venus is a better terraforming candidate than mars. oh sure, if you want to get somewhere as quickly as possible that is vaguely hospitable to settlement, mars beats venus hands down
but if you want to talk about recreating earthlike conditions (water, temperature, gravity, atmospheric density), i think it would easier (easier, not easy) to precipitate out venus' atmosphere than to bulk up mars'.
In some magical universe where you can safely sequester the billions of tons of carbon that will have to be removed from the atmosphere without a) having to perpetually pump energy into the storage or b) having billions of tons of flammable carbon compounds lying about.
The article is, sadly, wrong - and most of the posters are too.
The logo is celebrating Armstice Day - which originally celebrated the end of WWI and now celebrated all fallen soldiers. In the US, we commemorate the fallen on Memorial Day. Veterans Day is for the veteran, living or dead.
Looks to me like people are remembering the wrong thing. On November 11, one should commemorate fallen soldiers.
In most of the world (and doubly so in the Commonwealth), Nov 11th is Armistice Day - which officially commemorates the fallen. (And unofficially now commemerates all veterans as well.)
The US splits this out into two different days - Memorial Day commemorates the fallen, while Veterans Day commemorates the veteran (whether alive or dead).
An index fund is just barely this side of gambling itself - so I cover myself by having half my money in an index, and the other half in a managed fund.
You give the dot com revolution entirely too much credit. What you are seeing is continuous improvement in manufacturing and supply chain logistics. JIT, KANBAN, and Lean manufacturing are much older than dot com.
Yes, I know those things are older than the dot com revolution - and, had you read my message, you'd have noted I stated the growth in these types of warehousing operations started before the dot com. But the dot com era saw a massive growth in demand in these types of operations. Partly for dot coms themselves, partly for brick 'n mortar operations that could now use (as you correctly point out) the 'net for communications.
The same goes when you read my message and compare the timeline I give to the two warehouse examples you use.
BTW, I wouldn't classify Amazon as central distribution. It would be like saying Google has a central data warehouse. Amazon does well for the same reason eBay does well; if you want to buy something, they can probably point you to a seller. It's not the distribution that is centralized, it's the consumer interface.
You are completely incorrect - Amazon is a central distributor to multiple customers. Amazon eStores and associates are a peripheral business. Their business model couldn't be much more different from eBay's.
And the world population is still growing, so there will be even more at the lower end of the scale (in numbers - it's simple statistics)
No, actually it isn't 'simple statistics'... Because while world population is growing (overall), the rate of increase in developed countries has dropped dramatically - in some places in Europe it has already dropped below replacement rate, and in others the curves point plainly to a peak in midcentury and a drop thereafter.
Of course they'll also have to realize at some point that maybe replacing 5 guys that made 20k$ a year with a 2 million dollar system wasn't such a cunning plan
This system doesn't replace 5 guys making $20k a year. (A company with a shipping department that small would likely never be able to afford the $2 million in the first place.)
The idea of a roadable fixed-wing aircraft is just about as old as flight itself. I've seen black and white film clips of these sorts of things driving down urban streets, to give you an idea of how long the notion has been around. For whatever reason, it just hasn't ever caught on.
They haven't caught on because they don't actually as well in practice as the dreamers always predict they will - mostly because the stuff needed to be a car makes it too heavy to be an airplane.
The Russians have managed to keep their total costs for development and launches lower over the decades, by having at least some sort of "mass production" economies of scale.
The Russians have managed 'cheap' spaceflight because they inherited an already developed craft and launcher, and all the infrastructure, from the Soviet Union - for free.
Their MIR space station managed to get along for years against increadible odds, for a fraction of NASA money.
MIR managed to get along for years because for the latter half of it's life the Shuttle carried cargo and modules to it and provided reboosts.
The X-15 program was intentionally limited as part of the decision to use adapted ICBM's for launching manned space vehicles.
Nonsense. The X-15 program was never intended to go into orbit - it was built to do exactly what it did do, explore hypersonic and high altitude flight. (Though it could only do one or the other on any given mission.)
Even the original model [X-15] was space-capable, and if reports are correct, in one case the pilot was threatened with career death if he allowed his vehicle to achieve orbit.
ROTFLMAO. The X-15 was no more capable of reaching orbit than the minivan sitting in my driveway is. As it is, the 60 odd miles altitude it reached was the extreme outer limits of it's altitude performance.
The X-15 flew 200 times for only $300 million. That was nearly half a century ago. I think it's reasonable to assume that they could have made an improvement or two to make the thing truly space-capable if we'd gone down that road.
The proposed (and never built) space (orbital) version of the X-15 was an entirely new craft. New engines, new heatshield, new structure, new life support, new guidance, etc... etc... It was anything but an 'improvement or two' on the X-15 as built.
I don't know where you got your information on the X-15, but to put it simply - it's utterly wrong. You have an extremely inflated and utterly incorrect idea of it's capabilities.
You know why this technology is "suddenly" popping up even though we've really had it for a long time?
