many patents shouldn't have been issued, and if you did your homework you would realize that there is more in wifi tech than what wilcox and motorola have contributed. the difference between a lot of companies with patents and the csiro is that csiro actually invents things, rather that buying up patents like any commodity (hence they don't need to rip off motorola to make money from innovation).
CSIRO has been inventing things since before Motorola was even founded
maybe cos its a government research organisation, not a commercial company. maybe the difference is that many other government research orgs are quite happy to sink countless millions in taxpayer-funded grants into new tech that is merely ripped off by commercial companies, so that taxpayers get to pay for it twice-over.
what csiro does with patents in the commercial world is called "business".
i say good on csiro for working for their major shareholder - the aussie taxpayer.
people don't choose windows. if anything they put up with getting windows with a new PC through lack of choice. when you go to an OEM retailer, do you see any choice in operating systems that come with a non-mac system?
even with that lack of choice, more and more people are forking out much more money for the mac
if you think windows is a selling point in any pc, you're a moron, who i would expect to have endless trouble trying to convert to linux, not because it's hard, but because you're a moron (linux wasn't designed for morons; windows caters to that market well enough, and no that doesn't imply that anyone who uses windows is a moron you small-minded fool, it just means you are)
I'm arguing for mature transportation systems that reuse the launch vehicle, have very high frequency of launch, and for those two reasons, look nothing like any launch system in existence today.
if you're going to argue about abstract pipe dreams, then using coffee drunk by engineers is probably about as useful.
what if cost isn't measured the same way in such future? what about if humanity blows itself to kingdom come before then (highly likely)? what if the US dollar isn't a reserve currency (also possible)? what if aliens come to visit and everything we think we know gets turned on its head (live long and prosper)?
Nothing else has to be expended in a rocket launch.
if you only consider cost of propellant, then you're not considering overall launch costs (obviously). the workforce is a much more significant cost factor than propellant, rocket, etc (again, simply by comparison between Russia and USA), and will be similarly influential with any future launch system, regardless of how frequent the launches are.
if spacex launches three times a week, then using the same technology, the russians would be able to launch with the same frequency for a lower cost/kg. the rocket might be exactly the same, with the same amount of propellant, but the russians or the chinese will always be able to make more money from it that companies in the US. it is obvious even if you exclude all other differences and just look at the cost of labor on top of your fixed costs (rocket, propellant). look at mass-production as an extreme example (the number of space launches will never reach the quantity of shoes that can be mass-produced in a factory); even the relatively tiny difference in cost of producing a pair of shoes in the US and China makes moving production to China worthwhile. the difference in cost of launching a rocket in the US and China is much much higher, and it has nothing to do with propellant.
using the exact same technology and the same amount of propellant, different companies and countries will have different overall launch costs because of various other factors such as safety standards, minimum wage (significant), level of bureaucracy, legal environment (significant in the US because it makes insurance one of the biggest costs in any space launch), recouping R&D costs to break even, etc.
in the current economic and political environment, if trips to space were to all of a sudden become as frequent as trips in an aircraft, there is an excellent chance that operations will be conducted in either russia or china. cost of propellant ultimately doesn't count for shit when compared to all the other costs associated with putting anything in space, regardless of how often you do it. you're simply trying to compare a space launch to a trip in an aircraft or a car, which would be nice but not really comparable. even future space launches using horizontal takeoff and landing single stage to orbit will have costs far in excess of propellant.
if spacex ever actually becomes commercially viable, it won't remain in the US after competition from china comes into play. at the moment it survives as a government contractor.
its not, but propellant has no bearing on cost/kg, using comparison between russia and united states space launches as example
people factors have more bearing on cost than propellant, which is really fuck all in the big scheme of things. if your going to use some multiple of propellant costs for overall launch costs, you could very well use some multiple of the cost of coffee for the engineers and it would be just as valid
From the linked page in my previous reply (by Jerry Pournelle), he compares space flight today like taking a trip in an airliner and dumping the airliner in the ocean when you reach your destination, BUT... the Russians get around this by mass-producing their spacecraft (well, as far as spacecraft could be mass-produced).
the problem with using propellant as a metric is that the relationship of propellant with altitude isn't linear for getting to space (the relationship is actually well understood in the rocket equation), and other costs are similarly nonlinear, because of obstacles like radiation, reentry, mass fraction, safety systems (you can't pull over or glide to a controlled crash in orbit). The difference between Russians and Americans is bureaucracy, institutionalization, ladder climbing, and all the other things that Jerry Pournelle highlighted. The Russian way of doing things more closely resembles the US X program from the 50's. Kazakhstan isn't exactly the most hospitable place on earth, so it doesn't appeal to those who want nothing more than a comfy government desk job. If NASA ran its space program out of Kazakhstan, its costs would plummet and its efficiency would increase appreciably.
