Re:"Actively searching for new suppliers"?
on
iBox Episode 2
·
· Score: 1
Again. Apple can sell their products to whoever they want to. Spare parts are their products. If they were a monopoly, there might be another set of rules they need to follow, but that's not the case.
Bottom line: Apple sells Apple hardware and Apple software. They don't want unauthorized parties to do the same. They don't want parties to defraud Apple and resell their spare parts.
You might not like it, and you might not think it makes good business sense. You don't run Apple, so what you don't like doesn't make much difference.
Now, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, and scream about it on/. Just don't confuse that with your "right" to buy Apple hardware from any old source.
You don't have one.
Re:"Actively searching for new suppliers"?
on
iBox Episode 2
·
· Score: 1
Apple is not a convicted monopolist. Therefore, Apple is free to do things that MS is not.
Apple manufactures spares for repair of Apple computers, not for manufacturing competitive machines. Apple gets to sell, or not sell, their parts to whoever they want.
The LEM didn't operate in an atmosphere, therefore had nothing whatsoever to do with flight. Flight happens exclusively in atmospheres.
Some of the technologies are similar indeed, but the engineering of the vehicles is a totally different kettle of fish.
The shuttle's gliding capability is really a joke. Yes, it can sorta turn a little bit, and sorta guide itself, but it's on the ragged edge of controlled wing-borne flight. If the shuttle had not been designed by committee, (specifically, the Air Force, which absolutely demanded a winged vehicle, so that it could land at Vandenberg Air Base for some weird reason) it would not be a winged vehicle at all.
Gliders are unpowered, wing-borne flight. Some people consider lighter-than-air vehicles to fly, but I think it's a degenerate case. Jet-borne flight (like the Harrier) is a special case. Helicopters are certainly borne by their rotating wings.
Sure, it's a semantic argument, but that's the way the discussion was going...
Neither the Shuttle nor Apollo nor any other manned spacecraft perform powered descents. That is, they're all doing variously faithful impersonations of bricks.
So, by that argument, what these spacecraft do is not heavier-than-air "flight" (that is, using aerodynamic forces to travel through an atmosphere for a relatively long time).
Of course, you could twist the definition to include space capsules if you wanted to, but the reality is that atmospheric flight has very little to do with space travel, manned or unmanned.
Although I agree with your sentiment, there are reasons airplanes look the way they do.
The Comet you mentioned has two engines mounted in each wing root. Unfortunately, the design of the wing root fairing is absolutely critical to getting a low-drag airframe. Therefore, unless there's a really really good reason to put the engines there, locating them elsewhere greatly simplifies design.
Underwing pod-mounted engines are a relatively low-drag solution, and are also very easy to service.
Airliners with a canard planform could theoretically be more efficient than conventional airliners. However, many airport planners are concerned that handling such aircraft on the ground would be more complicated than conventional designs. This is not my area of expertise...I'm just parroting something I read somewhere. (I sure wish I had a bibliography for my brain...)
In my humble opinion, supersonic airliners will never be efficient enough to be cost-effective. Yes, it's certainly possible to design a super-cruising supersonic jetliner (say Mach 1.6 or so), those engines would almost certainly be clean-sheet-of-paper designs, or repurposed military engines. The first option would be absurdly expensive, and the second would be difficult to maintain on airliner duty cycles.
Professionally, there's no project I'd rather undertake than the design of a completely new airliner design. However, with the current state of civil aviation, it's not cost effective to do so. Bummer. : /
A lawsuit is a legal process in which one party (the plaintiff) asks a court to render judgement on another party (the defendant) about a legal matter.
In this case, the employees could sue (file a lawsuit) against their employer, asking the court to order the employer to pay them for their overtime. They could also sue to have the court order the employer to give the employees foot rubs while they work.
In other words, here in the US, anybody can sue anybody else for any reason. Some are just and reasonable, some are not. All are very very profitable for lawyers.
I don't know what the legal climate is like in your country, but around here it's kinda weird. : )
is enquire what the bonus structure is going to be like if you get the project done on time. Asking for things like extra vacation time or serious profit participation would be very appropriate.
Is the company entitled to expect you to make this sacrifice? No. But then again, you're not entitled to expect that they will continue to employ you.
Negotiate. If you resort to lawsuit, the only people who will make money are lawyers.
Re:Do younger minds absorb quicker?
on
Ageism in IT?
·
· Score: 1
Bottom line.
