Oh, perfect! Accusing one's debating partner of a) failure to connect with reality and b) childish ideals and you immediately make all their salient points go away.
I see what you mean. Those darn communists want to tear up our Constitution, so they shouldn't get that guarantee of free speech. Or equal protection under the law. Or the right to a trial by a jury of their peers. Since they disagree with "us", we can oppress them as much as we want to, because there's 51% of "us" and we make the rules, by God!
You have absolutely no idea what America is all about. If the majority of the public finds that there is no place for ANY school of thought or belief in America, then THE MAJORITY OF THE PUBLIC IS WRONG. The PURPOSE of your vaunted Republic is to protect minorities from oppression. The idea is that We the People elect representatives to be wise stewards of our political power, and that does NOT include locking up people who disagree with us.
Now, you won't catch me arguing that the government is in fact acting as a wise steward, but there I go again with my childish idealism.
Yup! You're right. If MS had to offer a modular version of Windows, everything on every PC on the planet would grind to a screeching halt, not to resume until MS gets their act together and stops breaking the law.
You are making the same mistake MS is: That they are essential to our lives. I am looking forward to them being re-educated.
It's not the States' responsibility to design a version of Windows that is "marketable". It is the States' responsibility to ensure that Microsoft is no longer able to break the law using their OS monopoly.
Then you don't have much in the way of ethics, do you?
In other words, it's that sort of attitude that got us into this problem. "Doesn't matter what you do, so long as it increases shareholder value" is not the basis for a Free economy. It's the basis for corporate dictatorships.
I think the major market force that's going to stop us from seeing roll-your-own laptops is going to be the display. With all the shortages in the LCD market, nobody's going to want to deal with a small distributor who just needs a few thousand to sell to hardcore geeks like you and me.
Who knows...maybe when OLEDs come out in large sizes...they're supposed to be easier to fabricate.
However, I'd be pretty surprised if anyone actually made a laptop "form factor" along the lines of AT or ATX. I think the tolerances would be too tight to get a computer of respectably small size.
Your point about laptops is well taken. I guess the really big problem with being able to build a laptop is that in order to get a modular design (with, say, replaceable video and sound cards) you get a much larger form factor. It would be nice to see an internal PC card bus, like Apple has with their AirPort cards, but unfortunately I don't think there's enough drive that direction to make it happen.
I am really offended that, despite all the "competition" in the laptop market, there are zero manufacturers who have good trackballs built into the palm rests at the towards-me edge of the KB. Apple had that design sorted 15 years ago, and I do not understand why nobody uses it. A modern optical trackball would be just awesome.
I also liked HP's OmniPoint pop-out mouse. I wish somebody would scale it up a bit and use the design in a full-sized laptop.
The way I read you, I thought you were arguing for the status quo. I'm glad to hear that you aren't. : )
I believe that there's sufficient competition in the OEM PC market such that you can get what you want, if you look around for it. If you don't KNOW what you want, I argue that there are enough options out there that you're not going to get screwed by poor engineering from an OEM. (Unless you buy from Compaq, and then God help you!)
I think that OEMs should be able to add value via software, just as they add value via hardware today. I also believe that, just like I can replace the CD-burner Dell sold me with a DVD burner, I can easily replace my web browser with one I like better.
I submit that the brand of, for instance, DVD drive in your computer is pretty irrelevant for most consumers. I'd argue, in similar fashion, that the brand of web browser you use is pretty irrelevant. Most of 'em work well enough. My contention is that it should be just as easy to replace the browser as it is to replace the DVD drive. How does that grab you?
It seems to me like we're arguing both sides of the same point.
Look around enough, and you can find what you're looking for. The States are only trying to create the same open marketplace for OSes that the OEMs have.
Gateway has features you don't want to pay for? Don't buy one. You don't have that option if you want to, say, edit an Access database.
If MS could extend this to provide similiar agreements for students to install software at home for schoolwork (as if that's not already happening) then real academic work with Windows can finally begin to happen legally.
Gosh, you mean the vendors might have to actually sell their customers what the customers want to buy? You're right! This is the end of Capitalism! Man battle stations!
One of the major expenses is the heat-shield system. Every tile is indiviually shaped, and has to be inspected by hand and many many of them need to be replaced. I think that modern materials can do a much better job, and that would go a long way on reducing cycle cost.
The other big advantage would be to make the thing smaller. Use a small spaceplane to get crew up and back, but shoot your heavy payloads on a BDB.
