Well, not quite. I was thinking more along the lines of what it took to get 220v 3ph run out to my detached garage. Starting from the garage and working back to the power drop, every dammed step seemed to incur extra expense (bringing stuff up to code, etc...). And you don't seem to understand that these are outdoor installations, not indoors, which incur extra expenses all on their own.
If you were 15 back in 1977 - Carrie Fisher was very sexy. Anyone much younger than that has lived through the MTV and Baywatch eras... and may have different views due the media sexuality overload that started in the 80's/90's.
Having worked with large industrial scale battery chargers for forklifts and telco C.O.s in the past, I see there is around a 5x to 10x corruption level going on there.
i find it more likely that you don't realize that costs you're calling 'corruption' likely include the costs of the support infrastructure (I.E. new power drops, new wiring, etc...) as well as the costs of the charger.
One thing to point out is that there is a certain stigma in an educational setting that go against 'real-world' applications. Speaking from experience, the computer science program which I went through focused purely on the academic aspects of programming - graph theory, sorting, developing text based games - and left the students to their own devices in terms of source code management, standards, and conventions.
That's because you went to a school with an actual computer science program - rather than an IT programs gussied up with a fanciful title to mislead people into think they're getting something they aren't.
I complained to the computer science director regarding the lack of real world application to what was being taught on numerous occasions but was constantly told I did not know what I was talking about.
That's because you don't know what you're talking about. The director seems to have known the difference between IT and computer science, and seem to remain (willfully) ignorant of it. The core problem seems to be that you went to school to gain a specific skill set, but couldn't be bothered get off of your arse and ensure the school you selected taught the skill set you wanted - and you're blaming the school for it.
It is important to remind people that college is not a trade school
Actually, historically that's exactly what colleges have been - vocational and trade schools. The belief that they are otherwise not only runs contrary to that, but also seems to be utterly without foundation. Even a liberal arts degree is vocational, it was meant to produce teachers and individuals with the knowledge and skills to take their 'proper' station in life.
just go with the old project Orion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion%29) if you have to use fission, its still the most effective one.
To the extent that something that's never been tested can be said to be 'effective' sure.
Seriously, Orion has gained a reputation all out of proportion to reality. Few people seem to realize that not one single significant component has ever been built, let alone tested at even the most modest scale. None. Zero. Zip.
Yes, I know about the scale models they built - and they're roughly as relevant as an R/C car is to Formula One racing. The R/C vehicles 'proves' that a four wheeled vehicle can operate, but doesn't have an IC engine and the stresses on the suspension are orders of magnitude below those the Formula One racer experiences - not to mention the vast differences in aerodynamics. The same is true of the Orion scale models. They had no pusher plate or shock absorbers. They depended on the atmosphere to produce the propulsive shock waves. Etc., etc..
While it's true there are no obvious show stoppers, there are a lot of unanswered questions - particularly in the behavior of the pusher plate and the shock absorber system.
Also, few people realize the whole craft is designed around nuclear weapons of a type that don't exist - extremely small, extremely light, highly efficient, very clean (I.E. most of their yield was from fusion rather than fission) fusion weapons. Dyson and his team had very little access to nuclear weapons design details (something less than is publicly available today), and thus were relying on shaky assumptions about the direction of nuclear weapons research and the capabilities of nuclear weapons.
Anytime anyone even thinks about mixing "nuclear" and outer-space (even radioisotope generators as used on many space probes) all the anti-nuclear groups kick up a huge fuss.
Yes, look at the fuss kicked up over New Horizons and Curiosity... Oh, wait there wasn't any.
Seriously, this myth (about anti-nuclear activists) needs to die in a fire. Over time, the protests have gotten quieter and quieter and come from ever further out on the lunatic fringe - until, over the last few years, they've become essentially silent. (Cynics among the space community think this is because the Usual Suspects in such protests became busy with Anti-Bush/Iraq protests and have moved on to the Occupy movement.)
I didn't say there were no automatic systems - I said you were mistaken about how they were used and the role of the captain and crew. (And really, you're citing something that clearly labels itself as a rumor - and then claiming you don't know "how official it is"?)
Google up the salvage of the K-141 Kursk, the same method was used to cut away the damaged portions so the balance could be salvaged for disposal ashore.
Right the ship, drain the fuel and leave it there. You only have to stop it from sinking, you don't need to make it seaworthy. There you have it, a top-notch hotel in a prime location with every facility you could possibly need.
