You mean those "classic MacOS zealots" who have been buying Macintoshes for twenty years, making sure the company doesn't die like it's supposed to have done every year since 1985? Gosh, I wonder why Apple wants to keep THOSE losers happy.
And since I am one of those losers, and I LIKE my desktop the way it was, and it doesn't cost YOU anything, why do you care?
(and can I please have my application menu back? Thanks.)
I certainly wouldn't argue that it would never be feasible to do automated life-scanning. People who say things like that are usually pretty wrong.
However, it's pretty easy to understand why the system as you describe was not included. And I, for one, happen to believe that the feasibility of manned missions will outstrip the development of very autonomous probes.
I hope so anyway. I think we need really smart machines, but people are the BEST exploration tool we know about. I think that should be our avenue of advance.
That's an interesting idea, but I think you're being way optimistic about current bandwidth and processor limitations on spacecraft.
You saw last week how long it takes to get high-resolution images back from the surface. How many of those, per minute, do you think we'd need to survey a useful amount of the theoretical Martian biosphere?
As far as current PC grade hardware, you'll find that that hardware doesn't work really well at all in the cosmic ray environment on Mars without LOTS of heavy shielding. The processors on the MER are really impressive for what they do, but for hunting for who-knows-what on high res images? I don't see how you'd do that. First of all, what do you tell it to look for? You can show a computer "This is a platelet. Count them." Can't do that with Martian critters, since we've never seen one.
So, again, I don't believe a biological "survey" microscope would have been a practical tool for this mission. Someday, sure. But I'd much rather put a biologist on the ground to drive the scope. People are smarter than machines.
Maybe it's because searching the planet with a microscope is going to take a really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really long time.
Look, I've hunted paramecia on a microscope slide from a specimen bottle FULL OF PARAMECIA. They're not always easy to locate.
So, searching with a microscope on the other end of a big laggy connection is not a very useful solution.
Or, maybe, we ought to start looking for life we know how to identify before trying to invent criteria for identifying life we've no prayer of understanding until we get boots on the ground up there.
I wonder if anybody with lots of letters after their name at JPL has considered that? You think?
Uh huh. and you're going to put water on the sponge and keep it from a) freezing and b) contaminating the science mission, how exactly?
Fans, huh? You know how good fans are at blowing dust out of your computer case? they're even worse when you're dealing with an atmosphere 1/100 as dense as Earth's.
Believe me. These engineers have spent WAY more time and brain power thinking about how to make this mission fail-safe than you have. If there were easy solutions, they'd have used them.
If there's enough standing water on the surface to make a six inch deep mud puddle on the plot of land that the MER hit, then we can say "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!" and get moving on a real long-duration Mars outposts. You know, the kind with people in 'em.
But that's not going to happen, because it's not mud.
More to the point, the Constitution doesn't grant ANY rights. It recognizes inalienable rights, endowed to each person by their creator, and enjoins the government from abridging those rights.
The rights have always been there (philosophically speaking). The Constitution merely acknowledges and protects them (unless you get your name put on somebody's list).
The generic bricks never went away. You could always still buy them. Nobody came to your house to take them away. They just had the AUDACITY to make some different sets that, in the case of the Star Wars sets, I happened to like very much, thank you. The new clicky hinges that came by the dozen in the new sets are AWESOME. With the exception of the TIE Fighter canopy, the pieces were small and generic (some were painted with logos, but not too many). Even the TIE canopy could be used for another model that needed a big, domed window.
This fable that LEGO sets somehow started coming out of the boxes in four parts is just silly. The set cost per piece has been pretty consistent over the last ten years. Yes, occasionally you'll get something like the shark or the horse that doesn't lend itself to doing much else with, but those pieces are in the vanishing minority.
It's like they don't even have anybody bother WRITING these things. They just fart out the same sound bites and hope they apply. Which they don't. Ever.
I destroyed countless toys in my childhood. I don't believe I was ever able to break a LEGO brick.
Now, there was one particular wheel design that was prone to failure when I abused it, and some of the decorative parts were on the fragile side, but the bricks themselves are infinitely more durable that the "click-alike" knock-offs.