I believe that incremental improvements in chemical rockets are not going to yield sufficient improvements. We need to work hard on alternatives. First: Aerospike engines. Second: Laser and/or mag-lev assistance. Third: Skyhooks.
There's a theoretical minimum weight and size that a fuel tank must have in order to safely contain the unused fuel, and then to support the thrust of the engines when empty. If you drop those tanks, you can better optimize your acceleration profile.
I'm tired of jacking around in LEO, and that's all we'll do until we start thinking hard about advancing our technological threshhold. Unfortunately, NASA has a vested interest in making sure that doesn't happen.
Fuel is dirt cheap, but handling the fuel and storing the fuel and using the fuel to launch the fuel to launch the fuel to launch the fuel is not cheap.
The extra mass does not cost you fuel. The extra mass costs you PAYLOAD.
And the fact that there's only one datapoint is the reason I made the qualifier "hasn't yet made sense". I look forward to being proved wrong, but I've got a nickel that says it won't happen soon.
You're absolutely right, I was using some verbal shorthand right there. I was really considering the specific thrust, the thrust per unit mass. Lighter engines which require less reaction mass are more "efficient" in the context I was using it. Aerospike engines might be incrementally more "efficient" than SSME's, but I don't think they're better enough to give really inexpensive SSTO travel.
There are two contentions that I'm making.
1) SSTO doesn't make sense, because you have to schlep a lot of dead weight into orbit with you. Once the fuel tank is empty, it's just drag and extra mass. Pitch it.
2) Reusable hasn't yet made sense, because it's almost less expensive to build a new one than to re-certify one for flight (where "one" is "whatever launch system we're discussing"). It may be that in the future, we'll have engineering technology such that we can re-certify the spacecraft with less intrusive inspections, but I don't think that the expense of that process is warranted, particularly for a system that's just for throwing big stuff into orbit.
Your point is well taken. Manned vs. unmanned shots require very different engineering constraints. I think it's unfortunate that NASA seems to be totally hell-bent on making one system that does both things well. And you're right, a large payload return module would be a useful thing to have in the inventory. But there's no reason to take it up there every time you launch.
Reusability is an absolute crock of shit. Just because it happens that the air (space?) frame is the same, doesn't make it cheaper to operate. The Shuttle is practically disassembled and reassembled each time it's launched. Cost per pound of payload for the Shuttle is large relative to other alternatives, like the boring ol' rockets.
You're right about the safety record...it's enviably good. But just because the rocket is reusable doesn't mean it's cheap.
Reusable single-stage launchers will not be cheap unless and until we get an order-of-magnitude increase in the efficiency of the engines. I would wager that with chemical rockets, this will not be feasible.
Cheap, one-shot boosters, designed for low cost rather than reusability, are the best way to do heavy-lift into space.
But how many of those mergers made the decision makers absurdly wealthy? I mean, you didn't REALLY think that the mergers happened to maximize shareholder value, did you?
...what the hell are you talking about? America should pay reparations to Japan for colonialist expansion? Have you ever even been in the same ROOM with a history book? Read about Japan's incursions into southeast Asia. Start with a place called Nanking. Oh, and then there's the whole Pearl Harbor thing, but we'll call that one even. THEN we'll talk about who is owed reparations.
"steal" marketshare...that's a good one. Only place it's illegal to steal marketshare is in Japan, where it's a state entitlement.
Don't get me wrong. I LOVE Japanese products. I drive a Miata and have a JVC VCR, Sony monitor, and several sets of Shimano bicycle components. I take issue with YOUR ignorant statements, not with the quality products that come out of a powerful industrial nation.
Yes, I've been trolled, but it was too good to pass up.
If you believe that that "of the people, by the people, for the people" nonsense is true, if it ever was, I've got some nice beach-front property in Luxembourg to sell you.
Yeah, well, when they asked me, I told 'em to let the Israelis rot in the sewer of their own hate, and to leave the poor Afghanis alone. They didn't listen.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, perfect! Accusing one's debating partner of a) failure to connect with reality and b) childish ideals and you immediately make all their salient points go away.
I see what you mean. Those darn communists want to tear up our Constitution, so they shouldn't get that guarantee of free speech. Or equal protection under the law. Or the right to a trial by a jury of their peers. Since they disagree with "us", we can oppress them as much as we want to, because there's 51% of "us" and we make the rules, by God!
