Just because I have an economic arrangement with the theater, doesn't mean I don't have a socially courteous obligation to my theater-mates. I was discussing only the economic issues. I particularly mentioned that I have no issues, by and large, with the conduct of my theater-mates. I don't find their behavior to be troublesome. They do not discourage me from going to the theater.
It might not be much of a leap, but it's a wrong one.
Their investment is not of interest to me. I enter into a contract at ticket purchase time: The theater lets me in, and I give them money. At this point, I forego seeing movies unless I'm sure they're going to be pretty darn good. If theaters improved the experience they offer, I might be more willing to take a chance.
In either case, what other people like or don't like doesn't really impact me. They're free to do as they wish.
One might argue that you're welcome to use the open source Tivo code on whatever device you might happen to be able to install it on. However, you won't be able to use it on the TiVo box, since it won't be signed. The hardware is not under any Open Source obligations.
I don't agree that this is an OK thing for TiVo to do, but that might well be their position.
TiVo puts their name on the hardware. They are using their brand to try to influence my purchasing decision. Therefore, if they put their name on crappy hardware, they shouldn't be surprised if I think their hardware is crappy.
Brand marketing works both ways. Both ways are equally stupid.
Gosh, my old Minolta with the built in light meter uses a little coin cell. I replaced it once, seven years after my dad gave it to me. What kind of batteries does your separate meter use, that weigh less than that?
Uh, no. I have no issues with the moviegoers. I have an issue with paying $8 to watch half an hour of commercials (like that insipid slide show) before the movie.
I don't even mind a couple movie trailers. Just not ten of them, thanks. And is a cartoon too much to ask for?
You seriously think the Senate represents the States' interest, and the House represents the Peoples' interests? Really? I think both of them represent the congresscritters' interest, which is to say the special interest groups' interests.
The People might like proportional represeentation, but the parties don't, so we won't get it. Bank on it.
ALL the services work together better now than they ever have. The next generation of close air support will be a soldier with a GPS-equipped laser, who can upload the coordinates of his target to whatever JDAM Small-Diameter Bombs might happen to be overhead right now. That'll make it like a 250 lb hand grenade.
The Marines are also supposed to be pretty self-sufficient. If I remember correctly, they tried Apaches but decided that the AH-1W Super Cobra was a better system for the missions they were called on to perform. It's also way less expensive.
Do you have any idea how many iterations this aircraft design went through before it flew, and successfully exceeded all of its design criteria?
Hint: More versions than all the software products you've ever seen since the day you were born.
Trying to compare the state of the art in software design to the state of the art in aerospace engineering is utter folly. Aircraft design is a mature, well understood art form. Good software design? Well, I'll let you know if I ever find any.
Aircraft can prove themselves. You fly them, and see if they do what they are expected to do. You fly them in all sorts of weird ways, and you find problems, and you fix them. That's why the only Joint Strike Fighters that have flown are called PROTOTYPES. They prove that the basic design is sound, and they serve as testbeds for the continuing refinement (typically followed by several more prototype aircraft, before the first production aircraft sees the light of day).
Your assumptions simply aren't valid. The fact that the Air Force has an empty bay where the Marine Corps has a lift fan simply doesn't compromise the aircraft's performance in any substantial way. Would it be theoretically better if there were purpose-built aircraft for each service? Sure. But the services know that Congress will never pay for them, particularly since the real cost both of development and production of combat aircraft has been growing dramatically since World War II.
The Space Shuttle is terrible engineering, driven by broken mission requirements. The Joint Strike Fighter is really impressive engineering, driven by reasonable and realistic mission requirements.
The Air Force likes single engine aircraft because they're simpler to maintain. The Navy likes two-engine aircraft because if you lose one engine, the aircraft can still land on the carrier. The Marines REQUIRE a V/STOL aircraft because their charter requires them to operate, either independently or jointly with other US forces, from small carriers. Jointly, the Pentagon took all those requirements and synthesized a design spec that would give the services the most bang for the buck.
There is no other country on Earth who can field a superior fighter to our current state of the art. Now, whether Congress kills the F-22 and/or the JSF is, of course, a separate issue. Aerospace is littered with great planes that, either by mismanagement or politics, died on the vine. Today's engineers are conscious of those failures, and we've learned from our mistakes.
Building great fighters is really hard and really expensive, and we're the best. That might not always be true (particularly if we lose one of our two remaining aerospace contractors), but fortunately the JSF is likely to be the last manned combat aircraft. UAVs are going to be much smaller and less expensive, so it's easy to justify producing lots of different designs as we explore the tactical utility of these aircraft.