We've had individual bits of the technology since the (roughly) the mid 70's, but it takes years to integrate individual concepts into a functioning system.
On the other hand, automated warehouses aren't "suddenly" popping up, the first attempts began in the early/mid 80's, and they started to spread in the early 90's. It wasn't until the dot-com revolution (with it's increased emphasis on central distribution to individual customers, I.E. Amazon) in the mid-late 90's however that market for such systems really began to grow. By 2000/2001 a variety of companies offered systems that could be virtually ordered 'off the shelf'. (But which were in reality custom built based on general templates.) Now truly off-the-shelf systems are starting to appear along with increasingly feature rich and functional systems.
I.E. the progression has pretty much followed a normal path of development.
How about the recent crack down on 'illegal aliens' in the states?
Development on something like the Kiva system probably started five years ago - and more likely close to ten. (Quick check of the corporate website - founded in 2003, so I wasn't too far off.)
I'm not a fan of Apple and won't get an iPhone for myself, but people are buying those, right? So "public has not been flocking to smartphones" - yeah if you live under a rock somewhere that may be true...
At last count 1.4 million bought at $400 or $600. And that is just the US.
Depending on which number you believe - there is somewhere in the neighborhood of 180 million cellphone users in the US. So, 1.4 million is a lot of sales - but compared to the total market, it's not very impressive. The numbers say to me "the iPhone has been widely adopted by the trendwhores, but not by the general public".
See this within the totality of what Google's trying to do. Right now, the American cell market is locked down by the providers, such that most phones are tied to a contract. Americans can't just buy a new phone and swap their SIM cards particularly easily. And even then, it wouldn't get much since all the providers suck anyway.
And Google fixes this problem how? Once you get a gPhone, you are stuck with Google as your provider. (And I have little hopes for them not sucking - the gPhone network is so far outside of their core competencies that it's scary.)
One could begin to see how Google might be on the verge of doing something very big. Google already has the content and useful applications for exploring the content. Now they need to be able to find better ways of getting that content to their users. Developing a phone, wireless capability, and backbone capacity would allow them to completely cut out the middleman.
That's all very nice - but most people buy cellphones first and foremost to be... a phone. They don't buy it as mini-PC, and they don't buy it as a mini-PDA. Not to mention they are going into a fairly crowded field (cell phones) and within that field one entrenched provider (Blackberry) and one trendwhore provider (iPhone). Google's record at entering such fields is mixed at best.
The image shooting was carried out by the onboard high definition television (HDTV) of the KAGUYA, and it is the world's first high definition image data acquisition of the Moon from an altitude about 100 kilometers away from the Moon.
What I can't seem to find anywhere (which means it's obvious and I missed it) is what the dang resolution of the image is. HD is cool, buzzwordy, geeky, flavor-of-the-month, etc... etc... But what matters for science is the resolution of the resulting images, not the tech used to obtain them.
I know that Slashdot doesn't have a neutral editorial staff (as evidenced from the various Linux vs. Windows debates that pop up every few hours around here) but, up until now, all political content had some sort of tech issue embedded within.
Where have you been? Slashdot created the politics section four years ago - during the run up to the '04 election. They've been posting blatantly political articles ever since. Read this search of Slashdot articles under the 'US' tag for example.
Did I say the building was a failure? No I did not. Try again. (Insofar as the Wikipedia goes, I do what many people reccomend. I ignore it and get my information from real sources.)
I would hardly only blame the Architect if his flawed designs are being allowed to be mindlessly copied without a rigorous technical analysis by other members of the building profession.
There's more than a few architect at Gehry's level that fight tooth and nail against having their building modified by 'mere' tradesmen - and more than a few oversight comittees that will side with the Famous Name. At any rate, if the design is flawed - the fault rests ultimately with the designer - the architect.
Slashdot Mirror
In some magical universe where you can safely sequester the billions of tons of carbon that will have to be removed from the atmosphere without a) having to perpetually pump energy into the storage or b) having billions of tons of flammable carbon compounds lying about.
Your reply is prima facie evidence that you have no clue what you are talking about.
You don't really understand how the different kinds of funds work do you?
The article is, sadly, wrong - and most of the posters are too.
The logo is celebrating Armstice Day - which originally celebrated the end of WWI and now celebrated all fallen soldiers. In the US, we commemorate the fallen on Memorial Day. Veterans Day is for the veteran, living or dead.
In most of the world (and doubly so in the Commonwealth), Nov 11th is Armistice Day - which officially commemorates the fallen. (And unofficially now commemerates all veterans as well.)
The US splits this out into two different days - Memorial Day commemorates the fallen, while Veterans Day commemorates the veteran (whether alive or dead).
Google's stock price has nothing to do with it's financials - if it did, the price would be a fraction of what it is now. (It's P/E is insane.)
Precisely the reason why GOOG's price keeps heading for the sky.
An index fund is just barely this side of gambling itself - so I cover myself by having half my money in an index, and the other half in a managed fund.