The Star Wars sets are some of the best-designed, most imaginative sets I've ever seen. The new pieces that have been incorporated (I'm thinking specifically about the clicky hinges) are FREAKIN' BRILLIANT. They enable construction of fun TOYS instead of just neat models. Yes, the kit in the box is designed to make the thing on the front of the box, but any real LEGO fan has a couple tubs of other pieces to incorporate into anything really creative they want to do, and the new pieces really enable some neat new building techniques.
The Bionicle and the Sports stuff are indeed ridiculous. But you can still get a big ol' Tub O' Bricks at Toys R Us for $20 bucks, so I don't know what the problem is.
The Harry Potter stuff, I didn't really care about. I like the old-school Castle sets an awful lot, and the old-school Space sets. (I need them to bring back Blacktron.) I am convinced that the people who lament the "DEATH OF LEGO" haven't really applied their imagination to the new parts that are available.
The big wings, the clicky hinges, the new faceted canopy (I never liked the old ones with the finger hinges)...gosh. There are DOZENS of new part types that I've incorporated into other models. I love it.
Are there regions in the sky where an aircraft should not be permitted under ANY circumstances?
If so, then we need to evaluate systems that can enforce those regions. If not, well, then we can save ourselves a lot of money. Is this system a good idea? Maybe. Is it worth the cost? I don't know. Can it be designed properly? I'm certain it can. Will it be implemented justly? Probably not. Will it be retrofittable to a significant fraction of existing aircraft? Hell no.
None of these discussions are happening, though. Everybody's freaking out that Oh my GOD! THE PILOT CAN'T CONTROL THE AIRPLANE! which, if you had read the description of the system, is not even true.
Would I trust a system like this in my car with my family? If I was satisfied that it was designed properly and the security zones were appropriate, yes. I'm not one to impose risks on others I'm not willing to undertake myself.
Boy, if I was fighting an army, I'd really like that army to issue all its soldiers some sort of device that emits identification and location data that I can eavesdrop on. That would make it WAY easier for me to plan my ambushes.
You've never had to drive a Triumph in the rain, have you?
It's important to remember that launch costs are HUGE. Beagle 2 might not have cost very much all by itself, but the rocket that launched it (with its Mars Express companion ship) certainly wasn't cheap.
Yeah, it sure does suck when more people get new tools to be creative. I'd rather they just shut up and buy more SUVs.
You are an elitist prick. I like it when more people have access to neat tools. Sometimes, they do neat things with them. The rest of the time, I ignore the things that are not neat.
They WEREN'T targeting the average Windoze user (which, you might note, is a very large group of humans). They were targeting the Windoze user who was frustrated enough with their system to abandon a not-inconsiderable investment in software to go a different, but arguably better, route. That is not an average user.
By virtue of the fact that Windoze marketshare is easily 10x the size of Apple's, I'd say that a whole heck of a lot of "average" users were not (successfully) targeted by the Switch campaing.
Re: educational users, you have a good point. But Apple's marketing programs don't really do much targeting at education. Apple does well in edu because they've always done well in edu, and consistently return excellent value for the dollar.
I think you might have me confused with somebody who isn't a big Apple fan. Me, I'm counting the hours until I can get a hold of a custom-painted 15" Powerbook. Unless the 12" comes with the backlit keyboard, which will signal to me that all is right in the universe, and I'll buy one of those. I can survive OK on one kidney, right?
Slashdot Mirror
You mean those "classic MacOS zealots" who have been buying Macintoshes for twenty years, making sure the company doesn't die like it's supposed to have done every year since 1985? Gosh, I wonder why Apple wants to keep THOSE losers happy.
And since I am one of those losers, and I LIKE my desktop the way it was, and it doesn't cost YOU anything, why do you care?
(and can I please have my application menu back? Thanks.)
I hate to disagree with you, but I just did both of those things and they work as advertised.
Who in their right mind would buy ANYTHING from a random crazy person who emails them? PARTICULARLY pharmaceuticals?
There are no "good consumer instincts".
I certainly wouldn't argue that it would never be feasible to do automated life-scanning. People who say things like that are usually pretty wrong.
However, it's pretty easy to understand why the system as you describe was not included. And I, for one, happen to believe that the feasibility of manned missions will outstrip the development of very autonomous probes.
