Um, gee. Maybe the people who print the image will send Rob a proof, and he'll OK it.
You know, the way that happens with, like, everything that gets printed.
It doesn't matter what precise color is submitted. The only color that matters is the ink that gets sprayed on the shirt, and that one (I assume) will be the one Taco said "Yeah, that's right" for.
I hope it might happen. XPrize is a step in the right direction, but John Carmack's project isn't even allowed to buy hydrogen peroxide for fuel. Because they, like, might be terrorists or something.
ICBMs can be on-target in 15-30 minutes. Yes, once that launch decision is made, you can't recall them. However, once the bombs leave the bomb bay, you can't recall them either.
So, your decision horizon goes from (say) two minutes to thirty minutes. But it's hard to understand how you'd in such a fast-paced situation that that would be necessary.
Yeah, it takes something: Stabbing your business partner (IBM's PC division) in the back, and climbing over their corpse.
It's easy to get big if you have no scruples. All you have to do is have less integrity than the next guy.
Doesn't make it right.
If MS was so convinced they had a good product, they wouldn't be destroying competitors left right and center. They would let their products compete on their merits, not artificial lock-in tactics.
The key concept is to separate the heavy lift capabilities, which could be serviced with disposable rockets, from human rated rockets which need not be so large. A human-rated rocket that can carry six to eight people would be orders of magnitude cheaper to operate than Shuttle.
See, if you get 95-99% reliability on a cargo rocket, it makes financial sense to operate that rocket. Even if you lose one rocket in 20, or one in 100, that is a manageable cost.
Of course, that sort of reliability is not sufficient for human travel. However, if you have a reusable space craft with only a 3000lb payload, that is usefully large for moving people to and from the Space Station (assuming you think that's a useful thing to do...which I do not) and do research and experiments that Shuttle does today.
Shuttle tried to be a jack of all trades. It's neither cost effective as a heavy-lift rocket, nor safe for human travellers. Therefore, it's no good at what it does.
Re: SUVs, I believe that the truck-based SUVs on the road right now are marketed by criminally negligent companies. They don't seem to care that the 5000lb tanks are thrice as likely to kill somebody in the car that they hit than other vehicle designs.
Magical super safe design? Of course not. But to improve safety requires development and improvement, which is not happening in a real way at NASA (nor, parenthetically, at the truck merchants).
I like to differentiate between rockets (that combust) and cold-gas thrusters, although I don't know if there is a formal distinction in the definition of the term.
Why does an SMS message, that takes an infinitesimal amount of bandwidth, cost $.10, when (on some plans) a minute of two-way voice communication costs about $.30?
If you don't think that price is inflated, you're insane.
Hell, BOTH of those prices are inflated. Which is why I don't own a mobile phone.
Uh, many "science fiction" writers are illiterate to the basic principles of science, and that doesn't make the science fiction stories (at least the good ones) any less worthwhile.
"It's sad when young people are entertained..."
Huh? The books are about strong characters, working together to help other people.
If you think that Star Trek's "science" elements are any less fantastic than Harry Potter's "magic" elements, then you're deluded.
Want to learn about science? Study it. Don't pretend that literature is going to scratch the same itch. However, it's stupid to think that kids are somehow going to be less good at science for having read the HP books.
My science skills, for instance, are superb, and I have loved all five.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, gee. Maybe the people who print the image will send Rob a proof, and he'll OK it.
You know, the way that happens with, like, everything that gets printed.
It doesn't matter what precise color is submitted. The only color that matters is the ink that gets sprayed on the shirt, and that one (I assume) will be the one Taco said "Yeah, that's right" for.
...that the patient only needs to buy once.
Perhaps I could acquaint you with a company called Gillette. They sort of invented this idea. You make money on RECURRING PURCHASES.
OK, the point I was addressing was:
" I'd like to see some examples of innovations for profit being counter-productive for humanity"
And you have proven my contention that raw profit motive is, in fact, counterproductive for humanity.
I think we agree. Right? : )
Horse shit.
It is not the customer's responsibility to ask the corporation "Hey, how many people downstream did you give cancer to make this product?"
If the free market doesn't value environmental safety, that is a failure of the free market.
You're an objectivist, aren't you?
I hope it might happen. XPrize is a step in the right direction, but John Carmack's project isn't even allowed to buy hydrogen peroxide for fuel. Because they, like, might be terrorists or something.
They're different? Amazing.
That's a false advantage.
