The quote in the article (about satellite size and H-bombs) is about the existence of ICBMs dramatically lowering the start up costs of the early satellite launchers, not about weapon sizes dictating launch capabilities throughout the history of space flight. So we have gone a bit off the rails. The part where the weapons development absorbed much of the costs is quite obviously true, the discussion about the primary driver of greater lift capability is somewhat muddier, but it seems to me that National pride projects (mostly launching humans) have been the big source of funds.
Right, because the kind of people that will spend their days slogging through a few hundred lottery tickets a day looking for winners are exactly the kind of people that will still give you 50% of their winnings the day after you teach them the trick (rather than say, financing their own lottery ticket buying with the money you paid them on the first day).
And the people running the lottery, a system designed to bilk low income people out of money, will not notice someone massively turning the tables on them.
The idea that he would extract more than a few tens of thousands of dollars is just preposterous.
They are scratch off tickets, not drawing tickets. So each round of each game (the different games are just different gimmicks, for marketing) has a fixed number of tickets and a fixed number of winning tickets, and both those numbers are 'small'.
I would guess that there are plenty of wealthy, not particularly tech savvy, older people. And they are a great market for the iPad and iPhone (especially the part where owning one makes them feel more tech savvy).
I would also guess that only a very small section of their market is so put off that they do not buy Apple because of the association (making it a not particularly risky move for Apple).
It's obviously cutting into their market share (for example, I don't own any Apple devices), what it doesn't seem to be doing is hurting their revenues and profits.
I imagine that smart criminals are somewhere in between not using Facebook at all and only using it in a limited context (say, for the social part of their lives, which they compartmentalize from the criminal part of their lives).
I hope its music player is much, much better seeing as iPods are built to be music players.
doesn't work in the iPod-PC relationship, why is it naturally a given that it must work in the Android-iPod relationship?
Basically, Android devices and the iPod are both small general purpose computers, I think it is strange that you would expect one to be quite a lot better at playing music than the other.
I haven't seen any music specific device with a better interface than various audio players running on a computer, so I can't really say I follow your reasoning.
You still haven't done anything to start to establish a standard for non-organization that will be widely acceptable. You happily agree that two neighbors discussing politics does not a party make, but how about 20 residents of village that agree about many issues or 200,000 residents of a state that are very motivated regarding a single issue?
Note that I'm not insisting that parties are a necessary part of the political process, I'm pointing out that, at least to some extent, they arise naturally from it (that is, as long as like minded people can organize together to increase their influence, they are likely to do so).
What does that even mean? I mean, where do you draw the line? Are two neighbors allowed to discuss politics, or is that too close to them coming together as an organization?
The problem is that the even the w3c has backed off that recommendation, and this feels as much like a mistake as it does Slashdot trying to adopt a recommendation...
It still shows up in the html. The italics are being suppressed by css to the effect of
* {font-style: inherit;}
Which is quite fashionable, it tells the browser to to discard all default styles, so that the designer can build them from the ground up. It also leads to the rather interesting
I saw Fox news giving a woman airtime to argue that Muslims were not all terrorists.
I watched it for 15 seconds, and they did have a guy there to roll his eyes and argue the counterpoint, but they weren't exactly not airing what she was saying.
Still, people making $250,000 are 'part of the problem', what with gdp per member of the workforce being somewhere around $90,000-$100,000, and gdp per person being something like $45,000-$50,000.
The government didn't loan them money, they took equity in exchange for cash infusions (and made a profit when the market prices of the companies rapidly went back up). Apparently a functioning banking system with government intervention was worth more than no banking system at all.
They certainly were gambling with the money though.
That's a bit much, the richest people involved in the bailouts were the banks, and for the most part, the government actually made money on that investment. AIG was a giant black hole, but protecting all those insurance policies was likely worth it.
Slashdot Mirror
The quote in the article (about satellite size and H-bombs) is about the existence of ICBMs dramatically lowering the start up costs of the early satellite launchers, not about weapon sizes dictating launch capabilities throughout the history of space flight. So we have gone a bit off the rails. The part where the weapons development absorbed much of the costs is quite obviously true, the discussion about the primary driver of greater lift capability is somewhat muddier, but it seems to me that National pride projects (mostly launching humans) have been the big source of funds.
The air temperature is key for melting snow, but warm air does get warm for a reason.
(even on those record low days you talk about, ever notice the wider swing between day and night temperatures?)
