'locked into' works great for sites with lots of historical data. FB, as an example, keeps reminding you how much stuff you have on there with the '5 years ago' suggested post nonsense.
Snapchat is transitory by design. There's no lock-in besides your friends list which is pretty trivial.
For a business catering to a generation that changes direction with the wind on a product with essentially zero history or lock-in they're playing a dangerous game.
There's some balance...there ARE improvements to the UI that most websites would benefit from.
It's when they decide to redesign and move EVERYTHING around to a "better" place that they annoy their long term user base...and many people just give up and go re-learn on another site. Sites like FB are lucky enough to have a large base of user data that's not easy to take elsewhere which leaves people generally at their mercy.
Snapchat OTOH is transient by design so other than a friends list, there's literally nothing to refer back to or 'lose' if you move to another platform. They're in the most precarious position possible with a generation prone to whim and change!
Let them continue on this path of annoying their customers while their stock prices continues to slide...I'm rather doubtful of their continued existence. Shoulda either cashed out at IPO or sold to FB.
Queue the fireman supporters who refuse to admit what they fully know to be true...most of the time is spent fucking off but they have an image to maintain.
Nothing is meant to take away from the services they DO provide. It takes guts to enter a burning building to save a life, etc. But that's the exception, not the norm, for how they spend their time. Sure, there are public services classes and training that they do but that stuff is still a minority of the time and has a heavy dog and pony aspect.
Depending on their rank/position, many cops aren't very different. I see dozens of them on every block in times square doing exactly nothing 90% of the time day-in and day-out with the occasional enforcement action...or jumping on the hood of a car that did a burnout and then somehow failing to catch a car stuck in times sq traffic. The same car which drove past 10+ of the cop cars that litter times sq.
Now, to be fair, government run services tend to be pricey and poorly done. Cost overruns and project delays are the norm.
To realize that the government is able to provide these services better than a private company is shameful. Not entirely unexpected given the horrific state of telecom companies but still shameful. If there was ever an industry that needs revitalization, they are high on my list. This is doubly true since they're critical to almost every industry in virtually all modern and semi-modern countries.
For one, the capsules still have an emergency escape in case of a problem - while that has some limitations it greatly increases safety to the crew even if their rocket goes boom a bit louder than it's supposed to.
Even without that, there are MANY willing volunteers who would gladly do the training and education necessary for a chance at spaceflight...even if there was a 1 in 10 chance of death.
Welcome to the "my phone camera is equal to a DSLR" age. It's not, by any means, true but it is still far better than not having any pictures at all (for lack of a camera).
If you want super quality imaged, break out the photo gear. If you want idiot-proof (well, almost) images taken anywhere and everywhere you go? well...that's what you get.
You're unlikely to see that. Adding a removable back (and battery) significantly increases the complexity and reduces the durability of a phone. And...the added space it takes reduces battery capacity. You can get a battery swapped for a very reasonable fee these days so there's little reason to really cry over it.
Now, offer me a phone that's 1mm thicker and has 25% extra battery and I'd be all over it. TBH they're more likely to do that then make a removable battery.
Besides, who carries around loose LiPo batteries anyhow? You're practically asking for it to get shorted out and assplode. Of all the phones I've had, the last time i remember actually having and using spare batteries was... old nokias...maybe 2160 or 8910 or something like that. Through the entire blackberry era, I might have swapped for a charged battery a few times (and this being in IT support with ready access to them). While my use case might not match everyone, I fail to see how having a spare battery vs. battery pack is a huge difference if you really need more power.
No...if Kodak was smart they'd have gotten involved in managing your digital images as much as providing the hardware to take them. But they weren't an internet era company or even internet focused. Their couple of too-late, too-buggy attempts at camera docks and image management just further sunk them.
What would people have done with a 10MP image? or 20MP even...which was about the limit of normal film with higher end stuff going several times higher.
Computers in the mid 90s would choke on a 20MP image and you'd fit about one roll of uncompressed imaged on a full CD. Excluding professionals with money to spend... why bother?
It's more than that though. It means you can make any spot you'd set your phone down into a charger. The console in your car. Your nightstand. The table at mcdonalds (we have this at a few places in NYC).