There are also some interesting articles at spacefuture.com about the status quo of space technology, and about the military value of space, and the suggestion that it has actually been in the US government's own interest to stall commercial and private space flight for military reasons isn't beyond the realm of possibility.
on the contrary... i can plug in some things (such as a USB-RS232 converter cable) into a linux machine and use it without loading any drivers, whereas I would have to install the supplied drivers from CD on a Windows box
typical hypocritical dumb shits... of course none of your your bullshit requires any proof (cos there is none)
but at least you're right about there being no chain of reasoning here (including throughout your posts)
actually both the americans and the russians together prove your bullshit posts wrong. russian launch cost/kg is a fraction of that of the ol' space shuttle, and they both launched to the same height. cost of space launches has more to do with people than propellent... this page explains:
the aussie government has easier ways to get blood from the google stone... an "Internet Superprofits Tax", followed closely by a "Google Streetview Car Tax"
while their at it, we might just see a "Windows Tax" soon, along with a "Porn Tax" and a "Slashdot Posting Tax"
you forgot "btw i've never invented anything or invested any significant amount of time developing a copyrightable work in my life cos i'm a dumb-shit loser"
what's broken is merely the systems that grant patents and enforce patent and copyright protection (actually its a theoretically workable system, but is currently corrupt, inefficient, bureaucratic, etc)
without any form of copy protection there would be no investment in R&D because there would be no return on that investment
in other words, if you wanted to watch gay midget pr0n, you would have to go out and find a midget and make the pr0n yourself first
i like debian's release names cos my whole family is a fan of toy story. dunno what they gunna do when the list of character names runs out though. maybe then they can go with finding nemo, another excellent pixar classic:)
not that it will make any difference to you, because nothing i can say will change your mind about linux, but for shits and giggles...
X86 has gotten so insanely powerful that it simply can't be replaced by ARM for a lot of jobs
i would be interested to know what jobs unique to x86 couldn't ever possibly be performed by arm
microcontrollers/soc are simply the evolution of the cpu (the latter merely being a subcomponent of the former). cramming half a motherboard into a package the size of a cpu is no mean feat, and their miniaturization and performance is increasing rapidly (similarly to the cpu 10 years ago).
it is frankly easier for businesses to write to Windows because Linux is a fractured mess
there is simply no compelling reason for linux on the desktop
there's also no compelling reason for linux not to take over the desktop. your ramblings are of someone who has obviously had some bad experiences with linux, but you not being able to solve your linux problems doesn't mean they aren't solvable, and linux is continually evolving. there are also many of mac and linux users that are unable to solve windows problems. its just a matter of what you are used to, and obviously you have more knowledge, experience and vested interest in windows than linux, and that's fine, but it doesn't by any means prove my op wrong.
there is simply no damned way in hell to QA hundreds of millions of lines of code and tens of thousands of packages which is why so much shit breaks all the time
you could be talking about any OS, including windows. do you know any company (besides microsoft) that has audited the source code for windows? at least the source code for linux can be (and is) audited by independent bodies, which is probably why the US DoD uses it; the U.S. Army is “the” single largest install base for Red Hat Linux" and the US Navy nuclear submarine fleet runs on Linux [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_adopters]. your point here is moot.
there is no Linux only killer apps for the masses
while the lamp stack isn't strictly a killer app, it is extremely popular among the masses and far more so than wamp due to zero upfront cost, integration (AMP is merely bolt-on software for windows) and because its easier to secure (no risk of viruses/malware, only have to secure against hacking). there are windows-only apps, but only due to third party developers (such as adobe and autodesk, etc). if windows started to lose ground and linux became a more prominent (read: profitable) market, you can bet linux versions of these would pop up. mirosoft has only superficial control over third party developers, are flock to windows because it makes money for them. if you think they have any kind of moral or legal obligation to support microsoft, or that they wouldn't abandon microsoft if it suited their business objectives, you are sadly mistaken.
