The way the article read to me, the engineers said
"Engineering is complicated, and difficult. There are lots of things that can go wrong. We did the very, very best we could to make sure we covered all our bases, but if something WERE to go wrong, odds are, it would be here."
The journo spun that to mean that "These people are just throwin' the bones. Who knows if this thing is going to work?"
I don't have any particular insight into this project, but my strong suspicion is that there's less drama than this writer might want to imply.
1) NASA's funding is miniscule. That is, teeny teeny teeny tiny. Your share of NASA's funding last year was probably less than a movie ticket. Get over it.
2) Your taxes NEVER decrease. They might change color, but you never get that money back. Anybody who tells you different wants to snow you.
If you suppose that the movie would be substantially better (all other things being equal) with a white actor, you're deluded.
You're picking up on the most insignificant factor of why this movie might or might not be any damn good, and turning it into a race war.
That's bullshit, dude, no matter how many times you point to your tired, hackneyed, point.
Is race used in marketing? You betcha. So is sex and money. Want a cause to fight for? Fight the marketroids that turn us into nothing more than our demographic statistics. Leave Will Smith alone. He's done some good stuff, he's done some bad stuff. He's made me laugh a few times, and made me think a few times. (He's also made me cringe a few times. Bad Boys 2? Oh man...) I can't ask for much more than that from a performer.
Or, the poster might be opining that King's work has gone downhill. Dreamcatcher was a conspicuous exception, but much of King's stuff from the last 10 years or so has been really poor. In my opinion.
But I guess it's cool to suppose that other people are being contrary just for contrary's sake.
I don't understand why it's important to make more money than competitor X.
I can understand why it's good to be more profitable on a per-unit than competitor X (by doing business more cleverly and efficiently), but just raw more money isn't a win.
Yes, economies of scale often select for larger rather than smaller operations, but it's important to remember that you can still get rich with a small company.
I'll blame Microsoft for it, I'll blame Microsoft's stock holders for it. I'll blame the labor laws, and I'll blame the courts. I'll blame anybody who profits from the exploitation of those contractors. I'll blame anybody who has the power to stop the practice and doesn't do it.
ALL of those people are, to a greater or lesser degree, responsible for the practice of taking advantage of contractors. It needs to stop.
The T-38 cannot carry missiles without extensive refitting. T means Trainer. It is never armed.
Now, the Northrop F-5 Tiger shares most of the airframe and some powerplant options with the T-38, and it can be fitted with radar and weaponry. I don't know, however, if it has ever been fitted with Air to Ground Missiles (like the Maverick).
You don't have to be an ethical person to succeed.
That doesn't mean you shouldn't be an ethical person. In MY life, that means that I will choose my ethics and my morality over my short-term success, every single time.
It's called integrity. It pays off in the long run.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, because Apple is famous for releasing product specs ahead of time.
What color is your sky?
The way the article read to me, the engineers said
"Engineering is complicated, and difficult. There are lots of things that can go wrong. We did the very, very best we could to make sure we covered all our bases, but if something WERE to go wrong, odds are, it would be here."
The journo spun that to mean that "These people are just throwin' the bones. Who knows if this thing is going to work?"
I don't have any particular insight into this project, but my strong suspicion is that there's less drama than this writer might want to imply.
The thing is, I can almost reconstruct what the engineers actually told this journalist from his overwrought, overdramatized story.
The people who built this thing are smarter and more numerous than the person who's telling us about it. Keep that in mind.
I don't care whether he did it fairly. He did it ILLEGALLY.
Therefore, I think his fortune should be forfeit.
Lower taxes if NASA folds?
What color is the sky on your planet?
1) NASA's funding is miniscule. That is, teeny teeny teeny tiny. Your share of NASA's funding last year was probably less than a movie ticket. Get over it.
2) Your taxes NEVER decrease. They might change color, but you never get that money back. Anybody who tells you different wants to snow you.
Because alpha males are fucking assholes. Just because it's primate dynamics doesn't mean I have to put up with it.
Baseless, except his giving started at about the same time he a) started getting into hot legal water and b) got married.
So I think there's a good argument to be made that he's not being wholly altruistic.
Which is, of course, his prerogative.
Ayn Rand was a fascist.
Get over it.
...huh?
If you suppose that the movie would be substantially better (all other things being equal) with a white actor, you're deluded.
You're picking up on the most insignificant factor of why this movie might or might not be any damn good, and turning it into a race war.
That's bullshit, dude, no matter how many times you point to your tired, hackneyed, point.
Is race used in marketing? You betcha. So is sex and money. Want a cause to fight for? Fight the marketroids that turn us into nothing more than our demographic statistics. Leave Will Smith alone. He's done some good stuff, he's done some bad stuff. He's made me laugh a few times, and made me think a few times. (He's also made me cringe a few times. Bad Boys 2? Oh man...) I can't ask for much more than that from a performer.
Didn't say he wasn't black, either. As a matter of fact, I don't recall Asimov mentioning race in any of his stories.
So what's wrong with casting a black actor? YOU might not like Smith, and that's cool. Protest because you think he's untalented.
Not because he's black.
Yeah, because there are no black people in the future.
Any time you get a black actor cast in a role, it is political correctness run amok. It's never because they're, well, pretty talented or anything.
If by "stole" you meant "paid a licensing fee as stated in a contract between two companies", then yes, Apple stole Xerox's GUI.
In other words, I would do a little bit more fact checking if I were you.
Or, the poster might be opining that King's work has gone downhill. Dreamcatcher was a conspicuous exception, but much of King's stuff from the last 10 years or so has been really poor. In my opinion.
But I guess it's cool to suppose that other people are being contrary just for contrary's sake.
something something, with ketchup, and other stuff.
No clue.
Why would I go to see it? Why would I bother? What, I'm supposed to shell out $8 just to have an educated opinion?
Their marketing was designed to cause me to form an opinion. It did. That opinion is negative. Hoist by their own petard...
I was being facetious, referring to nits as tiny little tasty insects. Very crunchy. Just a joke. : )
Yeah, you can do whatever you want, as long as you're rich.
What the hell kind of ethical structure is that?
I don't understand why it's important to make more money than competitor X.
I can understand why it's good to be more profitable on a per-unit than competitor X (by doing business more cleverly and efficiently), but just raw more money isn't a win.
Yes, economies of scale often select for larger rather than smaller operations, but it's important to remember that you can still get rich with a small company.
Bullshit.
I'll blame Microsoft for it, I'll blame Microsoft's stock holders for it. I'll blame the labor laws, and I'll blame the courts. I'll blame anybody who profits from the exploitation of those contractors. I'll blame anybody who has the power to stop the practice and doesn't do it.
ALL of those people are, to a greater or lesser degree, responsible for the practice of taking advantage of contractors. It needs to stop.
On that, we are in total agreement.
I was just pickin' nits. Want some?
Nitpick:
The T-38 cannot carry missiles without extensive refitting. T means Trainer. It is never armed.
Now, the Northrop F-5 Tiger shares most of the airframe and some powerplant options with the T-38, and it can be fitted with radar and weaponry. I don't know, however, if it has ever been fitted with Air to Ground Missiles (like the Maverick).
Anyhow. Moving along. : )
Er, how do you support privately held companies with investment dollars?
If they sell me stock, they're not privately held...
Because success is amoral.
You don't have to be an ethical person to succeed.
That doesn't mean you shouldn't be an ethical person. In MY life, that means that I will choose my ethics and my morality over my short-term success, every single time.
It's called integrity. It pays off in the long run.
Formulaic!=bad.