How many aircraft have you designed? I've got a dollar that says I've designed more than you have. Aircraft design is my chosen field of expertise. I know more about it than I can easily explain on this freakin' web board.
If you think conformal fuel tanks aren't a big deal, go compare the performance specs of the F-15C vs the F-15E. Check out the differences between the F-18C and the F-18F. You might also note that each JSF variant will be built, from the wheels up, as a dedicated example of each service's requirements. The mods will not be interchangeable.
Modern aircraft are designed with flexibility in mind. It is folly to conclude that since multi-role aircraft didn't work well in the 60's that they don't work well today.
Our modern, multi-role aircraft (the F-16 and F-18) outperform every "pure fighter" on Earth (with the possible exception of the MiG-29, which is a superb aircraft hobbled by terrible avionics).
The Joint Strike Fighter program is the next step in the evolution of the multi-role fighter concept, a concept that our engineers and pilots have proven decisively in combat.
I've got issues with the JSF design. The clutch is going to be a nightmare. The Navy likes two-engined aircraft. This idea of putting a laser in the fuselage bay seems pretty far fetched. However, I personally know very smart people whose LIFE is going to be fixing these problems. Trust me: It's in good hands.
Check out the conformal fuel tank mods, and the bewildering variety of engine and avionics packages that go on the F-16's sold around the world.
What if an unforseen problem happens? Well, gee, I guess some smart engineers will have to solve it.
I never contended that fighter design is an exact science. It is, however, a very well refined art. The design tools we have right now enable truly phenomenal prediction and modeling of aircraft behavior.
I mentioned one time that I trust the credentials of the people who disagree with you more than I trust you. These EXPERTS say that it can be done. I've also mentioned that Mars is nothing like a closed Biosphere experiment-like system. But you don't want to hear that, either.
Experiments with closed ecosystems on Earth are interesting for a large number of reasons. However, those experiments are not an impediment to starting our Mars infrastructure TODAY.
You might think I'm an idiot. I don't much care. However, I have studied this problem, and there simply aren't any reasons not to go NOW.
B-29 C-130 707 747 (Actually, ALL the Boeing airliners, but these are the most conspicuously versatile ones) B-52 C-141 F-16
Each of these aircraft have been modified, some radically, to perform some really weird missions.
Gosh. That's just off the top of my head. Do problems develop? Of course. That's why there are engineers.
When those flaws are discovered, they can be fixed rapidly, and the fix deployed cheaply to the whole fleet. Having a different airplane, and having to figure out a whole different set of quirks, is not a better alternative.
Is it a compromise? Absolutely. It's a compromise to improve the price/performance ratio.
Frankly, I think the LMCO design's flaw is the clutch that runs the lift fan. I think the Marines and the Royal Navy got hosed on this deal. However, that flaw is not due to the design specs, but due to the design decision made by the selectors.
You can do clever things like blowing air out the trailing edge of the airfoil, making the surrounding air "think" it's going around a more efficient shape.
Having said that, this design still has a lot of advantages. It's not going to replace the super-efficient wings you see on long-haul airliners, but there are many missions for which it would be well suited.
Is it a piece of cake? OF COURSE NOT. But we're smart, and adaptable, and brave. Colonizing Mars is INEVITABLE. I just want to get the show on the road.
The thing you don't seem to appreciate is that Mars is fertile land. If we bring with us some hardware, we can create as much fuel, water, power, and breathable air as we need. With a little nitrogen (which may well be available on Mars, we're not certain until we get back a sample return mission) we can have agriculture there.
What do you imagine we'll need to import from Earth?
There is no reason that the first "closed" eco-system experiment shouldn't be on Mars. There is simply nothing stopping us. The plans are in place. All we need is a fraction of NASA's annual budget and some courage.
Slashdot Mirror
Killed him with a flashlight...and left a little origami chicken on his corpse.
"Doesn't mean I don't have an obligation..."
You need some reading comprehension classes.
...which is exactly what I said.
Projection is an ugly, ugly thing, amigo.
HAND.
Upgrading your TELEVISION violates the TOS? Come on. I'd really like you to validate that claim, because it smells like FUD to me.
Just because I have an economic arrangement with the theater, doesn't mean I don't have a socially courteous obligation to my theater-mates. I was discussing only the economic issues. I particularly mentioned that I have no issues, by and large, with the conduct of my theater-mates. I don't find their behavior to be troublesome. They do not discourage me from going to the theater.
