provides benefits for, their particular electorate. The President is the only one with a country-wide electorate, so don't expect it to be pushed by anyone less than that.
Hopefully the billionaires of the world will take us places no government has. THAT is what I'm looking forward to.
The richest billionaires are actually slightly more focused on solving problems on this world, like malaria, AIDS, and other gaps between the haves and the have-nots across the world. Some would argue the benefits of that investment, but I think you'd be hard pressed to push your case against that kind of altruism.
You might still find a billionaire willing to push across space boundaries, but don't expect them to do it for an altruistic motive.
If the government would simply let citizens use what they have paid for, I think we'd see private spaceflight soar to new levels.
Ok, sure. Here's the keys to the space shuttle, go for it buddy.
Oh wait, you want the facilities too? ok sure. But you're going to have to pony up for the fuel.
What's that? Private satellites have been going to space for years on the back of NASA and private rockets? Well whoopdeefreakin'do, ain't that some news.
The simple fact is that the publicly visible space program has been seen as government-based because it is based around scientific research, which is paid for by the government. That hasn't prevented thousands of commercial satellites from going up - but there's been no commercial imperative for private, peopled, tourist-style space flight, so you haven't seen the "private" side of access to space. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by letting citizens use what they've paid for, but I'd disagree with the idea that citizens have not had access, nor benefited from the space program just by staying here on earth.
But until we have a sane foreign policy that maintained lasting alliances without either sacrificing the sovereignty of the country or its citizens, I don't think that will happen because rather than use diplomatic means we want to attack anyone who might get a nuke in the unsustainable idea that no one is going to develop that technology independently so the US citizens get harmed.
You mean like with the British and French? They're allies with atomic weapons developed independently of the US. We've survived for years without going toe-to-toe with China. All of whom have space programs. Don't see how that's relevant to the first part of your argument, though.
A name like "MaWeiTao" looks Asian, so it's a pretty good bet you're a fucking communist, so yes, you.
A name like "Anonymous Coward" looks cowardly, so it's a pretty good bet you're a fucking coward who never stood up to argue for the other approach.
At least Apple opens up their platform for apps, apps and more apps, as well as 3rd party accessories.
Certainly, unless you're one of the apps that wants a degree of freedom Apple doesn't approve of. Or you want to use the capabilities of the phone and its software but are blocked from doing so because of a carrier agreement in the home market.
All 3rd party manufacturers have to get approved from Apple, or face potential lockout without warning. Apple have even marked as incompatible some of their own earlier accessories and locked them out to push people to upgrade, despite the interface being the same.
Sony has closed theirs to apps despite the units being capable of running them. Again, see Linux on the PS3. The latest firmware patch - in response to the system being hacked - effectivley blocked a large number of 3rd party controllers, remotes etc from working with the PS3.
Sony restricted the class of "apps" allowed on the system to games designed with officially licensed tools and sold through the Playstation store, or through the usual distribution channels with the usual branding. It's a higher barrier to entry than for Apple, but they've never pretended otherwise.
They never sold the PS3 as anything other than a games console, and yes, while it was a dick move to remove the other OS feature, the primary focus of the machine was not the other OS and the uproar has been mostly restricted to the geek community here. It doesn't impact 99% of their userbase who never installed the other OS. The fact that the PS3 can be used for more purposes than those officially sanctioned is no different to iPhones, iPods, or Apple TVs, all hacked at some stage.
The patch to remove the third-party controller attack vector is similar to Apple's firmware updates to lock out jailbreaks. It's not like you have to install it, much like Apple and the iPhone.
I'm not trying to defend Sony here, just point out the idiocy of attacking them for exercising control over the PS3 platform while holding Apple up as an example of openness.
I can't see Sony merging with Android. They've invested in the PSP platform and with the PSP being hacked (earlier software revisions), they'll want to recoup as much of their investment as they can. I recall that in Europe there are/were/planned? Sony-Erikson phones that can play PSP games. Adverts are a pain, but again, at least the platform is open for anyone to develop for it.
1) Sony's not "merging with Android", an analyst has suggested they use Android to provided the OS for a PSP Phone.
2) Other than rumours, there's never been a suggestion Sony Ericsson phones would have PSP game playing capabilities.
3) Sony's platform is open to anyone... with the money for a license and the capability to develop games. As I said, a higher barrier for entry, but not one that reflects anything other than the fact that the PS3 is a different class of device.
You mean like the Xperia X10?
Sony wants absolute control of the eco system, but they don't get it like Apple
Say what?! Say what you like about Sony, but don't claim that Apple doesn't want or already exercise a great degree of control.
Until Sony 1.) merges the PSP into a smartphone platform; 2.) loosens their control or at least modifies it in regards to applications and monetizing their platform, and 3.) opens up to partnering with companies that understand how to work with user's needs and wants, they're dead in the water.
Uh, isn't that exactly what is being suggested here? Merging with Android, and partnering with Google (who I presume you view as more in touch with advertis-- user needs and wants)?
Eh? I think the implication is that Google provides the OS layer, not the hardware layer. Sony's got the hardware side fairly well covered, I'd say. In that instance, HTC and Nokia make no sense.
Wait, where do Google & Sony compete at the moment, exactly?
Sony's already got an Android handset or two, by the way.
You do know Sony's doing the first Google TV, right?
Sony frankly doesn't have a good track record with hardware in general. The hardware tends to be quirky, and after-sales support poor
Wait, what? I'd say the best thing Sony's got going for them is the reliability of their hardware, and their no-fuss attitude to after-sales support, but maybe that's my experience (in 3 countries outside the US). Hell, my PS1 still does duty as a solid CD player in a friend's den, and my dad's Sony music system from 1993 only crapped out earlier this year. Hardware they can do, software not so much.
The ones thinking outside the box aren't the ones getting hired for $10/hr programming jobs.
they have much better spending oversight
HAH. oh lordee, the Indian government has better spending oversight than the US? HAH. ...
Wait, I'm sorry, you're serious? The rest of your post makes sense, but that line there just asks to be called out. Got any sources? Because I've got one that says it ain't so, and that's for damn sure.
Depends; apparently the US refers to anyone who has travelled above 50 miles altitude an astronaut.
It's not like the people paying for this don't have some disposable income to be spending, and if it fails to happen I'm sure most of them have a damn good accountant who can write that off in tax.
What if Richard Branson keels over tomorrow?
The first space-plane would be renamed the Branson One, and the rest of the company would probably still go ahead with it. It's not like Richard is the pilot or something.
I think that many people would reuse their existing hardware to install a new OS and learn it rather than dump their library of existing digital "assets" and expertise in favour of an unknown solution delivered at an unknown point in the future by an unknown competitor.
I guess my unstated point was that I'm a fan of the Android "side-load" mechanism - you can find the app through Google or have a friend email it to you, load it up like you would an app on a computer, and you're done. No enforcement of the marketplace as the golden source of all apps.