Toyoda for example has done this repeatedly and been able to produce cars more cheaply in the US then many of their American competitors using the same labor.
Toyota has been building new factories in depressed areas, low wage areas, and union free areas. Their American competitors aren't quite so free to do so.
Many large companies should go through a serious reorganization top to bottom including the renegotiation of all contracts to take into consideration new opportunities and concerns.
That is... not nearly so simple as you imagine. Especially if unions are involved.
The Tallboy/Grand Slam series of bombs worked on a very simple principle - you send a gigantic shockwave through the ground as a result of an impact very close to mach 1, and a second shockwave through the ground as a result of a shaped charge.
Neither Tallboy nor Grand Slam had a shaped charge.
What it should have done is make a mess of bunkers with 22' of reinforced concrete or less, and severely disrupt heavier bunkers than that.
What it actually did was nothing. The B-52 carrying the prototype managed to get to the end of the runway before running out of fuel.
[[Citation Needed]]
The US decided the theory was sound enough that they wanted a version to play with. They used much better construction techniques, higher revs on the barrel and a bigger explosive. They fitted up an aircraft with a prototype and tested it out. The bomb ricocheted off the water and struck the bomber, blowing it out of the sky. No further prototypes were developed.
[[Citation Needed]] Not that the US needed British designs - they had already developed and perfected skip bombing and used it throughout the Pacific War.
AVRO CF-105 Arrow, killed by the Diefenbaker government, and the subject of fevered fantasies amongst the generations of aviation fanboys ever since
Seriously, if you believe everything ever written about the Arrow, it's the escort vehicle for the second coming of $DIETY. Reality however insists (as it usually does) in being somewhat messier.
From a more balanced view, Diefenbaker probably did the Canadian military a huge favor... Arrow's fire control system was a real mess and probably years from being combat ready. Also, the day of the big heavy high speed interceptor was already starting to draw to close, being replaced by lighter and smaller air superiority fighters. Though overseas sales were often discussed, similar aircraft of the era had a dismal sales record because they were very expensive niche aircraft - and the niche was rapidly vanishing. Odds are (assuming the Arrow ever reached full combat capability) that by 1970 Canada would have been stuck with an obsolescent and aging Arrow contingent sucking up vast amounts of the slender Canadian defense budget.
The Very Large Telescope (linked in TFS) has been in service for some years... the telescope under construction is the European Extremely Large Telescope.
Since NASA engineers didn't develop the probe in question, I fail to see how your comment is relevant. The probe in question was designed by Draper Labs, smart guys to be sure - but not known for their experience in designing deep space probes.
So we drop the cargo down with a sky crane/inflatable combination/retro rocket system then land the crew with something like the LEM.
Cool. Except we don't know how to land cargo of any useful size or a vehicle the size of the LEM. That's it, plain and simple - we don't know how. The key problem is the parachute, we don't know how to design or build one of sufficient size... let alone deploy it. And these are non-trivial problems. Parachutes were a major pacing item both for the MER rovers and for Curiosity due to the size and weight of the payloads....
But no, that sort of "we can't possibly do it" thinking is exactly what we need in space exploration. Keep it up.
I didn't say "we can't do it" you moron, I said "we don't know how to do it". Very different words with very different meanings.
Look, the atmosphere is too thin to brake anything, so any sort of soft landing will have to be on the rockets.
Look, Mar's gravity is too high to propulsively brake to landing. Period. That's why every soft landing there to date has used a mix of aerodynamic and propulsive braking.
Space-X is working on getting that reliable here, and moving it to Mars conditions is going to be easier than coming up with something entirely new.
The problem isn't reliability, it's the enormous amount of fuel required for any non-trivial payload. There's a reason why every soft landing on Mars to date has required a combination of chutes and propulsion. But the bigger the vehicle, the bigger the chutes must be - and for a manned lander the chutes have to be big enough that they're not even on the ragged edge of possibility, they're practically science fiction. We simply don't know how to make supersonic chutes the size of a football field and deploy them in brief window available without tangling them all to hell and back.
All gravity being lower accomplishes is turning an insanely incredibly difficult problem into merely an insanely seriously difficult problem - one we do not currently now how to solve.
And that's the bottom line - we're missing most of the key technologies needed to land a man on Mars. If Musk intends to do so, he's got a very expensive R&D program on his hands and no clear source of funding with which to pay for it.