Oh, and you DON'T NEED A WIRE of whatever random connector type. One less thing to carry or have around. It's typically the first thing to wear out or break. Public chargers are horrible for either having broken/crap cables or totally worn out USB jacks for plugging into. A flat, sealed area you can put your phone down on and charge? The benefits greatly exceed a somewhat slower charge rate for most situations. It sure beats going to a friends house 'anyone got a spare lighting/micro/USBC wire? Forgot mine...'
This should have been standardized 5+ years ago...probably closer to 10 but people wanted to compete for a 'standard'. Make an open one and be done with it...you know...so the people BUYING these products can benefit on occasion.
I'll see your fear-mongering and raise you Fake News.
Seriously though, the total power usage for BTC is based on some rather sketchy numbers and still represents a minuscule fraction of the worldwide power usage. More is wasted on lighting streets with no people on them.
Not that I disagree with the comedic thought of the SLS making it off the ground in the next two years, but...
The Delta IV Heavy (63k lb to LEO) competes with the F9 FT (50k lb to LEO), not the FH (140k lb to LEO). Granted it *wins* the competition on a simple mass-to-LEO basis but then *completely* loses on $/kg where the F9 comes in around ~$1200/lb and the D-IV-H at about $6,300/lb.
The FH however easily beats both at around $650/lb to LEO...which is 1/10th of the D-IV-H.
Not necessarily. In fact, I completely disagree. The large majority of cost for something going to space is R&D, not simple manufacturing. Most sats have a spare or at least spare parts enough to build a replica. But ignoring that...
Space assembly is HARD for one. Designing systems that break into multiple pieces greatly increases their complexity. Some simply can't and need to be built as a whole unit. Launches have significant fixed costs irrespective of size/payload. Oh, and the payload is (well, can be) insured. The higher the reliability, the lower the insurance cost.
You imagine that larger rockets are less reliable, but offer nothing to substantiate that... and afaik it's untrue. The base systems (flight comp, hydraulics, telemetry, etc.) remain essentially unchanged and are trivial to scale, the tankage solution is a straightforward engineering and materials task, and the propulsion is the most heavily tested aspect PLUS includes redundancy. The engineering of said engine requires a high reliability - it's part of the design spec. And besides that...rocket engines have historically been robust enough for multiple reuses but it's rare that anyone ever gets them back except for the space shuttle. Remind me again how many times those engines failed?
Not unless someone else fills that launch capability. There's no point in launching a BFR for a sat that you could put up with a F9.
At least not until the tech is mature enough that the component wear/lifespan useage/fuel cost for the much larger rocket is about equal to the 'small' one.
They almost certainly weren't smart enough to keep track of which battery went into which laptop.
Citation? Otherwise I'll make the exact opposite statement and give the follow:
Manufacturers, particularly larger integrators like Dell, buy tons of parts from suppliers and assemble them into their finished products. Tracking what batches of supplies are where in the production chain and what equipment they wind up in is critical to finding and tracking problems so they can be addressed...well so they can do a cost analysis of broad replacement vs. individual and similar.
Based on experience (20+ years in end-user IT support) this holds true any time I've contacted my manufacturers regarding recurring issues. In that regard, I expect Dell will shortly announce something similar.
Paranoid much? How about a rogue range officer. How about rogue software reporting incorrect flight data? How about someone having a Bad Day? How about someone being negligent in their job and not paying enough attention? What if someone blocks/jams the signal?
Bottom line: any practice has potential avenues of failure. Computers can react faster and with more precision than a human plus this puts the decision look within the spacecraft eliminating the need for a groundside communications loop.
Oh, and you didn't RTFS. This is *also* to allow a polar launch which cannot be tracked and monitored by a RSO as there is no radar coverage for that flight path. So besides just saving some cash, it opens up an entirely new launch slot.
Depends which rockets you mean. The ones with explosive ordinance in them usually go kaboom. Otherwise someone might be sad to not have their earth shattering kaboom!
Even so, that's an extremely simplistic backup for a single failure mode which may not occur until well after a rocket has deviated from it's flightpath.
Slashdot Mirror
'locked into' works great for sites with lots of historical data. FB, as an example, keeps reminding you how much stuff you have on there with the '5 years ago' suggested post nonsense.
Snapchat is transitory by design. There's no lock-in besides your friends list which is pretty trivial.
For a business catering to a generation that changes direction with the wind on a product with essentially zero history or lock-in they're playing a dangerous game.
There's some balance...there ARE improvements to the UI that most websites would benefit from.