It might not be much of a leap, but it's a wrong one.
Dude. I did not kick your dog. Settle down.
Where on EARTH do you get your assumptions?
I don't own a cell phone. I'm courteous to other movie goers.
What exactly did I say that pissed you off? Or are you just a general purpose asshole?
Their investment is not of interest to me. I enter into a contract at ticket purchase time: The theater lets me in, and I give them money. At this point, I forego seeing movies unless I'm sure they're going to be pretty darn good. If theaters improved the experience they offer, I might be more willing to take a chance.
In either case, what other people like or don't like doesn't really impact me. They're free to do as they wish.
The world won't end, no, but I won't get my money's worth.
One might argue that you're welcome to use the open source Tivo code on whatever device you might happen to be able to install it on. However, you won't be able to use it on the TiVo box, since it won't be signed. The hardware is not under any Open Source obligations.
I don't agree that this is an OK thing for TiVo to do, but that might well be their position.
That's ridiculous.
TiVo puts their name on the hardware. They are using their brand to try to influence my purchasing decision. Therefore, if they put their name on crappy hardware, they shouldn't be surprised if I think their hardware is crappy.
Brand marketing works both ways. Both ways are equally stupid.
Gosh, my old Minolta with the built in light meter uses a little coin cell. I replaced it once, seven years after my dad gave it to me. What kind of batteries does your separate meter use, that weigh less than that?
Uh, no. I have no issues with the moviegoers. I have an issue with paying $8 to watch half an hour of commercials (like that insipid slide show) before the movie.
I don't even mind a couple movie trailers. Just not ten of them, thanks. And is a cartoon too much to ask for?
Seeing as how you can still buy new vinyl, and you can't buy new tapes, I'd say your premise is flawed.
You seriously think the Senate represents the States' interest, and the House represents the Peoples' interests? Really? I think both of them represent the congresscritters' interest, which is to say the special interest groups' interests.
The People might like proportional represeentation, but the parties don't, so we won't get it. Bank on it.
Well, for the soldiers going into harm's way, the people shooting at them are "the bad guys".
Any other stupid politically-correct notions you'd like me to correct for you?
ALL the services work together better now than they ever have. The next generation of close air support will be a soldier with a GPS-equipped laser, who can upload the coordinates of his target to whatever JDAM Small-Diameter Bombs might happen to be overhead right now. That'll make it like a 250 lb hand grenade.
The Marines are also supposed to be pretty self-sufficient. If I remember correctly, they tried Apaches but decided that the AH-1W Super Cobra was a better system for the missions they were called on to perform. It's also way less expensive.
Do you have any idea how many iterations this aircraft design went through before it flew, and successfully exceeded all of its design criteria?
Hint: More versions than all the software products you've ever seen since the day you were born.
Trying to compare the state of the art in software design to the state of the art in aerospace engineering is utter folly. Aircraft design is a mature, well understood art form. Good software design? Well, I'll let you know if I ever find any.
Aircraft can prove themselves. You fly them, and see if they do what they are expected to do. You fly them in all sorts of weird ways, and you find problems, and you fix them. That's why the only Joint Strike Fighters that have flown are called PROTOTYPES. They prove that the basic design is sound, and they serve as testbeds for the continuing refinement (typically followed by several more prototype aircraft, before the first production aircraft sees the light of day).
Your assumptions simply aren't valid. The fact that the Air Force has an empty bay where the Marine Corps has a lift fan simply doesn't compromise the aircraft's performance in any substantial way. Would it be theoretically better if there were purpose-built aircraft for each service? Sure. But the services know that Congress will never pay for them, particularly since the real cost both of development and production of combat aircraft has been growing dramatically since World War II.
The Space Shuttle is terrible engineering, driven by broken mission requirements. The Joint Strike Fighter is really impressive engineering, driven by reasonable and realistic mission requirements.
The Air Force likes single engine aircraft because they're simpler to maintain. The Navy likes two-engine aircraft because if you lose one engine, the aircraft can still land on the carrier. The Marines REQUIRE a V/STOL aircraft because their charter requires them to operate, either independently or jointly with other US forces, from small carriers. Jointly, the Pentagon took all those requirements and synthesized a design spec that would give the services the most bang for the buck.
There is no other country on Earth who can field a superior fighter to our current state of the art. Now, whether Congress kills the F-22 and/or the JSF is, of course, a separate issue. Aerospace is littered with great planes that, either by mismanagement or politics, died on the vine. Today's engineers are conscious of those failures, and we've learned from our mistakes.
