You must be kidding. You think your iPad is going to last 30 years?
I acutally have a 12 year old computer. It still works, but I am on power supply 4, motherboard 2, LAN card 3 (one upgrade was for speed), HDD 4 (ony one partial failure) and who knows what CD drive, probably 14. I realize you wont have moving parts in your iPad, but that thing will have a hard time lasting 5 years, without being dropped, or just failing. Are you sure you can change the battery? Is the DRM for your games still going to work? And is the NAND going to last 30 years?
Looking at the board game boxes I have, I doubt a rock could take that much abuse combined over 30 years.
And considering the number of iPods that don't make it 5 years, I am certain that I can count on both hands the total number of iPads that are still usable after 30 years use.
Agreed almost-perfect board game table, beause it is really just a board you can use 'pieces' and the table will interact with them. You can use real dice.
But house rules would still seem a problem.
Well a 10" screen with abysmal pixel count is not a replacement for a board game. It is a simulation of such. Lots of games could be played acceptably on it. But it does'n not simulate everything. I hate pushing a 'roll dice' button, there is something to pushing buttons.
I also tend to play with house rules that are not implemented on an electronic version then you don't get it. lots of people play free parking in monopoly, it is a recommended variation in the rules, but what if Apple doesn't think the house rule should operate the way I play? I can't do it. Shit we play house rules if your dice land cocked on the chance or community chest cards, or both your dice land on top of the card pile. If you knock over pieces in Risk you loose armies. If you roll the wrong color dice in risk.
Not accepting modern simulations of old things is not luddite necessarily. There are things that a 2D screen can't replicate. Now I play some board games on my computer, but they are not substitutions, rather simulations, and lots of time that is fine.
Stratego. I assume that you are talking about this game. And yes impossible to play without 2 individual and private screens. Because you have to watch the other player move, and still be able to see all your pieces.
Lets say you save 5$ a game. You would have to purchase 100 board games to cover your costs, not to mention power and the fact that your iPad wont last 30 years. I have Risk, Monopoly, Scrabble, and Trivial persuit that are almost that old.
What is wrong with a pay off in decades. This "profit now" attitude is going to kill America. You think the interstate system paid off sooner than decades? You think the interstate system was a failure?
Yeah but the OWNER the COMPANY can do whatever they choose. The USER shouldn't be able to install whaever they want, that would be arbitrary code to the COMPANY.
The reason why MSFT is the dominant player is BECAUSE they (before they achieved lock in, which I will address later) were the first company to allow cheap OS that allowed anything to be installed or run.
They acheived lock in because they have remained backward compatable to a fault, to keep legacy stuff running, and therefore preventing a huge cost instance that would allow a company to 'jump ship' to another system. As much as you (and myself) want to bitch about Word being omnipresent because of 'lock in' it is really network effect.
Monopolistic tactics with software are weird, anyone can sell their product at almost no cost, because their is no physical cost to sell a unit, and assuming they sell enough they will eventually recoup their costs. So is it 'monopolistic' to sell your product at 10$ for a complete Office Suite, to get 99% of the market share, when your business strategy is one that could make you money? If you were attempting to run a loss to push out competitors then it would be, but if you can make money pushing out the competitors it is 'legit'. Now that you have 99% market share and people using your formats you can charge what you want, so long as another company can't do to you what you did previosly.
Bad, probably. Illegial, possibly, but probably not. Genius business strategy, most definately.
The second part in particular did not seem legit at all. Rather a person posing a question and then answering it himself. There was no real detail in any of it. I know the basics of a 'Spanish prisoner' scam. There is nothing in there you couldn't make up after reading a Wikipedia article.
And honestly you get mad and hang up on the guy because he is scamming people that are desperate. I am sorry but desperate people get scammed all the time. Professional journalist or not come on getting upset is overblown in the situation the 'conversation' supposedly was going in.
This is just a scam by a 'help stop scams' website, and in my opinion much worse than running an upfront scam.
I won't accpet anything that they do. They are impossible to do anything good!!11!!!
I will keep using Google because they 'do no evil'.