ICBMs can be on-target in 15-30 minutes. Yes, once that launch decision is made, you can't recall them. However, once the bombs leave the bomb bay, you can't recall them either.
So, your decision horizon goes from (say) two minutes to thirty minutes. But it's hard to understand how you'd in such a fast-paced situation that that would be necessary.
Well I, for one, wasn't born yet. I'm obviously not patriotic enough.
It SHOULD be that way, of course. However, I recommend you don't hold your breath.
NASA likes its monopoly just fine.
Like I said. Try to get your launch permit without NASA's permission.
You will be unable to do so.
Woohoo! Living in a third world country is GREAT!
Uh, no.
Great idea. Now try to get permission to launch your rocket from NASA.
Let me know how that works out for you.
Monsanto's terminator gene.
Poorly designed, high-profit-margin SUVs.
Pollution (since being responsible with industrial waste costs money).
And, of course, Microsoft's monopoly. Or any monopoly.
That's just four off the top of my head.
Yeah, it takes something: Stabbing your business partner (IBM's PC division) in the back, and climbing over their corpse.
It's easy to get big if you have no scruples. All you have to do is have less integrity than the next guy.
Doesn't make it right.
If MS was so convinced they had a good product, they wouldn't be destroying competitors left right and center. They would let their products compete on their merits, not artificial lock-in tactics.
Maybe that's his lucky haircut. I bet he thinks it gets him the ladies.
Nobody's told him it's actually the sacks of 100 dollar bills he uses as beanbag chairs.
Being a monopoly isn't technology, it's not difficult, and it's not original.
Although it's MS's only competitive advantage, it's certainly not innovation
Is it me, or is he looking more and more like a fat cat robber baron every day?
The key concept is to separate the heavy lift capabilities, which could be serviced with disposable rockets, from human rated rockets which need not be so large. A human-rated rocket that can carry six to eight people would be orders of magnitude cheaper to operate than Shuttle.
See, if you get 95-99% reliability on a cargo rocket, it makes financial sense to operate that rocket. Even if you lose one rocket in 20, or one in 100, that is a manageable cost.
Of course, that sort of reliability is not sufficient for human travel. However, if you have a reusable space craft with only a 3000lb payload, that is usefully large for moving people to and from the Space Station (assuming you think that's a useful thing to do...which I do not) and do research and experiments that Shuttle does today.
Shuttle tried to be a jack of all trades. It's neither cost effective as a heavy-lift rocket, nor safe for human travellers. Therefore, it's no good at what it does.
Re: SUVs, I believe that the truck-based SUVs on the road right now are marketed by criminally negligent companies. They don't seem to care that the 5000lb tanks are thrice as likely to kill somebody in the car that they hit than other vehicle designs.
Magical super safe design? Of course not. But to improve safety requires development and improvement, which is not happening in a real way at NASA (nor, parenthetically, at the truck merchants).
You're being intentionally stupid.
It is (essentially) a zero cost add on for the existing network. The phone company (as per usual) is soaking people.
Uh, yeah, because moving around teeny little text files is a task that requires absurd investment in infrastructure.
It's data. It's digital data. If it's a text message or one millisecond of voice, it's freakin' data.
I like to differentiate between rockets (that combust) and cold-gas thrusters, although I don't know if there is a formal distinction in the definition of the term.
Call it an idiosyncracy. : )
Uh, that's where my point about "lucrative" comes in.
Lucrative means "Makes a lot of money".
Now, I do not condone the slavery part, but the commerce angle has proven to be really good for the wealth of the world.
And no, don't get started on western exploitation of the third world. Mercantilism has been dead for a long time.
And that is relevant to today's situation...how exactly?
You are missing the point.
Why does an SMS message, that takes an infinitesimal amount of bandwidth, cost $.10, when (on some plans) a minute of two-way voice communication costs about $.30?
If you don't think that price is inflated, you're insane.
Hell, BOTH of those prices are inflated. Which is why I don't own a mobile phone.
Uh, many "science fiction" writers are illiterate to the basic principles of science, and that doesn't make the science fiction stories (at least the good ones) any less worthwhile.
"It's sad when young people are entertained..."
Huh? The books are about strong characters, working together to help other people.
If you think that Star Trek's "science" elements are any less fantastic than Harry Potter's "magic" elements, then you're deluded.
Want to learn about science? Study it. Don't pretend that literature is going to scratch the same itch. However, it's stupid to think that kids are somehow going to be less good at science for having read the HP books.
My science skills, for instance, are superb, and I have loved all five.