Well, no. Righting it without refloating it means the engineering spaces (I.E. generators, distillers for making fresh water, sewage systems, etc...) are almost certainly still flooded. Not to mention that all your hotel storage (food, booze) is down low in the hull as well. So it's going to require considerable modification to either have these services aboard, or considerable shoreside infrastructure to provide them.
And then, in a winter or two, you'll get a good storm that moves the hull and batters it against the rocks... destroying it anyhow.
If only it were that easy... But, as always, the devil is in the details.
Plan B:
Won't work.
It worked on the Mythbusters because the hull was entirely submerged, while the Costa Concordia is only partially submerged. If you watch the Mythbusters clip, you'll note that it just barely brings the hull to the surface with the entire hull filled with ping pong balls - while the Costa Concordia already has a good portion of it's hull above water.
Yes, and no. While ships do have automatic steering and courses can be programmed in, it's not like the ship runs it's entire course from start to finish without human intervention.
He was steering by the seat of his pants
I.E. like all ships are when they are in anything but clear open water - and even then there are lookouts, radar operators, and helmsmen under the supervision of the Captain or a duty officer ready to intervene 24/7.
I wonder if this is another case, like the Air France crash in the Atlantic, where automation has taken over to the point that the humans no longer have the skills to fly the plane or sail the ship and maybe they shouldn't be allowed to.
No, it's more of a case where (at best) you've gotten mistaken information from somewhere or (at worst) you're completely unaware of how things actually work.
Actually - large cruise ships *do* have two Captains... The Captain is responsible for the ship, systems. navigation, and operations. The Staff Captain runs the hotel side of things (but defers to the Captain where his responsibilities supersede).
And do not try to school me about my confusion, because I WILL have confusion.
In other words, you're a complete an total fucking idiot - because not only do you spout utter bullshit, you *know* it's bullshit and yet you cling to it anyhow.
But I also create software for a few (aka 3) of the largest companies in the world. So STFU, child.
You're also an insecure prick who suffers under the delusion that bragging about irrelevant things adds weight to your words. Here's news for you, it doesn't. It just adds weight to the conclusion that you're a total fucking idiot.
Learn to accept analogies, metaphors, etc.as not necessarily reality but good for illustrating ideas.
Learn the difference between analogies, metaphors, etc. and fantasy. The former are indeed good for illustrating ideas, the latter isn't.
If you can print at home (or store) basic kitchen utensils and other implements whose composition is simple and traditionally cast from moulds you do have the potential to eliminate logistical expense. Whether the 3D printer is cheaper to purchase and maintain than the savings gained due to simplifying logistics is another issue.
If that's what you meant, why didn't you say that in the first place rather a bunch of bloviated bullshit?
But by the time they decided to enter the consumer digital camera market, they had: (a) completely or almost completely lost all capacity to manufacture consumer cameras and (b) lost brand recognition.
Wrong on both counts, and the first is largely irrelevant anyhow due to the vast differences between film and digital cameras.
They most certainly did not have much in the way to offer professional photographers - all of their DSLRs were converted Canon or Nikon products except for one short-lived model right before they divested the camera division.
Yes, professional cameras that none of their competitors could match equates to "nothing to offer". Or, in a shorter version, wrong again.
Once digital cameras were actually practical, they were cheap and so then bloated Kodak couldn't compete in commodities.
Wrong again.
Their cameras were not regarded highly enough to command a premium.
Since they didn't sell them at a premium, I fail to see your point.
I don't mean to say that Kodak has a single cause of failure... it's incredibly complicated with many different factors
Yes, and it's a story you clearly don't understand. You're parroting crap you've read elsewhere in leading you to make the error or believing that being a parrot equates to knowing what you're talking about.
The reason I could carry a shotgun at the age of six
Is because someone handed you a gun and said "here, carry this". Nothing magical about it.
In an urban setting, guns are like fire extinquishers. They're something you hope you never need, but you should have one around anyways.
No, they're more like axes - sometimes useful, but potentially very dangerous to someone standing nearby, doubly so if the wielder is unfamiliar with them.
"Father of the web Sir Tim Berners-Lee called for Americans to protest SOPA and PIPA
So, now that the day of the grassroots astroturf campaign has passed, the celebrities start jumping on the bandwagon. Who will be next? Sally Field? Anthony Bourdain?
Kodak didn't die because they stopped innovating... they died because they removed themselves from the camera-making business. Then, when it became clear that people wanted digital, they had no expertise or market presence in cameras.
That would be why Kodak was an early entrant into the digital market, with a huge market presence (especially in the professional segment).
Seriously, this myth that Kodak is dying because they were late and/or wholly incompetent in the digital market needs to die in a fire. They made a lot of missteps and failed to capitalize on their early lead, which is part of why their dying today, but they were there with the expertise and market presence from very early on.