You have absolutely no idea what America is all about. If the majority of the public finds that there is no place for ANY school of thought or belief in America, then THE MAJORITY OF THE PUBLIC IS WRONG. The PURPOSE of your vaunted Republic is to protect minorities from oppression. The idea is that We the People elect representatives to be wise stewards of our political power, and that does NOT include locking up people who disagree with us.
Now, you won't catch me arguing that the government is in fact acting as a wise steward, but there I go again with my childish idealism.
Idealism which I will defend unto my death.
Yup! You're right. If MS had to offer a modular version of Windows, everything on every PC on the planet would grind to a screeching halt, not to resume until MS gets their act together and stops breaking the law.
You are making the same mistake MS is: That they are essential to our lives. I am looking forward to them being re-educated.
It's not the States' responsibility to design a version of Windows that is "marketable". It is the States' responsibility to ensure that Microsoft is no longer able to break the law using their OS monopoly.
Sorry. You kinda hit me where I live on that one. *puts away flamethrower*
Then you don't have much in the way of ethics, do you?
In other words, it's that sort of attitude that got us into this problem. "Doesn't matter what you do, so long as it increases shareholder value" is not the basis for a Free economy. It's the basis for corporate dictatorships.
In other words, thanks for nothin'.
I think the major market force that's going to stop us from seeing roll-your-own laptops is going to be the display. With all the shortages in the LCD market, nobody's going to want to deal with a small distributor who just needs a few thousand to sell to hardcore geeks like you and me.
Who knows...maybe when OLEDs come out in large sizes...they're supposed to be easier to fabricate.
However, I'd be pretty surprised if anyone actually made a laptop "form factor" along the lines of AT or ATX. I think the tolerances would be too tight to get a computer of respectably small size.
Your point about laptops is well taken. I guess the really big problem with being able to build a laptop is that in order to get a modular design (with, say, replaceable video and sound cards) you get a much larger form factor. It would be nice to see an internal PC card bus, like Apple has with their AirPort cards, but unfortunately I don't think there's enough drive that direction to make it happen.
I am really offended that, despite all the "competition" in the laptop market, there are zero manufacturers who have good trackballs built into the palm rests at the towards-me edge of the KB. Apple had that design sorted 15 years ago, and I do not understand why nobody uses it. A modern optical trackball would be just awesome.
I also liked HP's OmniPoint pop-out mouse. I wish somebody would scale it up a bit and use the design in a full-sized laptop.
Trackpads and trackpoints suck.
The way I read you, I thought you were arguing for the status quo. I'm glad to hear that you aren't. : )
I believe that there's sufficient competition in the OEM PC market such that you can get what you want, if you look around for it. If you don't KNOW what you want, I argue that there are enough options out there that you're not going to get screwed by poor engineering from an OEM. (Unless you buy from Compaq, and then God help you!)
I think that OEMs should be able to add value via software, just as they add value via hardware today. I also believe that, just like I can replace the CD-burner Dell sold me with a DVD burner, I can easily replace my web browser with one I like better.
I submit that the brand of, for instance, DVD drive in your computer is pretty irrelevant for most consumers. I'd argue, in similar fashion, that the brand of web browser you use is pretty irrelevant. Most of 'em work well enough. My contention is that it should be just as easy to replace the browser as it is to replace the DVD drive. How does that grab you?
It seems to me like we're arguing both sides of the same point.
Look around enough, and you can find what you're looking for. The States are only trying to create the same open marketplace for OSes that the OEMs have.
Gateway has features you don't want to pay for? Don't buy one. You don't have that option if you want to, say, edit an Access database.
If MS could extend this to provide similiar agreements for students to install software at home for schoolwork (as if that's not already happening) then real academic work with Windows can finally begin to happen legally.
You say that like it's a good thing.
Gosh, you mean the vendors might have to actually sell their customers what the customers want to buy? You're right! This is the end of Capitalism! Man battle stations!
...why is this a bad thing?
Huh? Profits? Can you substantiate this claim? That sounds absurd.
One of the major expenses is the heat-shield system. Every tile is indiviually shaped, and has to be inspected by hand and many many of them need to be replaced. I think that modern materials can do a much better job, and that would go a long way on reducing cycle cost.
The other big advantage would be to make the thing smaller. Use a small spaceplane to get crew up and back, but shoot your heavy payloads on a BDB.
I believe that incremental improvements in chemical rockets are not going to yield sufficient improvements. We need to work hard on alternatives. First: Aerospike engines. Second: Laser and/or mag-lev assistance. Third: Skyhooks.
