Maybe one thing to think about is the
possibility that Slackware (and Linux)
were successful in the early days because
noone threw a limitless amount of money
at them.
While a little more money might help,
I suspect there are limits to the process.
I'm still trying to figure out if the
direction Gnome is going (with a lot of
imitation-windows apps) is a good idea.
I suppose reusable SSTO is easier than
everyone thinks. Getting everyone involved to
shift their paradigms to those necessary to
get cheap SSTO, isn't. The political problems
outweigh the technical ones by a large factor.
I doubt the Russians have a plane capable of
outflying the F-22; however, I appreciate your
point about airframe wear.
I think a better plan would be to build a
small force of F-22's, and a larger one of JSF
and improved F-16's, the latter included in case
it turns out F-22's or JSF's are to expensive to
operate. The next war we get in, it'll probably be
force with the better trained pilots that wins, not
the one with the most expensive jets. And I don't think the X-33 is the way to get there.
It's not really a third chance; when it
was being run by BMDO it was effectively a
different program, Lockheed was the winner with
its design only after it got transferred to NASA.
The MacDac design was totally different, as was
Rockwell's. Of course, both of those companies
are now owned by Boeing, which has a strong NIH
attitude towards VTOL.
I'd rather the military were spending money
on projects with a greater chance of working;
for high-speed "spaceplane" type stuff, Pioneer
Rocketplane seems to be a much better system.
I also think roton showed promise. But I don't
think X-33 was even a good-faith effort, and I
suspect that liquid hydrogen isn't a decent fuel
for an operational vehicle.
You've posted this troll twice already, but
you don't seem to understand. It's not about
USB. It's about USB 2.0, which was Intel's
"firewire killer" with faster bandwidth than
present (but probably not 6 months from now)
firewire, with the penalty (compared to firewire)
of having much higher processor loading per
data transfer. Intel's in the processor business;
they need your peripherals to be using as much of
your processor as possible while transferring data, so you'll have a reason to buy a faster one.
And if a Russian spy plane had landed at a US air field?
Actually, several times ELINT Bears from Russia landed in the US needing emergency assistance; the planes were usually repaired and sent on their way forthwith and the crews were generally not kept hostage.
As for the apology, I would suggest that that is a BAD idea. They don't really want an apology so much as an admission of guilt, possibly for use in the trial.
Yes, Apple will semi-"open-source" stuff that
they're still dependent on or making money off
of, in order to get free programming help for
stuff they're selling (Darwin is just a component of OS X, which as a whole isn't open source and you have to pay for).
OTOH, there's a lot of stuff they're very agressive about not open-sourcing. OpenDoc, for instance. Or the Newton OS. When Apple wants to kill stuff, they kill it, and make damn sure noone else can buy it commercially, nor that it will be used as the basis for an open-source project.
I could also mention the fact that they'll open-source parts of the quicktime server, but won't even make the Sorenson codec available to anyone to use for linux, even for money. And as near as anyone can tell, Apple is the party with the right/power to port it to other platforms. It's available for Windows, thanks to Apple. Something to think about the next time you're Thinking Different.
Apple is one of those dangerous companies that care more about power than money; they'd rather lose the investment in Newton than see it successful.
And when you think about it, that's the sort of thing open source is really supposed to be for: to keep you from getting screwed when a company decides to discontinue a project, not so you can help them make money with the non-open-source project running on top of the semi-open-source project.
I'm extremely dubious that Apple's OS-X will
be much easier to use than Linux. It's been mentioned
both here and on ArsTechnica that OSX has a long
way to go in the human interface department. Especially
the Dock. While I think the panel in gnome shares some of these failings,
I think it's better and at least has room for customization.
Many of the authors of the original Mac interface have been critical of OSX's new interface; some of them have even been working on a shell for Linux, that while it gobbles processor cycles, seems interesting to me.
The one thing Apple will probably do better is in having better hot-plugging of USB and firewire stuff... but I've heard they're postponing full support for that in initial releases. As far as the interface itself, they're just not even paying attention.
It doesn't really have anything to do with
encryption. Even if he encrypted it, it's still
available for FOIA requests, and he'd have to
decrypt it for them.