Space-X is looking at routinely landing stages on rocket power. That, I think, accounts for how to land the vehicles.
Um, no. Not even close.
SpaceX's terrestrial landings rely on Earth's relatively thick lower atmosphere and the fact that (nearly) empty booster stages are very "fluffy" (I.E. have a very low density for their size). The first condition does not obtain on Mars and thus renders the second irrelevant.
There are lots of things to secure transmission of data, but once it arrives on the recipients' desktop, you run the risk of their system being compromised and exposing the data. Does anyone have any suggestions? Is paper still the most secure way to go?
You have no control of what happens once the data leaves your control - whether the data is held and transmitted electronically or held and transmitted physically.
That being said, though IANAL*, it seems that it's your executor who needs the data rather than people "pretty far away".
* And really, when it comes to drawing up a will, there should be one involved. It'll save everyone involved a whole ton grief in the long run if you set things up right in the first place.
You hit the nail on the head. An IPO is a one-time fundraiser that requires permanently surrendering control of your company to a bunch of greedy, short-sighted psychopaths who are only concerned with doing whatever it takes to pump up the stock price, even if it means sabotaging the long-term viability of the company.
That's the cargo cult mantra - but it doesn't square with reality. Every place you look, you see companies investing and even going deep into debt for the long term (Amazon) and taking on huge, expensive, risky, long term projects (Boeing).
He's building his framework of companies to support a colony there.
The problem isn't building a framework of companies (which he only is if you squint and tilt your head just right), the problem is building a framework of technology. He (or more actually we) are missing two key ones - a dependable life support system with sufficient endurance to get there and a way to land the vehicle(s). And that's *without* considering the complete lack of any significant development in in-situ resource development. Or the near lack of Mars surface suits. Or... well, I could probably go on but I'm only on my first cup of coffee and thinking is still hard.
But at least I'm drinking coffee rather than kool-aide and actually *trying* to think.
They worry that the US would stop short of getting involved in world war 3 if China really did want to invade Japan.
Do you realize just how stupid you sound? Of course the US is going to stop short of WWIII if China "wants" to invade Japan - we're not going to get militarily involved until they go beyond "wanting" and actually get aggressive. Nobody with a brain (which includes Japan, and emphatically does not include you or those who modded you up) expects anything different.
You have indeed discovered the unvarnished truth, solar is not viable in terms of cost and this is unlikely to change anytime soon.
Not true at all. The subsidies and tax write-offs and other benefits continue to pile up. Someone who is paying full retail for his panels is just someone who is too lazy to file the appropriate paperwork.
This. I learned photography in the 1970's, and you practically couldn't pay me to go back to those days. We enjoyed and/or endured it, because we didn't have any choice. Today, we do. Once I had a chance to try digital, I sold all but one of my film cameras by the end of the following week and have never looked back. (The one I didn't sell was actually non-functional... but it was the one I was gifted with on my 12th birthday and the one that started it all.)
Without exception, I recommend to people that ask that they start digital and work from there. It's the eye that matters, not the gear.
But it's more likely to stay more or less under control when we don't have the subsequent factor of an enlarged vulnerable population.
I give the fuck up. You've already been shown that the outbreaks were not control long before the enlargement of the vulnerable population - yet you remain absolutely determined to ignore reality and facts so as to arrive at the pre-determined conclusion that those opposed to vaccination are responsible for the outbreaks.
[I majored in in biochemistry and microbiology, so I'm not entirely out of my field here]
That doesn't make your conclusions more respectable - it just makes your willing ignorance of existing evidence all the more reprehensible.
My guess would be cost - not handling digital TV directly means you don't have to install all the [soft|firm|hard]ware required. Nor do you have to provide tech support for the same or deal with incompatibility issues.
DVR's are very popular, and since many (most?) consumers are going to install one anyhow, the TV manufacturer's best bet is to push all the ancillary functions off to them rather than only a subset.
Just so we're clear here - I am *not* an opponent of vaccination. But I *am* very pro-science and pro-facts.
Per that (and you'll have to ask him if you want a better explanation -- I get it in a muddy way, but I'm not a stats dude), the SD numbers may indeed be an immunization rate issue.