If you are making hiring decisions based on statistical assumptions about the abilities of individuals based on race, age, gender, creed, or any other stupid distinction you make between humans, you are incompetent and should be immediately sacked.
In order for that to work, you'd need to be putting a really large amount of microwave energy through the atmosphere.
I'm not talking about a rinky dink little cell phone repeater...I'm talking terawatts of power. Even if your collector is spread over a couple square kilometers, you'd get some gnarly updrafts in that region because of the H20 vapor in the air heating up.
Not saying that the problem couldn't be managed, but it's not the panacea people seem to think it is.
Re:Do younger minds absorb quicker?
on
Ageism in IT?
·
· Score: 1
Re:Do younger minds absorb quicker?
on
Ageism in IT?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
You know, I'm an engineer, and I'm not really good with a slide rule. I know the principles behind one, and I know without a doubt that if I needed to learn to use one, I could.
I do know how to use many more capable tools than a slide rule, and I've spent my time mastering those rather than a slide rule.
A good engineer knows the tools necessary for the job. They know that they can add more tools to their set if they need to, but they don't learn them for their own sake.
If assembler is important, learn it. But it's not important for its own sake: only as a means to an end. If that end is better served by other methods (which require less work) do that.
If it makes you feel any better, voting doesn't help. If you make little enough money to still have to pay tax, you obviously can't afford to buy enough votes to get anything useful done.
So you're more or less in the same boat as the rest of us. Welcome aboard, serf!
One thing you might consider is that if your application is so computation intensive that it requires a good-sized server farm, it would probably be cost-effective to spend some time doing hardware-specific optimizations for certain routines, which might not be so easily portable.
Or, in other words, it depends on what you're doing. : )
Slashdot Mirror
Again. Apple can sell their products to whoever they want to. Spare parts are their products. If they were a monopoly, there might be another set of rules they need to follow, but that's not the case.
/. Just don't confuse that with your "right" to buy Apple hardware from any old source.
Bottom line: Apple sells Apple hardware and Apple software. They don't want unauthorized parties to do the same. They don't want parties to defraud Apple and resell their spare parts.
You might not like it, and you might not think it makes good business sense. You don't run Apple, so what you don't like doesn't make much difference.
Now, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, and scream about it on
You don't have one.
Apple is not a convicted monopolist. Therefore, Apple is free to do things that MS is not.
Apple manufactures spares for repair of Apple computers, not for manufacturing competitive machines. Apple gets to sell, or not sell, their parts to whoever they want.
Hey, the poster actually got "loose" right. Cut them some slack on the nautical terminology. : )
Fair enough. You and NASA disagree with myself and John Andersen, who wrote my aerodynamics textbook.
The list of things I disagree with NASA about would fill a large number of posts.
I stand by my distinction. It's obviously open to interpretation. Moving along. : )
Your original statement has merit.
The LEM didn't operate in an atmosphere, therefore had nothing whatsoever to do with flight. Flight happens exclusively in atmospheres.
Some of the technologies are similar indeed, but the engineering of the vehicles is a totally different kettle of fish.
The shuttle's gliding capability is really a joke. Yes, it can sorta turn a little bit, and sorta guide itself, but it's on the ragged edge of controlled wing-borne flight. If the shuttle had not been designed by committee, (specifically, the Air Force, which absolutely demanded a winged vehicle, so that it could land at Vandenberg Air Base for some weird reason) it would not be a winged vehicle at all.
Gliders are unpowered, wing-borne flight. Some people consider lighter-than-air vehicles to fly, but I think it's a degenerate case. Jet-borne flight (like the Harrier) is a special case. Helicopters are certainly borne by their rotating wings.
Sure, it's a semantic argument, but that's the way the discussion was going...
You are splitting hairs.
Neither the Shuttle nor Apollo nor any other manned spacecraft perform powered descents. That is, they're all doing variously faithful impersonations of bricks.
So, by that argument, what these spacecraft do is not heavier-than-air "flight" (that is, using aerodynamic forces to travel through an atmosphere for a relatively long time).
Of course, you could twist the definition to include space capsules if you wanted to, but the reality is that atmospheric flight has very little to do with space travel, manned or unmanned.
Believe me. I know.
What model? Just curious.
That is truly amazing. An all-composite aircraft that size would be a technological tour de force.
I'm really eager to see what Aviation Week will have to say about this.
"same basic airframe design" in terms of the fact that it's the same gross layout.
Other than that, there is no direct association between the designs you mention. It's not just a matter of putting in fuselage plugs.
Although I agree with your sentiment, there are reasons airplanes look the way they do.