This only work so long as you're content with what you can get for 7 cents/print. Like everything else in the race to the bottom, you get what you pay for - and the 7 cent print is the equivalent of a Big Mac. Cheap, satisfying in the short term, but utter crap.
Actually, this was from a place that was doing full on photo processing with the machine and all that... a 4x6 glossy print on proper photo paper and with the good inks, not inkjet.
McDonald's does full on cooking, and a Big Mac contains proper beef in it's patty and good flour in it's bun - but it's still crap. Even 'good' inks and 'proper' photo papers come in a wide range of qualities and price points. (And that place likely buys them in bulk.)
It was as good a quality of print as you'd be able to get from one of those places... and it's a "grandma" gift where she got a bunch of prints of a family event. We weren't looking for poster sized prints, or fine art prints.
I didn't mean to imply that it wasn't useful as a "grandma" gift... I send those cheap prints of my snapshots to my mom (all my grandparents being deceased) too. (She gets a fine print of my higher end work every couple of years for Christmas, mostly she just isn't interested in them but she does get put out if she doesn't get one every now and again.) I was just pointing out that there is more to photo printing than the low end places that you cite as there is more to food than fast food burgers.
Granted, that might have been a sale, because I see now the same place is about 19 cents for a 4x6 print. Still, even at 19 cents, I don't think you could buy the ink and paper for that much.
Even though I can't make a Big Mac as cheap as McDonald's, that doesn't change it's essential nature.
The only one I've *ever* seen in the flesh was an early 1.something MP one.
I hate to break it to you, but you aren't the universe. I have three different Kodak digital cameras in my collection, the latest being a 5MP C340 purchased in 2009. If my mom sends me my (recently deceased) dad's camera collection rather than leaving it to me in her will... That'll add another four different models - one being a brand new 14MP Z5010.
Strong sales of even one model does not a success make - they failed to get into the digital thing quickly enough to make a success
If the sales had been strong of just one model, or if they hadn't been an early entrant... you'd have a point. But you're wrong on both counts. Especially in the professional segment they were crushingly dominant with strong sales and high profits early on. But, for the reasons I discussed in my earlier reply, they let that lead slip from their fingers.
Nobody heard of Kodak digital cameras or printers until they already had burned through a dozen from competitors.
That may be true for you, but you're supremely ignorant of the facts and utterly disconnected from reality.
It's not like Yahoo has much else going for it besides a few services like Finance
Finance, web mail, Flickr, Yahoo Groups, searches (I quite a few hits from it), their games portal, etc... etc...
and I don't even know how well that's doing.
Not being the sexy fantasy babe of the tech crowd it flies mostly under the Slashdot radar. Not being as outrageously profitable as Google, the IT/Finance analysts and media scorn it. But the reality is that Yahoo is still a very big, fairly stable, and reasonably profitable business.
Not being on Slashdot's radar isn't a dishonorable place to be, in fact that places them firmly with roughly 99% of the world's large companies. But it does lead to bullshit comments like yours where you (and many other Slashdotters) assume that your aged (to the point of being moldy) memories, narrow viewpoint, and egregious bias against anyone who isn't a techie or Google represent more than the tiny, ill educated, and out of contact with reality they actually are.
I really have to wonder if Yahoo should have accepted Microsoft's $45 billion bid, which Yang was roundly criticized for rejecting.
Yang made a decision that represented the best interests of his customers rather than his stockholders. Usually Slashdot praises that. Yahoo stood up to Microsoft and told them to piss off. Usually Slashdot praises that too.
Once you understand that Yahoo isn't the irrelevant dowager princess Slashdot percieves it as, you'll understand why despite the frothing at the mouth here and in the tech press there weren't immediate calls for Yang's head by the stockholders. My fear however is that the board and major stockholders have quietly ousted Yang because they have come to the same mistaken conclusion that Slashdot and the tech press have - share value and short term cash are more important than long term viability.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, not quite. I was thinking more along the lines of what it took to get 220v 3ph run out to my detached garage. Starting from the garage and working back to the power drop, every dammed step seemed to incur extra expense (bringing stuff up to code, etc...). And you don't seem to understand that these are outdoor installations, not indoors, which incur extra expenses all on their own.
If you were 15 back in 1977 - Carrie Fisher was very sexy. Anyone much younger than that has lived through the MTV and Baywatch eras... and may have different views due the media sexuality overload that started in the 80's/90's.
i find it more likely that you don't realize that costs you're calling 'corruption' likely include the costs of the support infrastructure (I.E. new power drops, new wiring, etc...) as well as the costs of the charger.
