Sure, we have all the natural resources we need to build a spaceship. But that's thinking about the problem like a construction problem. The real issue with Mars isn't getting there (though that is a major challenge), it's surviving there. Establishing a base on the moon would teach us a lot about how to survive on another world...lessons we would not be able to learn hear on Earth. Oh, sure, we can run simulations on Earth, but as any good engineer will tell you, a simulation does not tell you everything. When something goes wrong, on Earth it's easy to abort the experiment, or bring in a replacement part. A moon base would be a better simulation, because of the difficulty of getting supplies there.
I'll bet you live in a metropolitan area. When you do, it's easy to imagine that the whole world is overpopulated.
Here in Texas, for example, we have about 18 million people in a triangle about 200 miles on each side, from Dallas to Houston to San Antonio. That's less than 10% of the total area of Texas, but more than 2/3 the population. Texas has one county of 600 square miles, with a population of less than 100.
The thing is, we've all clumped ourselves together in tight spaces, that we think the whole world looks like what we see around us. The truth is that there are still vast, untouched spaces in the US and around the world.
We would first establish a continuously inhabited moon base, begin to build some infrastructure. This would make the leap to Mars SO much more practical! We might even get to Mars sooner by leveraging a moon base, than by trying to get directly to Mars.
There is no appetite in the US to spend what it would take to make this happen. I hope Japan and China succeed. Maybe it will wake us up and get things moving again.
That's about like the oil companies arguing that they had to pay bribes to Nigerian officials because that was the only way to get things done. Now, the authorities are catching up with them, and the companies are paying a big price. Refusing to report ransomware to authorities because of fear of getting busted for paying ransoms...is short-sighted.
Microsoft had a COM interface (IHtmlWebBrowser) nearly 20 years ago. When.NET came around, they offered the same headless functionality in the form of the WebBrowser object. The concept isn't new, the only thing that's new is that Chrome and Firefox are finally copying an old IE feature!
Software engineers have largely failed at security
No, not really.
In the US, there are about 1.5 burglaries reported each year. Does this mean that builders have "largely failed at security"? No.
There is always a cost/benefit analysis when it comes to security. Sure, you can fortify your home with bullet-proof glass and unbreakable doors. But who can afford that? Instead, we make a calculated gamble and fortify our homes to a level of security that makes sense considering our budget, what we have to protect, and the crime rate. And no matter what you do, if somebody wants in badly enough, they will find a way.
Businesses make exactly the same calculated gamble with their electronic security. This is quite reasonable and appropriate. Sure, they get it wrong sometimes, but so do people who live in those less-than-fortress homes.
Who needs insurance??? If you can launch a rocket for 1/7 the cost, and you lose one, so what, just launch a second one. Now you're paying 2/7 of the cost!
The hardest part of introducing any new technology is getting people to adopt it. There are, and have always been, tons of inventions known and used by a few people here and there. Just watch those late-night infomercials to see some examples. Invention is the easy part, getting people to adopt it in large numbers--that's the hard part.
My biggest problem with tabs is that GitHub and other source code repositories do a terrible job of formatting tabs. If you use spaces, the formatting comes out consistently every time.
The networks are going to all basically need to go to a subscription model.
That is exactly what cable TV is! When it was introduced in the 70s, they sold cable TV by telling people, "Because you pay subscription fees, you won't have to watch any commercials!" Well, we all know how that turned out!
You're not wrong, but I'm counting the months until Netflix breaks down and starts allowing commercials of their own. There's just too much pressure from advertisers, they will eventually succumb. I hope I'm wrong.
Google already backs up Android devices, and has done so for several years now. When you buy a new Android phone, one of the setup prompts asks you if you want to enable backup for your phone. I've done so, and been able to move from one phone to another, taking nearly all my data with me. It even backs up most of the installed apps.
Of course, cable companies jerk around customers by charging them arbitrary fees for things they don't want. But aside from that, many of us hate having to watch 20 minutes of commercials an hour, for programming we supposedly paid a subscription to get. Netflix--so far--has stayed away from advertisements within the shows you watch. As long as they keep that up, they have MY money!
It's true that not every bank offers free checking. But if you're a customer of one of those banks, it's time to shop around, because there are plenty of banks that do.
If you're paying bank fees, I'd say you need to start shopping around! There are way too many free choices out there, to be stuck paying fees. I haven't paid account fees for decades.
You obviously have no idea about how depression works. Depression (the main cause of suicide) attacks people who are otherwise healthy, normal, and happy. It doesn't take a "reason" for someone to commit suicide. Usually there is a trigger, but it's not the reason. The reason is brain chemistry.
They may never be able to charge for this, just like they've never been able to charge monthly account fees for checking accounts. But like checking accounts, they probably will attach strings to the service, like, you have to have a recurring direct deposit every month.
The main reason they can't ever charge outright is competition. There will always be another bank that will make it free.
that Bangalore programmers can't actually write code, and even if they can, they certainly can't design good software. I predict this will give Home Depot a strategic advantage.
Slashdot Mirror
My point was that we have an illusion that the world is much more crowded than it actually is, because of where we choose to live.
Sure, we have all the natural resources we need to build a spaceship. But that's thinking about the problem like a construction problem. The real issue with Mars isn't getting there (though that is a major challenge), it's surviving there. Establishing a base on the moon would teach us a lot about how to survive on another world...lessons we would not be able to learn hear on Earth. Oh, sure, we can run simulations on Earth, but as any good engineer will tell you, a simulation does not tell you everything. When something goes wrong, on Earth it's easy to abort the experiment, or bring in a replacement part. A moon base would be a better simulation, because of the difficulty of getting supplies there.
