I predict an American Hero Police Officer will take on the Evil Russian Police Officer, who, after having created the taser technology from blueprints co-worked by our hero's and villain's fathers, will seek unmitigated revenge on Hero Police Officer and his friends. Perhaps we could call it FerriteBatteryMan.
I'm not saying it's right, just that these folks are probably a step above genocidal maniacs. As far as maintenance costs, it would increase. They've removed the Other OS feature for the PS3 slim, so supporting game compatibility with that and a parallel, Other OS capable, PS3 Fat software build would take increased resources. They sell the console at a loss (or did until recently), so removing ways for people to use it that don't involve buying the games that make Sony money makes sense, as a corporation. If you think about it like a bean counter. I do agree with you that it's a terrible thing to do to your current customers though.
I don't really think it's that Sony is evil and they're on a "quest to take away every feature that made the PS3 a more desirable product over the xbox." Being a corporation that's interested in making money, it's more likely that someone said "increase profit margin, or lose your job" to someone down the ladder, and thus we got (1) reduction in hardware capability and hardware manufacturing price, and now (2) reduction in features in the software. What got them in a pickle in the first place was they made a box that was too expensive for most people to want to buy, and then had to suck features away to make it sustainable in the long run.
Sony _has_ been horrible to their customers in the past, and they're being horrid now, taking away features that people used to have. But it's not about poodle-shooting evil, it's about the "need" for increased profits pushing people to do unscrupulous things.
First it was build a shanty with a wall around it.
Then it was build a castle with a moat around it.
Now it's build a castle and put it in the moat, without having it burn down, fall over, or sink. Marvelous.
The Atlantic surface temperatures off Africa are already higher than normal, and meteorologists are predicting the end result will be an earlier entrance of hurricanes into the Gulf of Mexico.
Considering the size of the oil slick and the chance that hurricanes could be just a few months away, it looks like this hurricane season will be good and dirty.
While the requirements that drives ETDP (the current project that will evolve into ETDD) are based on the Constellation rocket stack (Ares I&V, Orion, Ares), the test readiness level of the technologies explored by this department are 3-6. That means taking something from a "this is reasonably feasible" phase to a "with minor tweaking you could shove this on a rocket" phase. ETDP and ETDD don't develop flight hardware, they develop potential solutions that end up getting turned into flight hardware.
Ares I and Ares IV have a minor role in the technology development for Constellation, honestly. "Virtually all of the current or already planned technology" seems unlikely, as the work currently being done from ETDP, at least on the thermal side, does not involve Ares whatsoever.
My primary disagreement with the original parent was the assertion that finally work like this is getting done, when in fact it's been getting done, and during a program that the original poster seems to think was hindering this progress. Furthermore, the requirements driving the actual flight hardware on Orion and Ares give a realistic "go-by" for the ETDP and ETDD work, as well as highlighting the technologies and areas where development is most beneficial.
In tech dev. it's a good thing to have a working article up and running nearby, because it gives good insight into what does and doesn't currently work well.
Over budget? Yep, Ares sure is. Behind schedule, yep.
Underfunded? Has been from the start.
If I go tell you to build a rocket ship and you come back to me and say it'll take 2.3 billion dollars (made up number), and I agree to the project, the next step for a successful project is NOT for me to then not pay you as much as you said you needed.
Going to the moon is hard. It's not any easier than it was in 1960. Technology has improved, but the sample size for learning about how to get there and what we can do better is ridiculously small. Saying that Ares has "failed" puzzles me. What did it fail at? Being paid? That problem does not stem from within the project. There are facets of the Ares design that some people would do differently. That's always going to happen. They had a rocket test that didn't go 100% as planned, and they had an abort rocket test that worked beautifully. That's why you test... to find out what works and what doesn't.
The only true failure I can see of the Ares rocket stack is its failure to be Obama's idea. If it had that going for it, it'd be full steam ahead. As it is, well, it's got hard times ahead of it.
Your title rings a bell, as I indeed intended to be all of these things, and I only managed to be a fireman, an avid musician, and a rocket scientist. Still working on the fame money and orbit parts of the plan; I'll let you know how it works out.
This reminds me of a discussion I was having recently about how public ownership of companies can be harmful to the market in some ways. It provides an influx of money for the company and allows people to become wealthy by supporting the company, but public ownership also means that many people own a company who don't give a damn about what the company does or makes or how they treat customers. All the public owners care about is cash flow.
When that happens, pressure from the top of the company gets put on people in the middle to do impossible things, and the result is often shitty decisions that hurt the career of the decision maker, the company in the long term, and especially the consumer.