Unless, of course,
he did like the last administration and "accidentally"
deleted a large amount of emails when supoenaed.
After all the problems, including
security ones, I've heard of from friends
who have used Redhat, I wouldn't recommend
it to anyone. I wouldn't be suprised if it
were up there with windows in exploitability.
Just for the record, I think expansion into
space is important, and if not done will probably
lots of suffering and loss of life. However,
I'm sick and tired of the Potemkin Village
equivalents that NASA builds. They'd do nothing
but cost us money and fail us when we really
need good space launch... say, right before the next Tungusta event.
Actually, Lockheed Martin doesn't count as
the private sector. It is dependent on the government
for its survival; it's more like a Soviet-era design bureau.
Lockheed basically won the competition for the X-33 program by lying; there's considerable evidence that they weren't serious about building a working X-33 to begin with. They were apparently more interested in the contract so that they could have a government-subsidized contract to serve as a disincentive to other companies starting competing reusable launch systems as well.
The X-33 was originally supposed to cost around a billion dollars, with NASA only paying 700 million of that, and Lockheed the rest. They've now spent about 1.5 billion on the project, and needed an estimated 1 billion to finish it. Which means the project has an approx. 150% overrun.
However, if you think of its purpose as "keeping people from investing in Rotary and Beal" rather than providing cheap launch, X-33 has succeeded marvellously. That may be a good reason for the socialists to support the program, but it doesn't cut the mustard for me.
One of the reasons I voted for Bush was because I hoped he'd cut this program. It's just had a bad effect all-around.
I agree, I just thought it was ironic that
they were going to increace spending to
constrain space station growth.
It makes more sense when you realize
that the space station is 4 billion in the
hole and 3 billion instead of four billion
actually represents a cutback in the size of the
station. In order to not constrain the size of the space station, you probably need to find about
four billion additional dollars.
I think someone was asking how over-budget
ISS was. I don't know about for the whole
project's history, but according to the denizens
of sci.space.policy, or at least the sober ones,
it has about a four BILLION dollar cost overrun.
Porbably enough to absorb about twenty Pluto probes.
I think this is a classic case of throwing
good money after bad, or bad money after good. If
it were up to me, choosing between the two, I'd
cancel ISS instead. Large numbers of both parties would probably suddenly have kittens and/or cows, but...
The NASA project I think will be being
launched from a B52 aboard a Pegasus rocket, so it still needs a boost.
Of course, there's also the question of whether a scramjet is a good idea at all. It needs hydrogen, which is one of the least dense rocket fuels out there, which makes the structure larger for a given payload (which is bad); also, since a scramjet needs to hang around lower in the atmosphere than a rocket, it's subject to much higher aerodynamic forces and heat loads. Finally, the engines thus far designed have weighed more than the oxygen they're replacing. When you consider how cheap liquid oxygen is, a lot of people wonder, why bother?
You're repeating the Party Line, that Celera
was patenting the genes themselves rather than
specific treatment applications, again. I think
if your case were that strong you wouldn't need
a straw man. First off, patented information
is publically available; the usual alternative
to patents won't be neat public disclosure, but more and more "trade secrets."
Second, isn't it just plain wierd that everyone
says that capitalism can't do long-term research, then
talks about how immoral they are for trying?
I just wish Galactic Bloodshed would come back. Like MOO, I've heard (having never played MOO), but online and multiplayer, wierd text interface requiring a client, and better. Hmm.
The transition between capitalism and
communism is never going to be easy...
I've heard that from people defending
the forced famines and purges in 1920's Russia,
and the forced famines of the Great Leap Forward...
But, of course, you'll have lots of reasons
as to why they were really Capitalism but you're the
first true communist. Of course, it's what the
communists said all the other times they killed
people, so why should we believe you?
Actually I don't really have any idea about
how much of that research is actually useful.
I know that if some private company actually came
up with a cheap way of getting to orbit, NASA would
cite their research budget in an attempt to claim
credit, but I doubt it would have really been a
help. I suspect that the same is the case with a
lot of NIH research.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe one thing to think about is the possibility that Slackware (and Linux) were successful in the early days because noone threw a limitless amount of money at them.