Its just not a good value on the desktop
this is true, as i said in my op... for now, but the whole point of my op was to highlight the probability of this changing in the future as linux adoption gradually increases. your short-sightedness won't do you any favors... friend.
despite all the rest, possibly one good thing that might come out of it is a slight improvement in performance of some websites that opt out of using tracking due to potential for user backlash/abandonment
i personally hate those 1x1 pixel iframes that load go-knows-what 3rd party rubbish that chokes up my connection
the government doesn't have to prosecute, but if they're feeling a bit strapped for cash, they can just look up a database of offenders against this tracking cookie regulation and... chi-ching... easy money!!!
...other countries will be sure to follow suit soon enough
I just did some "light Googling" with all kinds of different keywords and I couldn't find a single article.
if you google with the objective of not finding something, there's a pretty good chance you won't find it
its probable that you were entering terms in an effort to return results that may help support to your own point of view (even if only subconsciously)
My general rule is if such a claim can't be backed up with some light Googling and the post has no links, it's trolling/flame
pity, because personal experience can in many cases be more valuable in a discussion than the opinion of some dumb-shit tech journo whose blog happens to pop up in your "light Googling"
Slashdot Mirror
NASA simply put men on the moon using technology invented during world war 2
everything seems simple in hindsight
many patents shouldn't have been issued, and if you did your homework you would realize that there is more in wifi tech than what wilcox and motorola have contributed. the difference between a lot of companies with patents and the csiro is that csiro actually invents things, rather that buying up patents like any commodity (hence they don't need to rip off motorola to make money from innovation).
CSIRO has been inventing things since before Motorola was even founded
maybe cos its a government research organisation, not a commercial company. maybe the difference is that many other government research orgs are quite happy to sink countless millions in taxpayer-funded grants into new tech that is merely ripped off by commercial companies, so that taxpayers get to pay for it twice-over.
what csiro does with patents in the commercial world is called "business".
i say good on csiro for working for their major shareholder - the aussie taxpayer.
i guess from that there are more than enough toy story characters, as long as the debian devs don't switch to an ubuntu release schedule
pffft. who's the troll then?
people don't choose windows. if anything they put up with getting windows with a new PC through lack of choice. when you go to an OEM retailer, do you see any choice in operating systems that come with a non-mac system?
even with that lack of choice, more and more people are forking out much more money for the mac
if you think windows is a selling point in any pc, you're a moron, who i would expect to have endless trouble trying to convert to linux, not because it's hard, but because you're a moron (linux wasn't designed for morons; windows caters to that market well enough, and no that doesn't imply that anyone who uses windows is a moron you small-minded fool, it just means you are)
I'm arguing for mature transportation systems that reuse the launch vehicle, have very high frequency of launch, and for those two reasons, look nothing like any launch system in existence today.
if you're going to argue about abstract pipe dreams, then using coffee drunk by engineers is probably about as useful.
what if cost isn't measured the same way in such future? what about if humanity blows itself to kingdom come before then (highly likely)? what if the US dollar isn't a reserve currency (also possible)? what if aliens come to visit and everything we think we know gets turned on its head (live long and prosper)?
Nothing else has to be expended in a rocket launch.
if you only consider cost of propellant, then you're not considering overall launch costs (obviously). the workforce is a much more significant cost factor than propellant, rocket, etc (again, simply by comparison between Russia and USA), and will be similarly influential with any future launch system, regardless of how frequent the launches are.
if spacex launches three times a week, then using the same technology, the russians would be able to launch with the same frequency for a lower cost/kg. the rocket might be exactly the same, with the same amount of propellant, but the russians or the chinese will always be able to make more money from it that companies in the US. it is obvious even if you exclude all other differences and just look at the cost of labor on top of your fixed costs (rocket, propellant). look at mass-production as an extreme example (the number of space launches will never reach the quantity of shoes that can be mass-produced in a factory); even the relatively tiny difference in cost of producing a pair of shoes in the US and China makes moving production to China worthwhile. the difference in cost of launching a rocket in the US and China is much much higher, and it has nothing to do with propellant.