There's a theoretical minimum weight and size that a fuel tank must have in order to safely contain the unused fuel, and then to support the thrust of the engines when empty. If you drop those tanks, you can better optimize your acceleration profile.
I'm tired of jacking around in LEO, and that's all we'll do until we start thinking hard about advancing our technological threshhold. Unfortunately, NASA has a vested interest in making sure that doesn't happen.
Fuel is dirt cheap, but handling the fuel and storing the fuel and using the fuel to launch the fuel to launch the fuel to launch the fuel is not cheap.
The extra mass does not cost you fuel. The extra mass costs you PAYLOAD.
And the fact that there's only one datapoint is the reason I made the qualifier "hasn't yet made sense". I look forward to being proved wrong, but I've got a nickel that says it won't happen soon.
You're absolutely right, I was using some verbal shorthand right there. I was really considering the specific thrust, the thrust per unit mass. Lighter engines which require less reaction mass are more "efficient" in the context I was using it. Aerospike engines might be incrementally more "efficient" than SSME's, but I don't think they're better enough to give really inexpensive SSTO travel.
There are two contentions that I'm making.
1) SSTO doesn't make sense, because you have to schlep a lot of dead weight into orbit with you. Once the fuel tank is empty, it's just drag and extra mass. Pitch it.
2) Reusable hasn't yet made sense, because it's almost less expensive to build a new one than to re-certify one for flight (where "one" is "whatever launch system we're discussing"). It may be that in the future, we'll have engineering technology such that we can re-certify the spacecraft with less intrusive inspections, but I don't think that the expense of that process is warranted, particularly for a system that's just for throwing big stuff into orbit.
Your point is well taken. Manned vs. unmanned shots require very different engineering constraints. I think it's unfortunate that NASA seems to be totally hell-bent on making one system that does both things well. And you're right, a large payload return module would be a useful thing to have in the inventory. But there's no reason to take it up there every time you launch.
You go ahead and design a launch system that doesn't look like a penis.
There's a reason that rockets are basically long and cylindrical. It's called aerodynamics, and it's not negotiable.
I believe that we are in a race against our own self-destruction. Humans thrive on exploration and frontiers, and space is the only one big enough.
I'm not even that worried about extinction-level events. I'm worried about getting stir-crazy on this ball of rock, and killing each other.
Reusability is an absolute crock of shit. Just because it happens that the air (space?) frame is the same, doesn't make it cheaper to operate. The Shuttle is practically disassembled and reassembled each time it's launched. Cost per pound of payload for the Shuttle is large relative to other alternatives, like the boring ol' rockets.
You're right about the safety record...it's enviably good. But just because the rocket is reusable doesn't mean it's cheap.
Reusable single-stage launchers will not be cheap unless and until we get an order-of-magnitude increase in the efficiency of the engines. I would wager that with chemical rockets, this will not be feasible.
Cheap, one-shot boosters, designed for low cost rather than reusability, are the best way to do heavy-lift into space.
But how many of those mergers made the decision makers absurdly wealthy? I mean, you didn't REALLY think that the mergers happened to maximize shareholder value, did you?
...what the hell are you talking about? America should pay reparations to Japan for colonialist expansion? Have you ever even been in the same ROOM with a history book? Read about Japan's incursions into southeast Asia. Start with a place called Nanking. Oh, and then there's the whole Pearl Harbor thing, but we'll call that one even. THEN we'll talk about who is owed reparations.
"steal" marketshare...that's a good one. Only place it's illegal to steal marketshare is in Japan, where it's a state entitlement.
Don't get me wrong. I LOVE Japanese products. I drive a Miata and have a JVC VCR, Sony monitor, and several sets of Shimano bicycle components. I take issue with YOUR ignorant statements, not with the quality products that come out of a powerful industrial nation.
Yes, I've been trolled, but it was too good to pass up.
If you believe that that "of the people, by the people, for the people" nonsense is true, if it ever was, I've got some nice beach-front property in Luxembourg to sell you.
I have two words for you.
Power density.
Until our species comes up with batteries that do not suck ass, your vision will not come to pass.
Wow. That's a poem. : )
Yeah, well, when they asked me, I told 'em to let the Israelis rot in the sewer of their own hate, and to leave the poor Afghanis alone. They didn't listen.
Oh, wait...I forgot. They didn't ask.