The Comet you mentioned has two engines mounted in each wing root. Unfortunately, the design of the wing root fairing is absolutely critical to getting a low-drag airframe. Therefore, unless there's a really really good reason to put the engines there, locating them elsewhere greatly simplifies design.
Underwing pod-mounted engines are a relatively low-drag solution, and are also very easy to service.
Airliners with a canard planform could theoretically be more efficient than conventional airliners. However, many airport planners are concerned that handling such aircraft on the ground would be more complicated than conventional designs. This is not my area of expertise...I'm just parroting something I read somewhere. (I sure wish I had a bibliography for my brain...)
In my humble opinion, supersonic airliners will never be efficient enough to be cost-effective. Yes, it's certainly possible to design a super-cruising supersonic jetliner (say Mach 1.6 or so), those engines would almost certainly be clean-sheet-of-paper designs, or repurposed military engines. The first option would be absurdly expensive, and the second would be difficult to maintain on airliner duty cycles.
Professionally, there's no project I'd rather undertake than the design of a completely new airliner design. However, with the current state of civil aviation, it's not cost effective to do so. Bummer. : /
A lawsuit is a legal process in which one party (the plaintiff) asks a court to render judgement on another party (the defendant) about a legal matter.
In this case, the employees could sue (file a lawsuit) against their employer, asking the court to order the employer to pay them for their overtime. They could also sue to have the court order the employer to give the employees foot rubs while they work.
In other words, here in the US, anybody can sue anybody else for any reason. Some are just and reasonable, some are not. All are very very profitable for lawyers.
I don't know what the legal climate is like in your country, but around here it's kinda weird. : )
Regards,
Lee
is enquire what the bonus structure is going to be like if you get the project done on time. Asking for things like extra vacation time or serious profit participation would be very appropriate.
Is the company entitled to expect you to make this sacrifice? No. But then again, you're not entitled to expect that they will continue to employ you.
Negotiate. If you resort to lawsuit, the only people who will make money are lawyers.
Obligation? No. Profit? Yes.
Seems to me like somebody clever enough to build a power plant to sell 'lectricity to short-sighted California tree-huggers is a pretty smart cookie.
Or Nantucket. Or New York. Or wherever.
Great! Let's reduce the world population. You first.
Wow. Answering vague ill founded objections with verifiable facts.
Who are you, and what have you done with Slashdot? : )
When the choice that's eliminated is one that's designed to enforce a hegemony, yes, that's good for consumer choice.
If you like IE, fine. Keep using 6.1.
Fortunately, the market for browsers on the Mac is much more robust than on Windows. Hooray!
Software update is not for software?
Guess you think it should be called "system update". I'm sure that changing that is right on top of Apple's priority list.
gamespy.com looks like hell in Mozilla.
Bottom line.
If you are making hiring decisions based on statistical assumptions about the abilities of individuals based on race, age, gender, creed, or any other stupid distinction you make between humans, you are incompetent and should be immediately sacked.
In order for that to work, you'd need to be putting a really large amount of microwave energy through the atmosphere.
I'm not talking about a rinky dink little cell phone repeater...I'm talking terawatts of power. Even if your collector is spread over a couple square kilometers, you'd get some gnarly updrafts in that region because of the H20 vapor in the air heating up.
Not saying that the problem couldn't be managed, but it's not the panacea people seem to think it is.
Makes me think of "Bride with White Hair", one of my all-time favourite Hong Kong movies.
You know, I'm an engineer, and I'm not really good with a slide rule. I know the principles behind one, and I know without a doubt that if I needed to learn to use one, I could.
I do know how to use many more capable tools than a slide rule, and I've spent my time mastering those rather than a slide rule.
A good engineer knows the tools necessary for the job. They know that they can add more tools to their set if they need to, but they don't learn them for their own sake.
If assembler is important, learn it. But it's not important for its own sake: only as a means to an end. If that end is better served by other methods (which require less work) do that.
If it makes you feel any better, voting doesn't help. If you make little enough money to still have to pay tax, you obviously can't afford to buy enough votes to get anything useful done.
So you're more or less in the same boat as the rest of us. Welcome aboard, serf!
You're right. Good thing Apple has the best record in the industry of handling hardware and software platform changes with a minimum of headache.
One thing you might consider is that if your application is so computation intensive that it requires a good-sized server farm, it would probably be cost-effective to spend some time doing hardware-specific optimizations for certain routines, which might not be so easily portable.
Or, in other words, it depends on what you're doing. : )