using the exact same technology and the same amount of propellant, different companies and countries will have different overall launch costs because of various other factors such as safety standards, minimum wage (significant), level of bureaucracy, legal environment (significant in the US because it makes insurance one of the biggest costs in any space launch), recouping R&D costs to break even, etc.
in the current economic and political environment, if trips to space were to all of a sudden become as frequent as trips in an aircraft, there is an excellent chance that operations will be conducted in either russia or china. cost of propellant ultimately doesn't count for shit when compared to all the other costs associated with putting anything in space, regardless of how often you do it. you're simply trying to compare a space launch to a trip in an aircraft or a car, which would be nice but not really comparable. even future space launches using horizontal takeoff and landing single stage to orbit will have costs far in excess of propellant.
if spacex ever actually becomes commercially viable, it won't remain in the US after competition from china comes into play. at the moment it survives as a government contractor.
So why is nonlinearity a problem here?
its not, but propellant has no bearing on cost/kg, using comparison between russia and united states space launches as example
people factors have more bearing on cost than propellant, which is really fuck all in the big scheme of things. if your going to use some multiple of propellant costs for overall launch costs, you could very well use some multiple of the cost of coffee for the engineers and it would be just as valid
From the linked page in my previous reply (by Jerry Pournelle), he compares space flight today like taking a trip in an airliner and dumping the airliner in the ocean when you reach your destination, BUT... the Russians get around this by mass-producing their spacecraft (well, as far as spacecraft could be mass-produced).
the problem with using propellant as a metric is that the relationship of propellant with altitude isn't linear for getting to space (the relationship is actually well understood in the rocket equation), and other costs are similarly nonlinear, because of obstacles like radiation, reentry, mass fraction, safety systems (you can't pull over or glide to a controlled crash in orbit). The difference between Russians and Americans is bureaucracy, institutionalization, ladder climbing, and all the other things that Jerry Pournelle highlighted. The Russian way of doing things more closely resembles the US X program from the 50's. Kazakhstan isn't exactly the most hospitable place on earth, so it doesn't appeal to those who want nothing more than a comfy government desk job. If NASA ran its space program out of Kazakhstan, its costs would plummet and its efficiency would increase appreciably.
There are also some interesting articles at spacefuture.com about the status quo of space technology, and about the military value of space, and the suggestion that it has actually been in the US government's own interest to stall commercial and private space flight for military reasons isn't beyond the realm of possibility.
nah... more likely they will do what they want, and the rest of the world will just follow suit, at great pains and expense
if you're going to be convicted of monopolisation, you might as well make something of it
on the contrary... i can plug in some things (such as a USB-RS232 converter cable) into a linux machine and use it without loading any drivers, whereas I would have to install the supplied drivers from CD on a Windows box
surely you only need one /usr/sbin/pr0n -load -t "gay" -a "60+"
ultracoolusername@mypornpyewta:~$
ebay
yeah you tell em...
"microsoft, you're a bunch of assholes... now let me pay you a heap of money to prove to myself that you're a bunch of assholes!"
later, after purchasing several copies of win7...
"hehehe... suckers"
typical hypocritical dumb shits... of course none of your your bullshit requires any proof (cos there is none)
but at least you're right about there being no chain of reasoning here (including throughout your posts)
actually both the americans and the russians together prove your bullshit posts wrong. russian launch cost/kg is a fraction of that of the ol' space shuttle, and they both launched to the same height. cost of space launches has more to do with people than propellent... this page explains:
http://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/gettospace.html
the aussie government has easier ways to get blood from the google stone... an "Internet Superprofits Tax", followed closely by a "Google Streetview Car Tax"
while their at it, we might just see a "Windows Tax" soon, along with a "Porn Tax" and a "Slashdot Posting Tax"
i think the russians have proven all these bullshit theories wrong... for years
you forgot "btw i've never invented anything or invested any significant amount of time developing a copyrightable work in my life cos i'm a dumb-shit loser"
what's broken is merely the systems that grant patents and enforce patent and copyright protection (actually its a theoretically workable system, but is currently corrupt, inefficient, bureaucratic, etc)
without any form of copy protection there would be no investment in R&D because there would be no return on that investment
in other words, if you wanted to watch gay midget pr0n, you would have to go out and find a midget and make the pr0n yourself first
condescending attitude
hypocrite much?
you bought new boxes for linux!?