A company has to make money. But a truly successful company that breeds loyalty with customers will make money through delivering a quality product competitively. In the end though that company has to be interested in what they're producing, and they have to care if they do it well. It seems that with a big enough company that is traded publicly, no one but the consumer and those laid off care at all if the company does a bad job and charges the same price as that for a good job.
So, have kids grow up watching Lassie, The Andy Griffith Show, and Family Matters and all shall be saved.
The part I never understood about assertions like the one above is that they assume that television is the only input we have to society, and that there is only one society in the country. We had a civil war almost 150 years ago and people on both sides still occasionally think it wouldn't be a bad plan to obliterate the other half of the country. There is certainly more than one true society in America, and with that knowledge, we simply have to choose which to be a part of. If you don't like the TV-commercial-o-minute-55%-of-the-fat-I'll-take-two-love-this-thing-and-buy-it-get-rich-quick-and-lazy society, and I don't blame you, remove yourself from it. Do something else with your time, and absorb yourself in something you deem more worthwhile.
Do you realize that this is essentially a renamed department from Constellation? Yeah, that manned space program. Did you know that the stuff they are and will be working on is just like the stuff they were working on for Constellation, except now, it doesn't have a defined mission.
Try designing a system and mission optimized system (to make it fun optimize it for anything you like) and send me your optimized design before you have any specific requirements.
Putting humans anywhere but earth is a tough job. It definitely costs more, you're right. However, it's that first part that makes the challenges more applicable than stuff here on earth. You may get raw science from a rover with some high percentage of what you'd get from having an actual scientist on site, but the challenges inherent in just achieving putting a human somewhere else and getting them back are, well, astronomical.
It is from that challenge that we're pushed to make more efficient environmental control systems, more strong, lightweight materials, better power management, and so on. You don't need more than current state of the art to send a robot anywhere. To send a human somewhere you need a lot better than state of the art, in many cases. That technology development helps improve terrestrial systems as well.
And it does it with style.
Slashdot Mirror
That's funny, because I (and a lot of other uses) am perfectly happy with KDE 4.4 and wouldn't go near gnome with a 3.048m barge pole...
All your Base10 are belong to Imperial.
I predict an American Hero Police Officer will take on the Evil Russian Police Officer, who, after having created the taser technology from blueprints co-worked by our hero's and villain's fathers, will seek unmitigated revenge on Hero Police Officer and his friends. Perhaps we could call it FerriteBatteryMan.
It was, right here, but no one read it. At least it's seeing the light of day now.
Because the articles are made of magic. Also, your signature is incredible.
Someone caught it! Thank you sir, you've made my day.
I'm not saying it's right, just that these folks are probably a step above genocidal maniacs. As far as maintenance costs, it would increase. They've removed the Other OS feature for the PS3 slim, so supporting game compatibility with that and a parallel, Other OS capable, PS3 Fat software build would take increased resources. They sell the console at a loss (or did until recently), so removing ways for people to use it that don't involve buying the games that make Sony money makes sense, as a corporation. If you think about it like a bean counter. I do agree with you that it's a terrible thing to do to your current customers though.
Unless the air is compressed into a liquid denser than water. Probably not what the octopus is doing... just saying.
Check if it's plugged in first.
What else causes a single bit-flip error in space?
Tweaking David Bowie's telescopic nipple antennae.
I don't really think it's that Sony is evil and they're on a "quest to take away every feature that made the PS3 a more desirable product over the xbox." Being a corporation that's interested in making money, it's more likely that someone said "increase profit margin, or lose your job" to someone down the ladder, and thus we got (1) reduction in hardware capability and hardware manufacturing price, and now (2) reduction in features in the software. What got them in a pickle in the first place was they made a box that was too expensive for most people to want to buy, and then had to suck features away to make it sustainable in the long run. Sony _has_ been horrible to their customers in the past, and they're being horrid now, taking away features that people used to have. But it's not about poodle-shooting evil, it's about the "need" for increased profits pushing people to do unscrupulous things.
Just yesterday I traveled over solid rock, and I've held someone's brain in on their way to go get surgery... does that count?
First it was build a shanty with a wall around it. Then it was build a castle with a moat around it. Now it's build a castle and put it in the moat, without having it burn down, fall over, or sink. Marvelous.
Pissing is fluid dynamics. Drink beer, attempt choked flow.
The Atlantic surface temperatures off Africa are already higher than normal, and meteorologists are predicting the end result will be an earlier entrance of hurricanes into the Gulf of Mexico. Considering the size of the oil slick and the chance that hurricanes could be just a few months away, it looks like this hurricane season will be good and dirty.