I used to HATE Microsoft. Their products were not the best out there word v word perfect, excel v lotus 123. They used cost manuvers, and rapid improvments to gain insane amounts of market share. But they don't put out 100% bad and evil stuff.
Google isn't all nice and open. Android is 'open' but isn't really. Their Android apps can't be distributed by anyone. Their office/email is so closed they don't even let you run it locally. Sure they use Linux servers, because it is less expensive for them, and they can tivker and optimize for their odd usage. Google only looks open because they don't sell software (when they do it is just as locked down as MSFT), their drafting program. They sell ads, and they give you software so you can see more ads. For all the ad hating that Slashdot has I am amazed with the blind Google love.
Bing and Google have the same notifications for changing their privace policys. Whith the caveat that if anything Material changes BING MUST notify in some way, Google and Yahoo only notify if there are important changes, or start limiting privacy.
Yes plenty of old products can be used. They just are not capable of handling problems as updated devices. A 1979 Mustang will still drive, but it won't stop as quickly, it doesn't have airbags, and well you are WAY more likely to die in it than a modern Mustang.
Saying it is a common configuration doesn't change the fact that it is OLD, and outdated. There are OBVIOUSLY new SECURITY and USABLE options that come with Windows VISTA. Like being able to sandbox the browser.
If I were bitching about OSX 10.0 with IE for Mac you would laugh your ass off at me for my program selection. Having XP and IE 6 is the same deal. Just because lots of people have it doesn't mean it is outdated. So IE 8 has REAL tools that the OTHER BROWSERS do NOT have, that increase security. If you use XP IE 8 is still in the same boat as Firfox, Safari, and Chrome.
And don't get me started on UAC in Vista. If it is turned off then you have purposly made your machine less secure. You don't have to turn off UAC. I can turn off sandboxing in IE 8 on Win 7, because I can make these changes it is not secure. Hell I can use IE 8 to download an.exe that can run remote code after my UAC prompts me. So it is obviously not secure. Turning off UAC is a user problem, not an IE problem.
If you have 500 (very ambitious estimate) composite airplanes, they run 24h 365.25days (which is probably more than 10 times their actual use) for 30 years (assuming start in 1989, when the first B-2 Sprit flight was) you get a grand total of 131.5 million hours.
Compared with say 50,000 composite bicycles (very conservative estimate) Used 250 hours a year you only need 10.5 years to exceed the total real world time. Carbon bikes have been around a lot longer than that. And I would bet the pro cycling circuit has alone more hours than the in action airplanes.
You can't test 'real world' in the lab. That is why you have product recalls. That is why tires explode on hot days when underinflated. This is why you have Alpha software releases, and Beta software testing. It isn't that you can't test that scenario; you can't come up with all the scenarios. So yes there are things that can only be tested by large numbers of real applications.
n - is very powerful and can not be substituted for
I am not saying that the bicycle industry is an equal contributor, or even a significant contributor, just a valuable contributor. You are the ignorant one for dismissing anything the lowly cycling industry can produce.
I am not saying that the bicycle industry is an equal contributer, or even a signifcant contributer, just a valuable contributer.
So your B2 bomber, your F22 and all your other composite aircraft number in the hundreds? There are tens of thousands of composite bicycles being used every day. There are many orders of magnitude of real world testing going on.
Your 100% military aircraft list is being flown my pilots with very strict guidelines on how to operate. There is not a lot of variation of usage there. Sure in a battle environment this would not be the case, but I don't think there are that many cases of extreme non-planned usage. There are more carbon fibre bicycles crashed on a weekly basis than the aerospace industry can probably claim in its length. I have seen people stand on all sorts of configurations on a bicycle. This odd use can provide value that can not be found in a lab.
And about generations I beg to differ. The bicycle is putting out resale design generations at least once a year. I can't imagine how many they don't actually release. The aerospace industry actually engineers their design generations, so they improve more per generation but the number of generations are not there. And I see no where do you refute this in your first reply. You refer to 'varied usage' as structural parts and skin. Basically what fiberglass is used for.