I don't believe NERVA can be throttled that deeply... if that's true, it can't be used as a lander engine.
That's because you went to a school with an actual computer science program - rather than an IT programs gussied up with a fanciful title to mislead people into think they're getting something they aren't.
That's because you don't know what you're talking about. The director seems to have known the difference between IT and computer science, and seem to remain (willfully) ignorant of it. The core problem seems to be that you went to school to gain a specific skill set, but couldn't be bothered get off of your arse and ensure the school you selected taught the skill set you wanted - and you're blaming the school for it.
Actually, historically that's exactly what colleges have been - vocational and trade schools. The belief that they are otherwise not only runs contrary to that, but also seems to be utterly without foundation. Even a liberal arts degree is vocational, it was meant to produce teachers and individuals with the knowledge and skills to take their 'proper' station in life.
To the extent that something that's never been tested can be said to be 'effective' sure.
Seriously, Orion has gained a reputation all out of proportion to reality. Few people seem to realize that not one single significant component has ever been built, let alone tested at even the most modest scale. None. Zero. Zip.
Yes, I know about the scale models they built - and they're roughly as relevant as an R/C car is to Formula One racing. The R/C vehicles 'proves' that a four wheeled vehicle can operate, but doesn't have an IC engine and the stresses on the suspension are orders of magnitude below those the Formula One racer experiences - not to mention the vast differences in aerodynamics. The same is true of the Orion scale models. They had no pusher plate or shock absorbers. They depended on the atmosphere to produce the propulsive shock waves. Etc., etc..
While it's true there are no obvious show stoppers, there are a lot of unanswered questions - particularly in the behavior of the pusher plate and the shock absorber system.
Also, few people realize the whole craft is designed around nuclear weapons of a type that don't exist - extremely small, extremely light, highly efficient, very clean (I.E. most of their yield was from fusion rather than fission) fusion weapons. Dyson and his team had very little access to nuclear weapons design details (something less than is publicly available today), and thus were relying on shaky assumptions about the direction of nuclear weapons research and the capabilities of nuclear weapons.
Yes, look at the fuss kicked up over New Horizons and Curiosity... Oh, wait there wasn't any.
Seriously, this myth (about anti-nuclear activists) needs to die in a fire. Over time, the protests have gotten quieter and quieter and come from ever further out on the lunatic fringe - until, over the last few years, they've become essentially silent. (Cynics among the space community think this is because the Usual Suspects in such protests became busy with Anti-Bush/Iraq protests and have moved on to the Occupy movement.)
I didn't say there were no automatic systems - I said you were mistaken about how they were used and the role of the captain and crew. (And really, you're citing something that clearly labels itself as a rumor - and then claiming you don't know "how official it is"?)
Google up the salvage of the K-141 Kursk, the same method was used to cut away the damaged portions so the balance could be salvaged for disposal ashore.
That was the RMS Queen Elizabeth , which at the time of filming The Man with the Golden Gun lay partially submerged in Hong Kong harbor after a fire aboard.
Well, no. Righting it without refloating it means the engineering spaces (I.E. generators, distillers for making fresh water, sewage systems, etc...) are almost certainly still flooded. Not to mention that all your hotel storage (food, booze) is down low in the hull as well. So it's going to require considerable modification to either have these services aboard, or considerable shoreside infrastructure to provide them.
And then, in a winter or two, you'll get a good storm that moves the hull and batters it against the rocks... destroying it anyhow.
If only it were that easy... But, as always, the devil is in the details.
Won't work.
It worked on the Mythbusters because the hull was entirely submerged, while the Costa Concordia is only partially submerged. If you watch the Mythbusters clip, you'll note that it just barely brings the hull to the surface with the entire hull filled with ping pong balls - while the Costa Concordia already has a good portion of it's hull above water.
Yes, and no. While ships do have automatic steering and courses can be programmed in, it's not like the ship runs it's entire course from start to finish without human intervention.
I.E. like all ships are when they are in anything but clear open water - and even then there are lookouts, radar operators, and helmsmen under the supervision of the Captain or a duty officer ready to intervene 24/7.
No, it's more of a case where (at best) you've gotten mistaken information from somewhere or (at worst) you're completely unaware of how things actually work.
Actually - large cruise ships *do* have two Captains... The Captain is responsible for the ship, systems. navigation, and operations. The Staff Captain runs the hotel side of things (but defers to the Captain where his responsibilities supersede).