It's when they decide to redesign and move EVERYTHING around to a "better" place that they annoy their long term user base...and many people just give up and go re-learn on another site. Sites like FB are lucky enough to have a large base of user data that's not easy to take elsewhere which leaves people generally at their mercy.
Snapchat OTOH is transient by design so other than a friends list, there's literally nothing to refer back to or 'lose' if you move to another platform. They're in the most precarious position possible with a generation prone to whim and change!
Let them continue on this path of annoying their customers while their stock prices continues to slide...I'm rather doubtful of their continued existence. Shoulda either cashed out at IPO or sold to FB.
Queue the fireman supporters who refuse to admit what they fully know to be true...most of the time is spent fucking off but they have an image to maintain.
Nothing is meant to take away from the services they DO provide. It takes guts to enter a burning building to save a life, etc. But that's the exception, not the norm, for how they spend their time. Sure, there are public services classes and training that they do but that stuff is still a minority of the time and has a heavy dog and pony aspect.
Depending on their rank/position, many cops aren't very different. I see dozens of them on every block in times square doing exactly nothing 90% of the time day-in and day-out with the occasional enforcement action...or jumping on the hood of a car that did a burnout and then somehow failing to catch a car stuck in times sq traffic. The same car which drove past 10+ of the cop cars that litter times sq.
Now, to be fair, government run services tend to be pricey and poorly done. Cost overruns and project delays are the norm.
To realize that the government is able to provide these services better than a private company is shameful. Not entirely unexpected given the horrific state of telecom companies but still shameful. If there was ever an industry that needs revitalization, they are high on my list. This is doubly true since they're critical to almost every industry in virtually all modern and semi-modern countries.
For one, the capsules still have an emergency escape in case of a problem - while that has some limitations it greatly increases safety to the crew even if their rocket goes boom a bit louder than it's supposed to.
Even without that, there are MANY willing volunteers who would gladly do the training and education necessary for a chance at spaceflight...even if there was a 1 in 10 chance of death.
You'd do better off with Samsung using their KNOX container. Just sayin...
Welcome to the "my phone camera is equal to a DSLR" age. It's not, by any means, true but it is still far better than not having any pictures at all (for lack of a camera).
If you want super quality imaged, break out the photo gear. If you want idiot-proof (well, almost) images taken anywhere and everywhere you go? well...that's what you get.
You're unlikely to see that. Adding a removable back (and battery) significantly increases the complexity and reduces the durability of a phone. And...the added space it takes reduces battery capacity. You can get a battery swapped for a very reasonable fee these days so there's little reason to really cry over it.
Now, offer me a phone that's 1mm thicker and has 25% extra battery and I'd be all over it. TBH they're more likely to do that then make a removable battery.
Besides, who carries around loose LiPo batteries anyhow? You're practically asking for it to get shorted out and assplode. Of all the phones I've had, the last time i remember actually having and using spare batteries was ... old nokias...maybe 2160 or 8910 or something like that. Through the entire blackberry era, I might have swapped for a charged battery a few times (and this being in IT support with ready access to them). While my use case might not match everyone, I fail to see how having a spare battery vs. battery pack is a huge difference if you really need more power.
Protip: Galaxy 8 series all have headphones jacks too.
Samsung has indicated that they plan to keep the jack as well. At least they listen to customers!
No...if Kodak was smart they'd have gotten involved in managing your digital images as much as providing the hardware to take them. But they weren't an internet era company or even internet focused. Their couple of too-late, too-buggy attempts at camera docks and image management just further sunk them.
What would people have done with a 10MP image? or 20MP even...which was about the limit of normal film with higher end stuff going several times higher.
Computers in the mid 90s would choke on a 20MP image and you'd fit about one roll of uncompressed imaged on a full CD. Excluding professionals with money to spend ... why bother?
Windows 7 is infinitely superior to Windows 8.1
I wish they just went and updated 7 with some of the new tech in 10. Leave the &$%# UI alone already.
It's more than that though. It means you can make any spot you'd set your phone down into a charger. The console in your car. Your nightstand. The table at mcdonalds (we have this at a few places in NYC).
Oh, and you DON'T NEED A WIRE of whatever random connector type. One less thing to carry or have around. It's typically the first thing to wear out or break. Public chargers are horrible for either having broken/crap cables or totally worn out USB jacks for plugging into. A flat, sealed area you can put your phone down on and charge? The benefits greatly exceed a somewhat slower charge rate for most situations. It sure beats going to a friends house 'anyone got a spare lighting/micro/USBC wire? Forgot mine...'