The bicycle industry uses carbon for EVERYTHING. They only parts that I have not seen in carbon are chains, rubber seals, brake pads, tires, and actual bearings. The races have been made of carbon. I have even seen carbon bolts. Sure almost all of these applications are REALLY STUPID, but that doesn't mean there isn't a knowledge contribution by releasing this to real world application. A better breakaway bolt perhaps? Probably not but to completely dismiss anything that the Aerospace industry hasn't contributed to the advancement of carbon fibre is absurd.
I actually am a mechanical engineer and was attempting to get a job in the bicycle industry when I graduated. And well I found out that they don't really hire engineers, they advertize for them but really want a CAD guy that runs a 3rd party FEA software. I'm sure that Shimano and SRAM hire a few; but really they all just build something [most likely stupidly light] and test it. So I don't mean to ascribe to any engineering expertise they really don't have.
I agree on the other parts almost fully. But I do think that looking at carbon fibre bearing races, and catastrophic failures of other parts (mountain bike frames come to mind) in real applications is VERY useful when dealing with new usage for such a versatile, but limited material.
Oh and I am glad other industries are not as liberal with their use of carbon fibre. In the cycling industry it is a stupid sickness. My bicycle is 100% carbon free, except the front fork (you can't get anything else) and the brake levers. I am not a fan.
I wouldn't discount the bicycle industry for its 'comparative eye dropper load' of impact on the composite materials industry.
The vast array of applications that Carbon Fibre is used in the bicycle industry is also something that should be considered. Aerospace applications have their parts engineered to the smallest detail, and don't change at a rapid pace. The bicycle industry (and well other sports industries also) add two things beyond what the Aerospace industry is able to do.
The first is design evolution, and expansion. The bicycle industry is wrapped up in a Carbon culture. If it is made of carbon fibre it MUST be better. So we have parts under tension, compression, torsion, parts that have both tension and compression. There are pieces of carbon fibre that are about as thick as pencil lead, there are parts that undergo constant friction load (braking surfaces, gears/cogs, and bearing races). And these parts are in real world, high cycle, applications. And they are in hostile environments, and used in many ways not designed. This varied usage, and real world testing is not something that can be done by testing in a lab, and real world testing on multi million dollar test units.
I realize my post made is seem as if I was stating that the bicycle industry is devoping carbon fibre faster than the aerospace industry. The point I was trying to put out was the number of generations, and wildly varied usage in the bicycle industry are notes that NASA, and really aerospace can use.
I have no source for this but I would imagine that bicycle industry was the first to have production wear surfaces made of carbon fibre. Bearing races, braking surfaces on rims, and chainrings, and cassette cogs.
I am (or was before I got lazy) and avid Cyclist. And well the materials used in the bicycle industry are basically the high tech materials that are starting to be put into the aerospace industyr (due to safety and devolpment periods bikes tend to put out new materials first).
When Carbon Fibre started to become omnipresent in road cycling it was only sparing used in mountain biking. This was due to precieved, and real, issues dealing with durability. Rocks and branches hitting Carbon Fibre frames and causing small failures that normal use would increase and cause catastropic failure. But now carbon is everywhere because design and testing have overcome these problems, and the aerospace industry, with actual and good engineers will be able to do the same.
Granted not everything will be composite. There are lots of things that are done better by Aluminum, or steel, or titanium. But for large, odd shaped structural pieced carbon fibre can't be beat. This is a good thing, so long as NASA doesn't go Carbon Crazy like the bike industry. You can almost buy a 100% Carbon Fibre bike, gears, cables, everything.
Slashdot Mirror
Um there were lots of companies that decided just that. To write a few hundred form letters, you would save tons of typing time.
You must be kidding. You think your iPad is going to last 30 years?
I acutally have a 12 year old computer. It still works, but I am on power supply 4, motherboard 2, LAN card 3 (one upgrade was for speed), HDD 4 (ony one partial failure) and who knows what CD drive, probably 14. I realize you wont have moving parts in your iPad, but that thing will have a hard time lasting 5 years, without being dropped, or just failing. Are you sure you can change the battery? Is the DRM for your games still going to work? And is the NAND going to last 30 years?
Looking at the board game boxes I have, I doubt a rock could take that much abuse combined over 30 years.