It may be - but you can't ignore the two elephants in the room. The first is that the vaccine is not 100% effective - you can be vaccinated and not be protected. The second is that the protection offered fades over time. His (very simplified and idealized) math only works for a population that receives a vaccination that is 100% effective either lifetime or until the next booster. In that case of whooping cough, you can have vaccination rate near unity and vaccinated individuals can still contract the disease.
The situation is much more complicated than people keep trying make it. You have a change in vaccine, you have a change in the infectious agent, you have vaccination opponents... *AND* you have a trend running back thirty years that predates all of these. You can't simply blame the opponents of vaccination and walk away claiming moral victory.
Yeah, but would the rate have kept rising if she hadn't stuck her two cents in?
I don't know, but the that the trend started decades before strongly suggests it as I've seen no evidence of anything in work that would have slowed, stopped, or reversed it..
It does look like the change of vaccine type had a role here, per the marked CDC graph. But how many of those cases are unvaccinated vs vaccinated??
In San Diego 85% of the cases reported in 2014 involve individuals with up-to-date immunizations. There's a lot more going on here than simple immunization rate.
Slashdot Mirror
Toyota has been building new factories in depressed areas, low wage areas, and union free areas. Their American competitors aren't quite so free to do so.
That is... not nearly so simple as you imagine. Especially if unions are involved.
Yes - damn the city planners of the 1870's for not anticipating the conditions of 2014.
That protects... the web server. It doesn't protect the guy on the street. And catching them is like shooting fish in a barrel.
Already protected against by signs/laws prohibiting parking for more than 'x' hours and the enforcement thereof.
Zillow's accuracy varies.... wildly.
Neither Tallboy nor Grand Slam had a shaped charge.
[[Citation Needed]]
[[Citation Needed]]
Not that the US needed British designs - they had already developed and perfected skip bombing and used it throughout the Pacific War.
Seriously, if you believe everything ever written about the Arrow, it's the escort vehicle for the second coming of $DIETY. Reality however insists (as it usually does) in being somewhat messier.
From a more balanced view, Diefenbaker probably did the Canadian military a huge favor... Arrow's fire control system was a real mess and probably years from being combat ready. Also, the day of the big heavy high speed interceptor was already starting to draw to close, being replaced by lighter and smaller air superiority fighters. Though overseas sales were often discussed, similar aircraft of the era had a dismal sales record because they were very expensive niche aircraft - and the niche was rapidly vanishing. Odds are (assuming the Arrow ever reached full combat capability) that by 1970 Canada would have been stuck with an obsolescent and aging Arrow contingent sucking up vast amounts of the slender Canadian defense budget.
The Very Large Telescope (linked in TFS) has been in service for some years... the telescope under construction is the European Extremely Large Telescope.
Limited observation? No, over a decade on Slashdot and having to repeatedly explain basic facts to too many posters.
As I'm having to do with you.
Since NASA engineers didn't develop the probe in question, I fail to see how your comment is relevant. The probe in question was designed by Draper Labs, smart guys to be sure - but not known for their experience in designing deep space probes.
Cool. Except we don't know how to land cargo of any useful size or a vehicle the size of the LEM. That's it, plain and simple - we don't know how. The key problem is the parachute, we don't know how to design or build one of sufficient size... let alone deploy it. And these are non-trivial problems. Parachutes were a major pacing item both for the MER rovers and for Curiosity due to the size and weight of the payloads....
I didn't say "we can't do it" you moron, I said "we don't know how to do it". Very different words with very different meanings.
Look, Mar's gravity is too high to propulsively brake to landing. Period. That's why every soft landing there to date has used a mix of aerodynamic and propulsive braking.
The problem isn't reliability, it's the enormous amount of fuel required for any non-trivial payload. There's a reason why every soft landing on Mars to date has required a combination of chutes and propulsion. But the bigger the vehicle, the bigger the chutes must be - and for a manned lander the chutes have to be big enough that they're not even on the ragged edge of possibility, they're practically science fiction. We simply don't know how to make supersonic chutes the size of a football field and deploy them in brief window available without tangling them all to hell and back.
What's interesting are the contents of the front page as it appears in TFA....
All and all, not so different from what one might find on a recent average day on Slashdot.
plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.
All gravity being lower accomplishes is turning an insanely incredibly difficult problem into merely an insanely seriously difficult problem - one we do not currently now how to solve.