This should have been standardized 5+ years ago...probably closer to 10 but people wanted to compete for a 'standard'. Make an open one and be done with it...you know...so the people BUYING these products can benefit on occasion.
I'll see your fear-mongering and raise you Fake News.
Seriously though, the total power usage for BTC is based on some rather sketchy numbers and still represents a minuscule fraction of the worldwide power usage. More is wasted on lighting streets with no people on them.
ETH is enjoying the ride and separating from just following BTC around as well
Empirical evidence seems to disagree with you unless you believe BTC is potentially worth significantly more than it already is.
Not that I disagree with the comedic thought of the SLS making it off the ground in the next two years, but...
The Delta IV Heavy (63k lb to LEO) competes with the F9 FT (50k lb to LEO), not the FH (140k lb to LEO). Granted it *wins* the competition on a simple mass-to-LEO basis but then *completely* loses on $/kg where the F9 comes in around ~$1200/lb and the D-IV-H at about $6,300/lb.
The FH however easily beats both at around $650/lb to LEO...which is 1/10th of the D-IV-H.
Not necessarily. In fact, I completely disagree. The large majority of cost for something going to space is R&D, not simple manufacturing. Most sats have a spare or at least spare parts enough to build a replica. But ignoring that...
Space assembly is HARD for one. Designing systems that break into multiple pieces greatly increases their complexity. Some simply can't and need to be built as a whole unit. Launches have significant fixed costs irrespective of size/payload. Oh, and the payload is (well, can be) insured. The higher the reliability, the lower the insurance cost.
You imagine that larger rockets are less reliable, but offer nothing to substantiate that ... and afaik it's untrue. The base systems (flight comp, hydraulics, telemetry, etc.) remain essentially unchanged and are trivial to scale, the tankage solution is a straightforward engineering and materials task, and the propulsion is the most heavily tested aspect PLUS includes redundancy. The engineering of said engine requires a high reliability - it's part of the design spec. And besides that...rocket engines have historically been robust enough for multiple reuses but it's rare that anyone ever gets them back except for the space shuttle. Remind me again how many times those engines failed?
Not unless someone else fills that launch capability. There's no point in launching a BFR for a sat that you could put up with a F9.
At least not until the tech is mature enough that the component wear/lifespan useage/fuel cost for the much larger rocket is about equal to the 'small' one.
They almost certainly weren't smart enough to keep track of which battery went into which laptop.
Citation? Otherwise I'll make the exact opposite statement and give the follow:
Manufacturers, particularly larger integrators like Dell, buy tons of parts from suppliers and assemble them into their finished products. Tracking what batches of supplies are where in the production chain and what equipment they wind up in is critical to finding and tracking problems so they can be addressed...well so they can do a cost analysis of broad replacement vs. individual and similar.
Based on experience (20+ years in end-user IT support) this holds true any time I've contacted my manufacturers regarding recurring issues. In that regard, I expect Dell will shortly announce something similar.
Paranoid much? How about a rogue range officer. How about rogue software reporting incorrect flight data? How about someone having a Bad Day? How about someone being negligent in their job and not paying enough attention? What if someone blocks/jams the signal?
Bottom line: any practice has potential avenues of failure. Computers can react faster and with more precision than a human plus this puts the decision look within the spacecraft eliminating the need for a groundside communications loop.
Oh, and you didn't RTFS. This is *also* to allow a polar launch which cannot be tracked and monitored by a RSO as there is no radar coverage for that flight path. So besides just saving some cash, it opens up an entirely new launch slot.
Depends which rockets you mean. The ones with explosive ordinance in them usually go kaboom. Otherwise someone might be sad to not have their earth shattering kaboom!
Even so, that's an extremely simplistic backup for a single failure mode which may not occur until well after a rocket has deviated from it's flightpath.
But then all you've done is destroyed the rocket on it's normal path which is still planned for relative safety.
Yes, it would potentially allow someone to blow up these particular rockets. Once.
Avoiding innovation because someone, somewhere, somehow could maaaaaybe use it to break something is ridiculous.
There's a reason why people spend countless hours on youtube and the endless videos of exactly that often have 100k+ views each.