And considering the number of iPods that don't make it 5 years, I am certain that I can count on both hands the total number of iPads that are still usable after 30 years use.
How do you plan on playing Risk on a lunch break?
I have brought Monoploy, and scrabble to a park before. Not to hard.
And why would you not want to lure you date home to play yahtzee?
Becides it isn't like you can carry around this thing, it is too big, you need a bag. Scrabble aint that big.
Yeah and you can't play stratego on a tablet, even with 2 iPhones.
Agreed almost-perfect board game table, beause it is really just a board you can use 'pieces' and the table will interact with them. You can use real dice.
But house rules would still seem a problem.
Well a 10" screen with abysmal pixel count is not a replacement for a board game. It is a simulation of such. Lots of games could be played acceptably on it. But it does'n not simulate everything. I hate pushing a 'roll dice' button, there is something to pushing buttons.
I also tend to play with house rules that are not implemented on an electronic version then you don't get it. lots of people play free parking in monopoly, it is a recommended variation in the rules, but what if Apple doesn't think the house rule should operate the way I play? I can't do it. Shit we play house rules if your dice land cocked on the chance or community chest cards, or both your dice land on top of the card pile. If you knock over pieces in Risk you loose armies. If you roll the wrong color dice in risk.
Not accepting modern simulations of old things is not luddite necessarily. There are things that a 2D screen can't replicate. Now I play some board games on my computer, but they are not substitutions, rather simulations, and lots of time that is fine.
Except moving electronic representations of physical disks is not the same as sliding real disks over a real table.
Stratego. I assume that you are talking about this game. And yes impossible to play without 2 individual and private screens. Because you have to watch the other player move, and still be able to see all your pieces.
Lets say you save 5$ a game. You would have to purchase 100 board games to cover your costs, not to mention power and the fact that your iPad wont last 30 years. I have Risk, Monopoly, Scrabble, and Trivial persuit that are almost that old.
What is wrong with a pay off in decades. This "profit now" attitude is going to kill America. You think the interstate system paid off sooner than decades? You think the interstate system was a failure?
Yeah but the OWNER the COMPANY can do whatever they choose. The USER shouldn't be able to install whaever they want, that would be arbitrary code to the COMPANY.
The reason why MSFT is the dominant player is BECAUSE they (before they achieved lock in, which I will address later) were the first company to allow cheap OS that allowed anything to be installed or run.
They acheived lock in because they have remained backward compatable to a fault, to keep legacy stuff running, and therefore preventing a huge cost instance that would allow a company to 'jump ship' to another system. As much as you (and myself) want to bitch about Word being omnipresent because of 'lock in' it is really network effect.
Monopolistic tactics with software are weird, anyone can sell their product at almost no cost, because their is no physical cost to sell a unit, and assuming they sell enough they will eventually recoup their costs. So is it 'monopolistic' to sell your product at 10$ for a complete Office Suite, to get 99% of the market share, when your business strategy is one that could make you money? If you were attempting to run a loss to push out competitors then it would be, but if you can make money pushing out the competitors it is 'legit'. Now that you have 99% market share and people using your formats you can charge what you want, so long as another company can't do to you what you did previosly.
Bad, probably. Illegial, possibly, but probably not. Genius business strategy, most definately.
The second part in particular did not seem legit at all. Rather a person posing a question and then answering it himself. There was no real detail in any of it. I know the basics of a 'Spanish prisoner' scam. There is nothing in there you couldn't make up after reading a Wikipedia article.
And honestly you get mad and hang up on the guy because he is scamming people that are desperate. I am sorry but desperate people get scammed all the time. Professional journalist or not come on getting upset is overblown in the situation the 'conversation' supposedly was going in.
This is just a scam by a 'help stop scams' website, and in my opinion much worse than running an upfront scam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Prisoner
But a CAPITALIST that embraces a non-capitalist environtemt and makes a profit is NOT a hypocrite.
You wont to know why EVERY major business uses PCs?
Bucause they can do whatever the fuck they want.
Apple locking down is preventing them from competing with Microsoft.
No.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Not me saying that.
OMFG is is MSFT!!!! THE are EVILZ!!11!
I won't accpet anything that they do. They are impossible to do anything good!!11!!!