Yes, I know those things are older than the dot com revolution - and, had you read my message, you'd have noted I stated the growth in these types of warehousing operations started before the dot com. But the dot com era saw a massive growth in demand in these types of operations. Partly for dot coms themselves, partly for brick 'n mortar operations that could now use (as you correctly point out) the 'net for communications.
The same goes when you read my message and compare the timeline I give to the two warehouse examples you use.
You are completely incorrect - Amazon is a central distributor to multiple customers. Amazon eStores and associates are a peripheral business. Their business model couldn't be much more different from eBay's.
Not all that much - as trucks are unlikely to get off the ground at all.
No, actually it isn't 'simple statistics'... Because while world population is growing (overall), the rate of increase in developed countries has dropped dramatically - in some places in Europe it has already dropped below replacement rate, and in others the curves point plainly to a peak in midcentury and a drop thereafter.
This system doesn't replace 5 guys making $20k a year. (A company with a shipping department that small would likely never be able to afford the $2 million in the first place.)
They haven't caught on because they don't actually as well in practice as the dreamers always predict they will - mostly because the stuff needed to be a car makes it too heavy to be an airplane.
The Russians have managed 'cheap' spaceflight because they inherited an already developed craft and launcher, and all the infrastructure, from the Soviet Union - for free.
MIR managed to get along for years because for the latter half of it's life the Shuttle carried cargo and modules to it and provided reboosts.
Nonsense. The X-15 program was never intended to go into orbit - it was built to do exactly what it did do, explore hypersonic and high altitude flight. (Though it could only do one or the other on any given mission.)
ROTFLMAO. The X-15 was no more capable of reaching orbit than the minivan sitting in my driveway is. As it is, the 60 odd miles altitude it reached was the extreme outer limits of it's altitude performance.
The proposed (and never built) space (orbital) version of the X-15 was an entirely new craft. New engines, new heatshield, new structure, new life support, new guidance, etc... etc... It was anything but an 'improvement or two' on the X-15 as built.
I don't know where you got your information on the X-15, but to put it simply - it's utterly wrong. You have an extremely inflated and utterly incorrect idea of it's capabilities.
The Russians are developing a new generation of spacecraft? Again? Shouldn't they finish the last 'next generation' craft they proposed first?
Seriously folks, I suspect that this is just latest in a long line of paper spacecraft created by the Russians.
We've had individual bits of the technology since the (roughly) the mid 70's, but it takes years to integrate individual concepts into a functioning system.
On the other hand, automated warehouses aren't "suddenly" popping up, the first attempts began in the early/mid 80's, and they started to spread in the early 90's. It wasn't until the dot-com revolution (with it's increased emphasis on central distribution to individual customers, I.E. Amazon) in the mid-late 90's however that market for such systems really began to grow. By 2000/2001 a variety of companies offered systems that could be virtually ordered 'off the shelf'. (But which were in reality custom built based on general templates.) Now truly off-the-shelf systems are starting to appear along with increasingly feature rich and functional systems.
I.E. the progression has pretty much followed a normal path of development.
Development on something like the Kiva system probably started five years ago - and more likely close to ten. (Quick check of the corporate website - founded in 2003, so I wasn't too far off.)
You recall incorrectly. The posts here on Slashdot have a 'parent' link for a reason, try it. And some reading comprehension while you are at it.
Depending on which number you believe - there is somewhere in the neighborhood of 180 million cellphone users in the US. So, 1.4 million is a lot of sales - but compared to the total market, it's not very impressive. The numbers say to me "the iPhone has been widely adopted by the trendwhores, but not by the general public".
And Google fixes this problem how? Once you get a gPhone, you are stuck with Google as your provider. (And I have little hopes for them not sucking - the gPhone network is so far outside of their core competencies that it's scary.)
That's all very nice - but most people buy cellphones first and foremost to be... a phone. They don't buy it as mini-PC, and they don't buy it as a mini-PDA. Not to mention they are going into a fairly crowded field (cell phones) and within that field one entrenched provider (Blackberry) and one trendwhore provider (iPhone). Google's record at entering such fields is mixed at best.
What I can't seem to find anywhere (which means it's obvious and I missed it) is what the dang resolution of the image is. HD is cool, buzzwordy, geeky, flavor-of-the-month, etc... etc... But what matters for science is the resolution of the resulting images, not the tech used to obtain them.
And this proves what? That you are too stupid to know when the "run up to the '04 election" was?
Where have you been? Slashdot created the politics section four years ago - during the run up to the '04 election. They've been posting blatantly political articles ever since. Read this search of Slashdot articles under the 'US' tag for example.
Did I say the building was a failure? No I did not. Try again. (Insofar as the Wikipedia goes, I do what many people reccomend. I ignore it and get my information from real sources.)
There's more than a few architect at Gehry's level that fight tooth and nail against having their building modified by 'mere' tradesmen - and more than a few oversight comittees that will side with the Famous Name. At any rate, if the design is flawed - the fault rests ultimately with the designer - the architect.
If you follow the news, many of them do.