I hope so anyway. I think we need really smart machines, but people are the BEST exploration tool we know about. I think that should be our avenue of advance.
That's an interesting idea, but I think you're being way optimistic about current bandwidth and processor limitations on spacecraft.
You saw last week how long it takes to get high-resolution images back from the surface. How many of those, per minute, do you think we'd need to survey a useful amount of the theoretical Martian biosphere?
As far as current PC grade hardware, you'll find that that hardware doesn't work really well at all in the cosmic ray environment on Mars without LOTS of heavy shielding. The processors on the MER are really impressive for what they do, but for hunting for who-knows-what on high res images? I don't see how you'd do that. First of all, what do you tell it to look for? You can show a computer "This is a platelet. Count them." Can't do that with Martian critters, since we've never seen one.
So, again, I don't believe a biological "survey" microscope would have been a practical tool for this mission. Someday, sure. But I'd much rather put a biologist on the ground to drive the scope. People are smarter than machines.
Maybe it's because searching the planet with a microscope is going to take a really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really long time.
Look, I've hunted paramecia on a microscope slide from a specimen bottle FULL OF PARAMECIA. They're not always easy to locate.
So, searching with a microscope on the other end of a big laggy connection is not a very useful solution.
We need to bring the samples back here.
Or, maybe, we ought to start looking for life we know how to identify before trying to invent criteria for identifying life we've no prayer of understanding until we get boots on the ground up there.
I wonder if anybody with lots of letters after their name at JPL has considered that? You think?
Uh huh. and you're going to put water on the sponge and keep it from a) freezing and b) contaminating the science mission, how exactly?
Fans, huh? You know how good fans are at blowing dust out of your computer case? they're even worse when you're dealing with an atmosphere 1/100 as dense as Earth's.
Believe me. These engineers have spent WAY more time and brain power thinking about how to make this mission fail-safe than you have. If there were easy solutions, they'd have used them.
If there's enough standing water on the surface to make a six inch deep mud puddle on the plot of land that the MER hit, then we can say "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!" and get moving on a real long-duration Mars outposts. You know, the kind with people in 'em.
But that's not going to happen, because it's not mud.
latency's a bitch, though.
THREE WEEK PINGS?! Are you MAD!?
I would like authorities to do thir jobs while respecting privacy and all,
(Their problems are not my problems.)
I'm not sure it's even feasible.
(see above)
You don't want to give up a tiny bit of privacy?
(Nope.)
Then you may just have to give up the protection.
(Delighted. Where do I sign up?)
More to the point, the Constitution doesn't grant ANY rights. It recognizes inalienable rights, endowed to each person by their creator, and enjoins the government from abridging those rights.
The rights have always been there (philosophically speaking). The Constitution merely acknowledges and protects them (unless you get your name put on somebody's list).
The generic bricks never went away. You could always still buy them. Nobody came to your house to take them away. They just had the AUDACITY to make some different sets that, in the case of the Star Wars sets, I happened to like very much, thank you. The new clicky hinges that came by the dozen in the new sets are AWESOME. With the exception of the TIE Fighter canopy, the pieces were small and generic (some were painted with logos, but not too many). Even the TIE canopy could be used for another model that needed a big, domed window.
This fable that LEGO sets somehow started coming out of the boxes in four parts is just silly. The set cost per piece has been pretty consistent over the last ten years. Yes, occasionally you'll get something like the shark or the horse that doesn't lend itself to doing much else with, but those pieces are in the vanishing minority.
Uh, yeah, because games always ship right on the date some reseller's web site says they will. Wanna buy a monkey?
I remember Marathon being "scheduled" to ship for like a year by the catalog geeks. I'll believe it when I see a box on a shelf.
Sounds like my dad talking to himself when he's sleeping.
*poke*
"Grmurrgh...limits choice and harms consumers...*snore*"
*poke*
"*snort* freedom to innovate...*gurgle*"
*poke*
"*sniff* developers developers developers...*grumble*"
It's like they don't even have anybody bother WRITING these things. They just fart out the same sound bites and hope they apply. Which they don't. Ever.
Expensive does not mean overpriced.