While the requirements that drives ETDP (the current project that will evolve into ETDD) are based on the Constellation rocket stack (Ares I&V, Orion, Ares), the test readiness level of the technologies explored by this department are 3-6. That means taking something from a "this is reasonably feasible" phase to a "with minor tweaking you could shove this on a rocket" phase. ETDP and ETDD don't develop flight hardware, they develop potential solutions that end up getting turned into flight hardware. Ares I and Ares IV have a minor role in the technology development for Constellation, honestly. "Virtually all of the current or already planned technology" seems unlikely, as the work currently being done from ETDP, at least on the thermal side, does not involve Ares whatsoever. My primary disagreement with the original parent was the assertion that finally work like this is getting done, when in fact it's been getting done, and during a program that the original poster seems to think was hindering this progress. Furthermore, the requirements driving the actual flight hardware on Orion and Ares give a realistic "go-by" for the ETDP and ETDD work, as well as highlighting the technologies and areas where development is most beneficial. In tech dev. it's a good thing to have a working article up and running nearby, because it gives good insight into what does and doesn't currently work well.
Over budget? Yep, Ares sure is. Behind schedule, yep. Underfunded? Has been from the start. If I go tell you to build a rocket ship and you come back to me and say it'll take 2.3 billion dollars (made up number), and I agree to the project, the next step for a successful project is NOT for me to then not pay you as much as you said you needed. Going to the moon is hard. It's not any easier than it was in 1960. Technology has improved, but the sample size for learning about how to get there and what we can do better is ridiculously small. Saying that Ares has "failed" puzzles me. What did it fail at? Being paid? That problem does not stem from within the project. There are facets of the Ares design that some people would do differently. That's always going to happen. They had a rocket test that didn't go 100% as planned, and they had an abort rocket test that worked beautifully. That's why you test... to find out what works and what doesn't. The only true failure I can see of the Ares rocket stack is its failure to be Obama's idea. If it had that going for it, it'd be full steam ahead. As it is, well, it's got hard times ahead of it.
Your title rings a bell, as I indeed intended to be all of these things, and I only managed to be a fireman, an avid musician, and a rocket scientist. Still working on the fame money and orbit parts of the plan; I'll let you know how it works out.
This reminds me of a discussion I was having recently about how public ownership of companies can be harmful to the market in some ways. It provides an influx of money for the company and allows people to become wealthy by supporting the company, but public ownership also means that many people own a company who don't give a damn about what the company does or makes or how they treat customers. All the public owners care about is cash flow. When that happens, pressure from the top of the company gets put on people in the middle to do impossible things, and the result is often shitty decisions that hurt the career of the decision maker, the company in the long term, and especially the consumer. A company has to make money. But a truly successful company that breeds loyalty with customers will make money through delivering a quality product competitively. In the end though that company has to be interested in what they're producing, and they have to care if they do it well. It seems that with a big enough company that is traded publicly, no one but the consumer and those laid off care at all if the company does a bad job and charges the same price as that for a good job.
So, have kids grow up watching Lassie, The Andy Griffith Show, and Family Matters and all shall be saved. The part I never understood about assertions like the one above is that they assume that television is the only input we have to society, and that there is only one society in the country. We had a civil war almost 150 years ago and people on both sides still occasionally think it wouldn't be a bad plan to obliterate the other half of the country. There is certainly more than one true society in America, and with that knowledge, we simply have to choose which to be a part of. If you don't like the TV-commercial-o-minute-55%-of-the-fat-I'll-take-two-love-this-thing-and-buy-it-get-rich-quick-and-lazy society, and I don't blame you, remove yourself from it. Do something else with your time, and absorb yourself in something you deem more worthwhile.
Do you realize that this is essentially a renamed department from Constellation? Yeah, that manned space program. Did you know that the stuff they are and will be working on is just like the stuff they were working on for Constellation, except now, it doesn't have a defined mission. Try designing a system and mission optimized system (to make it fun optimize it for anything you like) and send me your optimized design before you have any specific requirements.
Putting humans anywhere but earth is a tough job. It definitely costs more, you're right. However, it's that first part that makes the challenges more applicable than stuff here on earth. You may get raw science from a rover with some high percentage of what you'd get from having an actual scientist on site, but the challenges inherent in just achieving putting a human somewhere else and getting them back are, well, astronomical. It is from that challenge that we're pushed to make more efficient environmental control systems, more strong, lightweight materials, better power management, and so on. You don't need more than current state of the art to send a robot anywhere. To send a human somewhere you need a lot better than state of the art, in many cases. That technology development helps improve terrestrial systems as well. And it does it with style.