While a little more money might help, I suspect there are limits to the process.
I'm still trying to figure out if the direction Gnome is going (with a lot of imitation-windows apps) is a good idea.
I suppose reusable SSTO is easier than everyone thinks. Getting everyone involved to shift their paradigms to those necessary to get cheap SSTO, isn't. The political problems outweigh the technical ones by a large factor.
I doubt the Russians have a plane capable of outflying the F-22; however, I appreciate your point about airframe wear.
I think a better plan would be to build a small force of F-22's, and a larger one of JSF and improved F-16's, the latter included in case it turns out F-22's or JSF's are to expensive to operate. The next war we get in, it'll probably be force with the better trained pilots that wins, not the one with the most expensive jets. And I don't think the X-33 is the way to get there.
It's not really a third chance; when it was being run by BMDO it was effectively a different program, Lockheed was the winner with its design only after it got transferred to NASA. The MacDac design was totally different, as was Rockwell's. Of course, both of those companies are now owned by Boeing, which has a strong NIH attitude towards VTOL.
If you think the X-33 followon is going to be cheaper than the shuttle, you haven't been paying attention to either program.
Eek.
I'd rather the military were spending money on projects with a greater chance of working; for high-speed "spaceplane" type stuff, Pioneer Rocketplane seems to be a much better system. I also think roton showed promise. But I don't think X-33 was even a good-faith effort, and I suspect that liquid hydrogen isn't a decent fuel for an operational vehicle.
You've posted this troll twice already, but you don't seem to understand. It's not about USB. It's about USB 2.0, which was Intel's "firewire killer" with faster bandwidth than present (but probably not 6 months from now) firewire, with the penalty (compared to firewire) of having much higher processor loading per data transfer. Intel's in the processor business; they need your peripherals to be using as much of your processor as possible while transferring data, so you'll have a reason to buy a faster one.
Actually, several times ELINT Bears from Russia landed in the US needing emergency assistance; the planes were usually repaired and sent on their way forthwith and the crews were generally not kept hostage.
As for the apology, I would suggest that that is a BAD idea. They don't really want an apology so much as an admission of guilt, possibly for use in the trial.
Yes, Apple will semi-"open-source" stuff that they're still dependent on or making money off of, in order to get free programming help for stuff they're selling (Darwin is just a component of OS X, which as a whole isn't open source and you have to pay for).
OTOH, there's a lot of stuff they're very agressive about not open-sourcing. OpenDoc, for instance. Or the Newton OS. When Apple wants to kill stuff, they kill it, and make damn sure noone else can buy it commercially, nor that it will be used as the basis for an open-source project.
I could also mention the fact that they'll open-source parts of the quicktime server, but won't even make the Sorenson codec available to anyone to use for linux, even for money. And as near as anyone can tell, Apple is the party with the right/power to port it to other platforms. It's available for Windows, thanks to Apple. Something to think about the next time you're Thinking Different.
Apple is one of those dangerous companies that care more about power than money; they'd rather lose the investment in Newton than see it successful.
And when you think about it, that's the sort of thing open source is really supposed to be for: to keep you from getting screwed when a company decides to discontinue a project, not so you can help them make money with the non-open-source project running on top of the semi-open-source project.
I wonder, when are the Feds going after Paypal or some other business that's also been a facilitator for people stealing credit cards?
Just checking, but doesn't Sun provide some of the hardware for the Great Firewall of China?
I'm extremely dubious that Apple's OS-X will be much easier to use than Linux. It's been mentioned both here and on ArsTechnica that OSX has a long way to go in the human interface department. Especially the Dock. While I think the panel in gnome shares some of these failings, I think it's better and at least has room for customization.
Many of the authors of the original Mac interface have been critical of OSX's new interface; some of them have even been working on a shell for Linux, that while it gobbles processor cycles, seems interesting to me.
The one thing Apple will probably do better is in having better hot-plugging of USB and firewire stuff... but I've heard they're postponing full support for that in initial releases. As far as the interface itself, they're just not even paying attention.