I destroyed countless toys in my childhood. I don't believe I was ever able to break a LEGO brick.
Now, there was one particular wheel design that was prone to failure when I abused it, and some of the decorative parts were on the fragile side, but the bricks themselves are infinitely more durable that the "click-alike" knock-offs.
You're pretty silly.
The Star Wars sets are some of the best-designed, most imaginative sets I've ever seen. The new pieces that have been incorporated (I'm thinking specifically about the clicky hinges) are FREAKIN' BRILLIANT. They enable construction of fun TOYS instead of just neat models. Yes, the kit in the box is designed to make the thing on the front of the box, but any real LEGO fan has a couple tubs of other pieces to incorporate into anything really creative they want to do, and the new pieces really enable some neat new building techniques.
The Bionicle and the Sports stuff are indeed ridiculous. But you can still get a big ol' Tub O' Bricks at Toys R Us for $20 bucks, so I don't know what the problem is.
The Harry Potter stuff, I didn't really care about. I like the old-school Castle sets an awful lot, and the old-school Space sets. (I need them to bring back Blacktron.) I am convinced that the people who lament the "DEATH OF LEGO" haven't really applied their imagination to the new parts that are available.
The big wings, the clicky hinges, the new faceted canopy (I never liked the old ones with the finger hinges)...gosh. There are DOZENS of new part types that I've incorporated into other models. I love it.
The bottom line question is this:
Are there regions in the sky where an aircraft should not be permitted under ANY circumstances?
If so, then we need to evaluate systems that can enforce those regions. If not, well, then we can save ourselves a lot of money. Is this system a good idea? Maybe. Is it worth the cost? I don't know. Can it be designed properly? I'm certain it can. Will it be implemented justly? Probably not. Will it be retrofittable to a significant fraction of existing aircraft? Hell no.
None of these discussions are happening, though. Everybody's freaking out that Oh my GOD! THE PILOT CAN'T CONTROL THE AIRPLANE! which, if you had read the description of the system, is not even true.
Would I trust a system like this in my car with my family? If I was satisfied that it was designed properly and the security zones were appropriate, yes. I'm not one to impose risks on others I'm not willing to undertake myself.
launched on a smaller, and less expensive rocket.
Launch costs aren't linear with throw weight, of course, but several thousand dollars/pound is not a bad estimate.
Boy, if I was fighting an army, I'd really like that army to issue all its soldiers some sort of device that emits identification and location data that I can eavesdrop on. That would make it WAY easier for me to plan my ambushes.
Talk about catastrophically stupid ideas...
I'm pretty sure the terrorists can figure out how to get themselves into that group. Call me crazy.
You've never had to drive a Triumph in the rain, have you?
It's important to remember that launch costs are HUGE. Beagle 2 might not have cost very much all by itself, but the rocket that launched it (with its Mars Express companion ship) certainly wasn't cheap.
So anybody with the audacity to criticize or lampoon anybody who happens to be Jewish or Israeli is an anti-semite?
Kind of like here in America, where everyone who opposes affirmative action is a KKK loving hatemongering racist.
Just so's I understand.
Yeah, it sure does suck when more people get new tools to be creative. I'd rather they just shut up and buy more SUVs.
You are an elitist prick. I like it when more people have access to neat tools. Sometimes, they do neat things with them. The rest of the time, I ignore the things that are not neat.
They WEREN'T targeting the average Windoze user (which, you might note, is a very large group of humans). They were targeting the Windoze user who was frustrated enough with their system to abandon a not-inconsiderable investment in software to go a different, but arguably better, route. That is not an average user.
By virtue of the fact that Windoze marketshare is easily 10x the size of Apple's, I'd say that a whole heck of a lot of "average" users were not (successfully) targeted by the Switch campaing.
Re: educational users, you have a good point. But Apple's marketing programs don't really do much targeting at education. Apple does well in edu because they've always done well in edu, and consistently return excellent value for the dollar.
I think you might have me confused with somebody who isn't a big Apple fan. Me, I'm counting the hours until I can get a hold of a custom-painted 15" Powerbook. Unless the 12" comes with the backlit keyboard, which will signal to me that all is right in the universe, and I'll buy one of those. I can survive OK on one kidney, right?