:)
dude you got ripped off
i just accept everyone else's junked windows boxes and replace the broken windows with linux ones
holy crap i must try out this windowlicker. sounds awesome!
oh wait hang on its java... i'd rather actually lick a window
i like debian's release names cos my whole family is a fan of toy story. dunno what they gunna do when the list of character names runs out though. maybe then they can go with finding nemo, another excellent pixar classic :)
X86 has gotten so insanely powerful that it simply can't be replaced by ARM for a lot of jobs
i would be interested to know what jobs unique to x86 couldn't ever possibly be performed by arm
microcontrollers/soc are simply the evolution of the cpu (the latter merely being a subcomponent of the former). cramming half a motherboard into a package the size of a cpu is no mean feat, and their miniaturization and performance is increasing rapidly (similarly to the cpu 10 years ago).
it is frankly easier for businesses to write to Windows because Linux is a fractured mess
apparently a number of big players disagree. refer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_adoption
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_adopters
there is simply no compelling reason for linux on the desktop
there's also no compelling reason for linux not to take over the desktop. your ramblings are of someone who has obviously had some bad experiences with linux, but you not being able to solve your linux problems doesn't mean they aren't solvable, and linux is continually evolving. there are also many of mac and linux users that are unable to solve windows problems. its just a matter of what you are used to, and obviously you have more knowledge, experience and vested interest in windows than linux, and that's fine, but it doesn't by any means prove my op wrong.
there is simply no damned way in hell to QA hundreds of millions of lines of code and tens of thousands of packages which is why so much shit breaks all the time
you could be talking about any OS, including windows. do you know any company (besides microsoft) that has audited the source code for windows? at least the source code for linux can be (and is) audited by independent bodies, which is probably why the US DoD uses it; the U.S. Army is “the” single largest install base for Red Hat Linux" and the US Navy nuclear submarine fleet runs on Linux [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_adopters]. your point here is moot.
there is no Linux only killer apps for the masses
while the lamp stack isn't strictly a killer app, it is extremely popular among the masses and far more so than wamp due to zero upfront cost, integration (AMP is merely bolt-on software for windows) and because its easier to secure (no risk of viruses/malware, only have to secure against hacking). there are windows-only apps, but only due to third party developers (such as adobe and autodesk, etc). if windows started to lose ground and linux became a more prominent (read: profitable) market, you can bet linux versions of these would pop up. mirosoft has only superficial control over third party developers, are flock to windows because it makes money for them. if you think they have any kind of moral or legal obligation to support microsoft, or that they wouldn't abandon microsoft if it suited their business objectives, you are sadly mistaken.
Its just not a good value on the desktop
this is true, as i said in my op... for now, but the whole point of my op was to highlight the probability of this changing in the future as linux adoption gradually increases. your short-sightedness won't do you any favors... friend.
despite all the rest, possibly one good thing that might come out of it is a slight improvement in performance of some websites that opt out of using tracking due to potential for user backlash/abandonment
i personally hate those 1x1 pixel iframes that load go-knows-what 3rd party rubbish that chokes up my connection
one can only hope
i think its pure genius...
...other countries will be sure to follow suit soon enough
the government doesn't have to prosecute, but if they're feeling a bit strapped for cash, they can just look up a database of offenders against this tracking cookie regulation and... chi-ching... easy money!!!
I just did some "light Googling" with all kinds of different keywords and I couldn't find a single article.
if you google with the objective of not finding something, there's a pretty good chance you won't find it
its probable that you were entering terms in an effort to return results that may help support to your own point of view (even if only subconsciously)
My general rule is if such a claim can't be backed up with some light Googling and the post has no links, it's trolling/flame
pity, because personal experience can in many cases be more valuable in a discussion than the opinion of some dumb-shit tech journo whose blog happens to pop up in your "light Googling"