You're dangerously close to pointing out the exception that proves the rule.
Sure, the multi-billion dollar government research platform is modular, but where are all the modular commercial satellites?
Right, because the kind of people that will spend their days slogging through a few hundred lottery tickets a day looking for winners are exactly the kind of people that will still give you 50% of their winnings the day after you teach them the trick (rather than say, financing their own lottery ticket buying with the money you paid them on the first day).
And the people running the lottery, a system designed to bilk low income people out of money, will not notice someone massively turning the tables on them.
The idea that he would extract more than a few tens of thousands of dollars is just preposterous.
Or just notice it and change the rules (either not allow inspection until purchase, or fix the information leak on the tickets).
Well, it is somewhat reasonable to infer that the O.P. meant enough permutations for the game, not all the possible permutations.
They are scratch off tickets, not drawing tickets. So each round of each game (the different games are just different gimmicks, for marketing) has a fixed number of tickets and a fixed number of winning tickets, and both those numbers are 'small'.
Just buy her a washtub, a box of candles and a few cord of wood.
Then make a habit of throwing away her fresh foods during the winter.
I would guess that there are plenty of wealthy, not particularly tech savvy, older people. And they are a great market for the iPad and iPhone (especially the part where owning one makes them feel more tech savvy).
I would also guess that only a very small section of their market is so put off that they do not buy Apple because of the association (making it a not particularly risky move for Apple).
It's obviously cutting into their market share (for example, I don't own any Apple devices), what it doesn't seem to be doing is hurting their revenues and profits.
I imagine that smart criminals are somewhere in between not using Facebook at all and only using it in a limited context (say, for the social part of their lives, which they compartmentalize from the criminal part of their lives).
PCs are not built to be music players, so if
I hope its music player is much, much better seeing as iPods are built to be music players.
doesn't work in the iPod-PC relationship, why is it naturally a given that it must work in the Android-iPod relationship?
Basically, Android devices and the iPod are both small general purpose computers, I think it is strange that you would expect one to be quite a lot better at playing music than the other.
I haven't seen any music specific device with a better interface than various audio players running on a computer, so I can't really say I follow your reasoning.
I would assume that they want the carriers blamed for low quality devices.
Apple gets the blame for IOS devices no matter what.
You still haven't done anything to start to establish a standard for non-organization that will be widely acceptable. You happily agree that two neighbors discussing politics does not a party make, but how about 20 residents of village that agree about many issues or 200,000 residents of a state that are very motivated regarding a single issue?
Note that I'm not insisting that parties are a necessary part of the political process, I'm pointing out that, at least to some extent, they arise naturally from it (that is, as long as like minded people can organize together to increase their influence, they are likely to do so).
They shouldn't have used baking soda as gunpowder.
What does that even mean? I mean, where do you draw the line? Are two neighbors allowed to discuss politics, or is that too close to them coming together as an organization?
The problem is that the even the w3c has backed off that recommendation, and this feels as much like a mistake as it does Slashdot trying to adopt a recommendation...
It still shows up in the html. The italics are being suppressed by css to the effect of
Which is quite fashionable, it tells the browser to to discard all default styles, so that the designer can build them from the ground up. It also leads to the rather interesting
later on.
The mind does boggle.
I saw Fox news giving a woman airtime to argue that Muslims were not all terrorists.
I watched it for 15 seconds, and they did have a guy there to roll his eyes and argue the counterpoint, but they weren't exactly not airing what she was saying.
Still, people making $250,000 are 'part of the problem', what with gdp per member of the workforce being somewhere around $90,000-$100,000, and gdp per person being something like $45,000-$50,000.
They have a really crappy web interface for the mailing list archives that they host.
Prosperity has to be built on prosperity (that is, all consumption is backed by real production).
The mountain of debt just means that when you look at some consuming you might not find any reasonable connection to some producing.
(Of course, consumption can also be backed by wealth, but that is just stored production)
The government didn't loan them money, they took equity in exchange for cash infusions (and made a profit when the market prices of the companies rapidly went back up). Apparently a functioning banking system with government intervention was worth more than no banking system at all.
They certainly were gambling with the money though.
give your childrens' money to the rich
That's a bit much, the richest people involved in the bailouts were the banks, and for the most part, the government actually made money on that investment. AIG was a giant black hole, but protecting all those insurance policies was likely worth it.