And that's the bottom line - we're missing most of the key technologies needed to land a man on Mars. If Musk intends to do so, he's got a very expensive R&D program on his hands and no clear source of funding with which to pay for it.
Um, no. Not even close.
SpaceX's terrestrial landings rely on Earth's relatively thick lower atmosphere and the fact that (nearly) empty booster stages are very "fluffy" (I.E. have a very low density for their size). The first condition does not obtain on Mars and thus renders the second irrelevant.
You have no control of what happens once the data leaves your control - whether the data is held and transmitted electronically or held and transmitted physically.
That being said, though IANAL*, it seems that it's your executor who needs the data rather than people "pretty far away".
* And really, when it comes to drawing up a will, there should be one involved. It'll save everyone involved a whole ton grief in the long run if you set things up right in the first place.
That's the cargo cult mantra - but it doesn't square with reality. Every place you look, you see companies investing and even going deep into debt for the long term (Amazon) and taking on huge, expensive, risky, long term projects (Boeing).
The problem isn't building a framework of companies (which he only is if you squint and tilt your head just right), the problem is building a framework of technology. He (or more actually we) are missing two key ones - a dependable life support system with sufficient endurance to get there and a way to land the vehicle(s). And that's *without* considering the complete lack of any significant development in in-situ resource development. Or the near lack of Mars surface suits. Or... well, I could probably go on but I'm only on my first cup of coffee and thinking is still hard.
But at least I'm drinking coffee rather than kool-aide and actually *trying* to think.
Do you realize just how stupid you sound? Of course the US is going to stop short of WWIII if China "wants" to invade Japan - we're not going to get militarily involved until they go beyond "wanting" and actually get aggressive. Nobody with a brain (which includes Japan, and emphatically does not include you or those who modded you up) expects anything different.
Not true at all. The subsidies and tax write-offs and other benefits continue to pile up. Someone who is paying full retail for his panels is just someone who is too lazy to file the appropriate paperwork.
This. I learned photography in the 1970's, and you practically couldn't pay me to go back to those days. We enjoyed and/or endured it, because we didn't have any choice. Today, we do. Once I had a chance to try digital, I sold all but one of my film cameras by the end of the following week and have never looked back. (The one I didn't sell was actually non-functional... but it was the one I was gifted with on my 12th birthday and the one that started it all.)
Without exception, I recommend to people that ask that they start digital and work from there. It's the eye that matters, not the gear.
I give the fuck up. You've already been shown that the outbreaks were not control long before the enlargement of the vulnerable population - yet you remain absolutely determined to ignore reality and facts so as to arrive at the pre-determined conclusion that those opposed to vaccination are responsible for the outbreaks.
That doesn't make your conclusions more respectable - it just makes your willing ignorance of existing evidence all the more reprehensible.
My guess would be cost - not handling digital TV directly means you don't have to install all the [soft|firm|hard]ware required. Nor do you have to provide tech support for the same or deal with incompatibility issues.
DVR's are very popular, and since many (most?) consumers are going to install one anyhow, the TV manufacturer's best bet is to push all the ancillary functions off to them rather than only a subset.
Just so we're clear here - I am *not* an opponent of vaccination. But I *am* very pro-science and pro-facts.
It may be - but you can't ignore the two elephants in the room. The first is that the vaccine is not 100% effective - you can be vaccinated and not be protected. The second is that the protection offered fades over time. His (very simplified and idealized) math only works for a population that receives a vaccination that is 100% effective either lifetime or until the next booster. In that case of whooping cough, you can have vaccination rate near unity and vaccinated individuals can still contract the disease.
The situation is much more complicated than people keep trying make it. You have a change in vaccine, you have a change in the infectious agent, you have vaccination opponents... *AND* you have a trend running back thirty years that predates all of these. You can't simply blame the opponents of vaccination and walk away claiming moral victory.
I don't know, but the that the trend started decades before strongly suggests it as I've seen no evidence of anything in work that would have slowed, stopped, or reversed it..
In San Diego 85% of the cases reported in 2014 involve individuals with up-to-date immunizations. There's a lot more going on here than simple immunization rate.
The fact was derived by observation - and that you presume them to be my enemy, etc... speaks mostly to your ignorance and bias than anything else.