It doesn't really have anything to do with encryption. Even if he encrypted it, it's still available for FOIA requests, and he'd have to decrypt it for them.
Unless, of course, he did like the last administration and "accidentally" deleted a large amount of emails when supoenaed.
After all the problems, including security ones, I've heard of from friends who have used Redhat, I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. I wouldn't be suprised if it were up there with windows in exploitability.
Just for the record, I think expansion into space is important, and if not done will probably lots of suffering and loss of life. However, I'm sick and tired of the Potemkin Village equivalents that NASA builds. They'd do nothing but cost us money and fail us when we really need good space launch... say, right before the next Tungusta event.
Actually, Lockheed Martin doesn't count as the private sector. It is dependent on the government for its survival; it's more like a Soviet-era design bureau.
Lockheed basically won the competition for the X-33 program by lying; there's considerable evidence that they weren't serious about building a working X-33 to begin with. They were apparently more interested in the contract so that they could have a government-subsidized contract to serve as a disincentive to other companies starting competing reusable launch systems as well.
The X-33 was originally supposed to cost around a billion dollars, with NASA only paying 700 million of that, and Lockheed the rest. They've now spent about 1.5 billion on the project, and needed an estimated 1 billion to finish it. Which means the project has an approx. 150% overrun.
However, if you think of its purpose as "keeping people from investing in Rotary and Beal" rather than providing cheap launch, X-33 has succeeded marvellously. That may be a good reason for the socialists to support the program, but it doesn't cut the mustard for me.
One of the reasons I voted for Bush was because I hoped he'd cut this program. It's just had a bad effect all-around.
It makes more sense when you realize that the space station is 4 billion in the hole and 3 billion instead of four billion actually represents a cutback in the size of the station. In order to not constrain the size of the space station, you probably need to find about four billion additional dollars.
I think someone was asking how over-budget ISS was. I don't know about for the whole project's history, but according to the denizens of sci.space.policy, or at least the sober ones, it has about a four BILLION dollar cost overrun.
Porbably enough to absorb about twenty Pluto probes.
I think this is a classic case of throwing good money after bad, or bad money after good. If it were up to me, choosing between the two, I'd cancel ISS instead. Large numbers of both parties would probably suddenly have kittens and/or cows, but...
The NASA project I think will be being launched from a B52 aboard a Pegasus rocket, so it still needs a boost.
Of course, there's also the question of whether a scramjet is a good idea at all. It needs hydrogen, which is one of the least dense rocket fuels out there, which makes the structure larger for a given payload (which is bad); also, since a scramjet needs to hang around lower in the atmosphere than a rocket, it's subject to much higher aerodynamic forces and heat loads. Finally, the engines thus far designed have weighed more than the oxygen they're replacing. When you consider how cheap liquid oxygen is, a lot of people wonder, why bother?
You're repeating the Party Line, that Celera was patenting the genes themselves rather than specific treatment applications, again. I think if your case were that strong you wouldn't need a straw man. First off, patented information is publically available; the usual alternative to patents won't be neat public disclosure, but more and more "trade secrets." Second, isn't it just plain wierd that everyone says that capitalism can't do long-term research, then talks about how immoral they are for trying?
I just wish Galactic Bloodshed would come back. Like MOO, I've heard (having never played MOO), but online and multiplayer, wierd text interface requiring a client, and better. Hmm.
I've heard that from people defending the forced famines and purges in 1920's Russia, and the forced famines of the Great Leap Forward...
But, of course, you'll have lots of reasons as to why they were really Capitalism but you're the first true communist. Of course, it's what the communists said all the other times they killed people, so why should we believe you?
Actually I don't really have any idea about how much of that research is actually useful. I know that if some private company actually came up with a cheap way of getting to orbit, NASA would cite their research budget in an attempt to claim credit, but I doubt it would have really been a help. I suspect that the same is the case with a lot of NIH research.
You know, I think that's the fourth time that I've read that particular little post, made word-for-word... egad.
Oh, and the Challenger Disaster. And a fifty billion dollar trailer park in orbit that doesn't do anything or go anywhere.
If that's where you want to see medical research go, look at NASA with your blinders off.