In other words, you're a complete an total fucking idiot - because not only do you spout utter bullshit, you *know* it's bullshit and yet you cling to it anyhow.
You're also an insecure prick who suffers under the delusion that bragging about irrelevant things adds weight to your words. Here's news for you, it doesn't. It just adds weight to the conclusion that you're a total fucking idiot.
Learn the difference between analogies, metaphors, etc. and fantasy. The former are indeed good for illustrating ideas, the latter isn't.
If that's what you meant, why didn't you say that in the first place rather a bunch of bloviated bullshit?
Wrong on both counts, and the first is largely irrelevant anyhow due to the vast differences between film and digital cameras.
Yes, professional cameras that none of their competitors could match equates to "nothing to offer". Or, in a shorter version, wrong again.
Wrong again.
Since they didn't sell them at a premium, I fail to see your point.
Yes, and it's a story you clearly don't understand. You're parroting crap you've read elsewhere in leading you to make the error or believing that being a parrot equates to knowing what you're talking about.
Is because someone handed you a gun and said "here, carry this". Nothing magical about it.
No, they're more like axes - sometimes useful, but potentially very dangerous to someone standing nearby, doubly so if the wielder is unfamiliar with them.
Seriously, leave off the NRA rhetoric.
"Father of the web Sir Tim Berners-Lee called for Americans to protest SOPA and PIPA
So, now that the day of the grassroots astroturf campaign has passed, the celebrities start jumping on the bandwagon. Who will be next? Sally Field? Anthony Bourdain?
He's either misremembering or misrepresenting - as Kodak's first digital camera was released in 1991.
That would be why Kodak was an early entrant into the digital market, with a huge market presence (especially in the professional segment).
Seriously, this myth that Kodak is dying because they were late and/or wholly incompetent in the digital market needs to die in a fire. They made a lot of missteps and failed to capitalize on their early lead, which is part of why their dying today, but they were there with the expertise and market presence from very early on.
McDonald's does full on cooking, and a Big Mac contains proper beef in it's patty and good flour in it's bun - but it's still crap. Even 'good' inks and 'proper' photo papers come in a wide range of qualities and price points. (And that place likely buys them in bulk.)
I didn't mean to imply that it wasn't useful as a "grandma" gift... I send those cheap prints of my snapshots to my mom (all my grandparents being deceased) too. (She gets a fine print of my higher end work every couple of years for Christmas, mostly she just isn't interested in them but she does get put out if she doesn't get one every now and again.) I was just pointing out that there is more to photo printing than the low end places that you cite as there is more to food than fast food burgers.
Even though I can't make a Big Mac as cheap as McDonald's, that doesn't change it's essential nature.
I hate to break it to you, but you aren't the universe. I have three different Kodak digital cameras in my collection, the latest being a 5MP C340 purchased in 2009. If my mom sends me my (recently deceased) dad's camera collection rather than leaving it to me in her will... That'll add another four different models - one being a brand new 14MP Z5010.
If the sales had been strong of just one model, or if they hadn't been an early entrant... you'd have a point. But you're wrong on both counts. Especially in the professional segment they were crushingly dominant with strong sales and high profits early on. But, for the reasons I discussed in my earlier reply, they let that lead slip from their fingers.
That may be true for you, but you're supremely ignorant of the facts and utterly disconnected from reality.
Finance, web mail, Flickr, Yahoo Groups, searches (I quite a few hits from it), their games portal, etc... etc...
Not being the sexy fantasy babe of the tech crowd it flies mostly under the Slashdot radar. Not being as outrageously profitable as Google, the IT/Finance analysts and media scorn it. But the reality is that Yahoo is still a very big, fairly stable, and reasonably profitable business.
Not being on Slashdot's radar isn't a dishonorable place to be, in fact that places them firmly with roughly 99% of the world's large companies. But it does lead to bullshit comments like yours where you (and many other Slashdotters) assume that your aged (to the point of being moldy) memories, narrow viewpoint, and egregious bias against anyone who isn't a techie or Google represent more than the tiny, ill educated, and out of contact with reality they actually are.
Yang made a decision that represented the best interests of his customers rather than his stockholders. Usually Slashdot praises that. Yahoo stood up to Microsoft and told them to piss off. Usually Slashdot praises that too.
Once you understand that Yahoo isn't the irrelevant dowager princess Slashdot percieves it as, you'll understand why despite the frothing at the mouth here and in the tech press there weren't immediate calls for Yang's head by the stockholders. My fear however is that the board and major stockholders have quietly ousted Yang because they have come to the same mistaken conclusion that Slashdot and the tech press have - share value and short term cash are more important than long term viability.