I will keep using Google because they 'do no evil'.
I used to HATE Microsoft. Their products were not the best out there word v word perfect, excel v lotus 123. They used cost manuvers, and rapid improvments to gain insane amounts of market share. But they don't put out 100% bad and evil stuff.
Google isn't all nice and open. Android is 'open' but isn't really. Their Android apps can't be distributed by anyone. Their office/email is so closed they don't even let you run it locally. Sure they use Linux servers, because it is less expensive for them, and they can tivker and optimize for their odd usage. Google only looks open because they don't sell software (when they do it is just as locked down as MSFT), their drafting program. They sell ads, and they give you software so you can see more ads. For all the ad hating that Slashdot has I am amazed with the blind Google love.
Bing and Google have the same notifications for changing their privace policys. Whith the caveat that if anything Material changes BING MUST notify in some way, Google and Yahoo only notify if there are important changes, or start limiting privacy.
http://privacy.microsoft.com/en-us/fullnotice.mspx#EKDAC
http://www.google.com/privacypolicy.html
http://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/details.html
And you trust Google???
Yes plenty of old products can be used. They just are not capable of handling problems as updated devices. A 1979 Mustang will still drive, but it won't stop as quickly, it doesn't have airbags, and well you are WAY more likely to die in it than a modern Mustang.
.exe that can run remote code after my UAC prompts me. So it is obviously not secure. Turning off UAC is a user problem, not an IE problem.
Saying it is a common configuration doesn't change the fact that it is OLD, and outdated. There are OBVIOUSLY new SECURITY and USABLE options that come with Windows VISTA. Like being able to sandbox the browser.
If I were bitching about OSX 10.0 with IE for Mac you would laugh your ass off at me for my program selection. Having XP and IE 6 is the same deal. Just because lots of people have it doesn't mean it is outdated. So IE 8 has REAL tools that the OTHER BROWSERS do NOT have, that increase security. If you use XP IE 8 is still in the same boat as Firfox, Safari, and Chrome.
And don't get me started on UAC in Vista. If it is turned off then you have purposly made your machine less secure. You don't have to turn off UAC. I can turn off sandboxing in IE 8 on Win 7, because I can make these changes it is not secure. Hell I can use IE 8 to download an
If you have 500 (very ambitious estimate) composite airplanes, they run 24h 365.25days (which is probably more than 10 times their actual use) for 30 years (assuming start in 1989, when the first B-2 Sprit flight was) you get a grand total of 131.5 million hours.
Compared with say 50,000 composite bicycles (very conservative estimate) Used 250 hours a year you only need 10.5 years to exceed the total real world time. Carbon bikes have been around a lot longer than that. And I would bet the pro cycling circuit has alone more hours than the in action airplanes.
You can't test 'real world' in the lab. That is why you have product recalls. That is why tires explode on hot days when underinflated. This is why you have Alpha software releases, and Beta software testing. It isn't that you can't test that scenario; you can't come up with all the scenarios. So yes there are things that can only be tested by large numbers of real applications.
n - is very powerful and can not be substituted for
I am not saying that the bicycle industry is an equal contributor, or even a significant contributor, just a valuable contributor. You are the ignorant one for dismissing anything the lowly cycling industry can produce. I am not saying that the bicycle industry is an equal contributer, or even a signifcant contributer, just a valuable contributer.
Who the fuck cares if Apple said no. If I owned an iPhone and wanted Google voice I could now have it.
Why anyone would want either is beyond me. I alreay give up enough freedoms.
So your B2 bomber, your F22 and all your other composite aircraft number in the hundreds? There are tens of thousands of composite bicycles being used every day. There are many orders of magnitude of real world testing going on.
Your 100% military aircraft list is being flown my pilots with very strict guidelines on how to operate. There is not a lot of variation of usage there. Sure in a battle environment this would not be the case, but I don't think there are that many cases of extreme non-planned usage. There are more carbon fibre bicycles crashed on a weekly basis than the aerospace industry can probably claim in its length. I have seen people stand on all sorts of configurations on a bicycle. This odd use can provide value that can not be found in a lab.