I'll bet you live in a metropolitan area. When you do, it's easy to imagine that the whole world is overpopulated.
Here in Texas, for example, we have about 18 million people in a triangle about 200 miles on each side, from Dallas to Houston to San Antonio. That's less than 10% of the total area of Texas, but more than 2/3 the population. Texas has one county of 600 square miles, with a population of less than 100.
The thing is, we've all clumped ourselves together in tight spaces, that we think the whole world looks like what we see around us. The truth is that there are still vast, untouched spaces in the US and around the world.
We haven't really "conquered" the moon yet.
We would first establish a continuously inhabited moon base, begin to build some infrastructure. This would make the leap to Mars SO much more practical! We might even get to Mars sooner by leveraging a moon base, than by trying to get directly to Mars.
There is no appetite in the US to spend what it would take to make this happen. I hope Japan and China succeed. Maybe it will wake us up and get things moving again.
So they aren't wrong!
That's about like the oil companies arguing that they had to pay bribes to Nigerian officials because that was the only way to get things done. Now, the authorities are catching up with them, and the companies are paying a big price. Refusing to report ransomware to authorities because of fear of getting busted for paying ransoms...is short-sighted.
...who have never texted while at a red light, or called someone while driving, or otherwise used a cell phone in an illegal way?
Before you raise your hand and say, "I don't," watch out. Really? Never?
OK, my 75-year-old father never has. Maybe you're like him. But I doubt it.
Maybe the law is just catching up with reality.
Microsoft had a COM interface (IHtmlWebBrowser) nearly 20 years ago. When .NET came around, they offered the same headless functionality in the form of the WebBrowser object. The concept isn't new, the only thing that's new is that Chrome and Firefox are finally copying an old IE feature!
That would be 1.5 million burglaries, of course.
Software engineers have largely failed at security
No, not really.
In the US, there are about 1.5 burglaries reported each year. Does this mean that builders have "largely failed at security"? No.
There is always a cost/benefit analysis when it comes to security. Sure, you can fortify your home with bullet-proof glass and unbreakable doors. But who can afford that? Instead, we make a calculated gamble and fortify our homes to a level of security that makes sense considering our budget, what we have to protect, and the crime rate. And no matter what you do, if somebody wants in badly enough, they will find a way.
Businesses make exactly the same calculated gamble with their electronic security. This is quite reasonable and appropriate. Sure, they get it wrong sometimes, but so do people who live in those less-than-fortress homes.
Hearing a voice read the text would make it easier for your mind to create mental pictures as you play. I like it!
Who needs insurance??? If you can launch a rocket for 1/7 the cost, and you lose one, so what, just launch a second one. Now you're paying 2/7 of the cost!
The hardest part of introducing any new technology is getting people to adopt it. There are, and have always been, tons of inventions known and used by a few people here and there. Just watch those late-night infomercials to see some examples. Invention is the easy part, getting people to adopt it in large numbers--that's the hard part.
My biggest problem with tabs is that GitHub and other source code repositories do a terrible job of formatting tabs. If you use spaces, the formatting comes out consistently every time.
The networks are going to all basically need to go to a subscription model.
That is exactly what cable TV is! When it was introduced in the 70s, they sold cable TV by telling people, "Because you pay subscription fees, you won't have to watch any commercials!" Well, we all know how that turned out!
You're not wrong, but I'm counting the months until Netflix breaks down and starts allowing commercials of their own. There's just too much pressure from advertisers, they will eventually succumb. I hope I'm wrong.
That doesn't even cover what in my Documents folder.
Google already backs up Android devices, and has done so for several years now. When you buy a new Android phone, one of the setup prompts asks you if you want to enable backup for your phone. I've done so, and been able to move from one phone to another, taking nearly all my data with me. It even backs up most of the installed apps.
Of course, cable companies jerk around customers by charging them arbitrary fees for things they don't want. But aside from that, many of us hate having to watch 20 minutes of commercials an hour, for programming we supposedly paid a subscription to get. Netflix--so far--has stayed away from advertisements within the shows you watch. As long as they keep that up, they have MY money!
You mean, like the Tesla Gigafactory?
https://www.tesla.com/gigafact...
It's true that not every bank offers free checking. But if you're a customer of one of those banks, it's time to shop around, because there are plenty of banks that do.
If you're paying bank fees, I'd say you need to start shopping around! There are way too many free choices out there, to be stuck paying fees. I haven't paid account fees for decades.
You obviously have no idea about how depression works. Depression (the main cause of suicide) attacks people who are otherwise healthy, normal, and happy. It doesn't take a "reason" for someone to commit suicide. Usually there is a trigger, but it's not the reason. The reason is brain chemistry.
The office was replaced by robots, which did everything that the office used to do. Now the office is out of a job and looking for work.
They may never be able to charge for this, just like they've never been able to charge monthly account fees for checking accounts. But like checking accounts, they probably will attach strings to the service, like, you have to have a recurring direct deposit every month.
The main reason they can't ever charge outright is competition. There will always be another bank that will make it free.
that Bangalore programmers can't actually write code, and even if they can, they certainly can't design good software. I predict this will give Home Depot a strategic advantage.