Building great fighters is really hard and really expensive, and we're the best. That might not always be true (particularly if we lose one of our two remaining aerospace contractors), but fortunately the JSF is likely to be the last manned combat aircraft. UAVs are going to be much smaller and less expensive, so it's easy to justify producing lots of different designs as we explore the tactical utility of these aircraft.
You are making a lot of assumptions there, bucko.
The Space Shuttle is a useless spacecraft.
How many aircraft have you designed? I've got a dollar that says I've designed more than you have. Aircraft design is my chosen field of expertise. I know more about it than I can easily explain on this freakin' web board.
If you think conformal fuel tanks aren't a big deal, go compare the performance specs of the F-15C vs the F-15E. Check out the differences between the F-18C and the F-18F. You might also note that each JSF variant will be built, from the wheels up, as a dedicated example of each service's requirements. The mods will not be interchangeable.
Modern aircraft are designed with flexibility in mind. It is folly to conclude that since multi-role aircraft didn't work well in the 60's that they don't work well today.
Our modern, multi-role aircraft (the F-16 and F-18) outperform every "pure fighter" on Earth (with the possible exception of the MiG-29, which is a superb aircraft hobbled by terrible avionics).
The Joint Strike Fighter program is the next step in the evolution of the multi-role fighter concept, a concept that our engineers and pilots have proven decisively in combat.
I've got issues with the JSF design. The clutch is going to be a nightmare. The Navy likes two-engined aircraft. This idea of putting a laser in the fuselage bay seems pretty far fetched. However, I personally know very smart people whose LIFE is going to be fixing these problems. Trust me: It's in good hands.
Check out the conformal fuel tank mods, and the bewildering variety of engine and avionics packages that go on the F-16's sold around the world.
What if an unforseen problem happens? Well, gee, I guess some smart engineers will have to solve it.
I never contended that fighter design is an exact science. It is, however, a very well refined art. The design tools we have right now enable truly phenomenal prediction and modeling of aircraft behavior.
I mentioned one time that I trust the credentials of the people who disagree with you more than I trust you. These EXPERTS say that it can be done. I've also mentioned that Mars is nothing like a closed Biosphere experiment-like system. But you don't want to hear that, either.
Experiments with closed ecosystems on Earth are interesting for a large number of reasons. However, those experiments are not an impediment to starting our Mars infrastructure TODAY.
You might think I'm an idiot. I don't much care. However, I have studied this problem, and there simply aren't any reasons not to go NOW.
Except for cowards like you.
B-29
C-130
707
747 (Actually, ALL the Boeing airliners, but these are the most conspicuously versatile ones)
B-52
C-141
F-16
Each of these aircraft have been modified, some radically, to perform some really weird missions.
Gosh. That's just off the top of my head. Do problems develop? Of course. That's why there are engineers.
When those flaws are discovered, they can be fixed rapidly, and the fix deployed cheaply to the whole fleet. Having a different airplane, and having to figure out a whole different set of quirks, is not a better alternative.
Is it a compromise? Absolutely. It's a compromise to improve the price/performance ratio.
Frankly, I think the LMCO design's flaw is the clutch that runs the lift fan. I think the Marines and the Royal Navy got hosed on this deal. However, that flaw is not due to the design specs, but due to the design decision made by the selectors.
So it's OK to attack the man, not the message, as long as you're not the man? Nice debating tactics, mate.
I'm done with you. You think it can't happen. I think it can. You're calling names. I'm done. HAND.
Yes, and yes.
You can do clever things like blowing air out the trailing edge of the airfoil, making the surrounding air "think" it's going around a more efficient shape.
Having said that, this design still has a lot of advantages. It's not going to replace the super-efficient wings you see on long-haul airliners, but there are many missions for which it would be well suited.
Is it a piece of cake? OF COURSE NOT. But we're smart, and adaptable, and brave. Colonizing Mars is INEVITABLE. I just want to get the show on the road.
The thing you don't seem to appreciate is that Mars is fertile land. If we bring with us some hardware, we can create as much fuel, water, power, and breathable air as we need. With a little nitrogen (which may well be available on Mars, we're not certain until we get back a sample return mission) we can have agriculture there.
What do you imagine we'll need to import from Earth?
There is no reason that the first "closed" eco-system experiment shouldn't be on Mars. There is simply nothing stopping us. The plans are in place. All we need is a fraction of NASA's annual budget and some courage.
When did I say I was an anarcho-capitalist? That's precisely what I want to get away from.
Mars doesn't have any murderous dictators on it.