And about generations I beg to differ. The bicycle is putting out resale design generations at least once a year. I can't imagine how many they don't actually release. The aerospace industry actually engineers their design generations, so they improve more per generation but the number of generations are not there. And I see no where do you refute this in your first reply. You refer to 'varied usage' as structural parts and skin. Basically what fiberglass is used for.
The bicycle industry uses carbon for EVERYTHING. They only parts that I have not seen in carbon are chains, rubber seals, brake pads, tires, and actual bearings. The races have been made of carbon. I have even seen carbon bolts. Sure almost all of these applications are REALLY STUPID, but that doesn't mean there isn't a knowledge contribution by releasing this to real world application. A better breakaway bolt perhaps? Probably not but to completely dismiss anything that the Aerospace industry hasn't contributed to the advancement of carbon fibre is absurd.
Here are some examples: http://www.cyclespeed.com.au/c/145882/1/carbon-fibre-bolts.html
http://fairwheelbikes.com/fibrelyte-carbon-road-chainrings-130-bcd-p-1069.html?zenid=35db3f17dcb7f873db200b41afc8a4bb
I actually am a mechanical engineer and was attempting to get a job in the bicycle industry when I graduated. And well I found out that they don't really hire engineers, they advertize for them but really want a CAD guy that runs a 3rd party FEA software. I'm sure that Shimano and SRAM hire a few; but really they all just build something [most likely stupidly light] and test it. So I don't mean to ascribe to any engineering expertise they really don't have.
I agree on the other parts almost fully. But I do think that looking at carbon fibre bearing races, and catastrophic failures of other parts (mountain bike frames come to mind) in real applications is VERY useful when dealing with new usage for such a versatile, but limited material.
Oh and I am glad other industries are not as liberal with their use of carbon fibre. In the cycling industry it is a stupid sickness. My bicycle is 100% carbon free, except the front fork (you can't get anything else) and the brake levers. I am not a fan.
I wouldn't discount the bicycle industry for its 'comparative eye dropper load' of impact on the composite materials industry.
The vast array of applications that Carbon Fibre is used in the bicycle industry is also something that should be considered. Aerospace applications have their parts engineered to the smallest detail, and don't change at a rapid pace. The bicycle industry (and well other sports industries also) add two things beyond what the Aerospace industry is able to do.
The first is design evolution, and expansion. The bicycle industry is wrapped up in a Carbon culture. If it is made of carbon fibre it MUST be better. So we have parts under tension, compression, torsion, parts that have both tension and compression. There are pieces of carbon fibre that are about as thick as pencil lead, there are parts that undergo constant friction load (braking surfaces, gears/cogs, and bearing races). And these parts are in real world, high cycle, applications. And they are in hostile environments, and used in many ways not designed. This varied usage, and real world testing is not something that can be done by testing in a lab, and real world testing on multi million dollar test units.
I realize my post made is seem as if I was stating that the bicycle industry is devoping carbon fibre faster than the aerospace industry. The point I was trying to put out was the number of generations, and wildly varied usage in the bicycle industry are notes that NASA, and really aerospace can use.
I have no source for this but I would imagine that bicycle industry was the first to have production wear surfaces made of carbon fibre. Bearing races, braking surfaces on rims, and chainrings, and cassette cogs.
I am (or was before I got lazy) and avid Cyclist. And well the materials used in the bicycle industry are basically the high tech materials that are starting to be put into the aerospace industyr (due to safety and devolpment periods bikes tend to put out new materials first).
When Carbon Fibre started to become omnipresent in road cycling it was only sparing used in mountain biking. This was due to precieved, and real, issues dealing with durability. Rocks and branches hitting Carbon Fibre frames and causing small failures that normal use would increase and cause catastropic failure. But now carbon is everywhere because design and testing have overcome these problems, and the aerospace industry, with actual and good engineers will be able to do the same.
Granted not everything will be composite. There are lots of things that are done better by Aluminum, or steel, or titanium. But for large, odd shaped structural pieced carbon fibre can't be beat. This is a good thing, so long as NASA doesn't go Carbon Crazy like the bike industry. You can almost buy a 100% Carbon Fibre bike, gears, cables, everything.