How is not behaving like an ignorant jackass "having a stick up my ass"? The one with a problem my friend is you for even momentarily considering "bombarding his inbox".
Orders of magnitude more difficult to reach? I doubt that.
Of course you doubt it, you're clueless idiot.
We've got enough orbiters that the communications windows are also less of a problem.
Moron. The problem isn't the number of birds, it's having the view of the sky cut off by canyon walls.
I think the rovers need bigger diameter wheels. It would reduce wheel wear and wheel loading, and allow traversing much more cluttered ground, and perhaps steeper slopes.
No shit sherlock. What other genius insights do you have that the guys at JPL don't know? Poor them, all they can do is build the biggest wheel that can fit in the available space - while morons like you just wave their magical wands and magic larger wheels into place.
Why don't they land a rover at the bottom of the very deepest canyon ? Higher air pressure, more humidity...
Orders of magnitude more difficult to reach, far more difficult terrain to rover, far narrower communications windows.... The targeting teams have a very difficult job indeed, they have to reach places that are both scientifically interesting, *and* that the vehicles have a reasonable chance of surviving a landing at, *and* offers terrain the rovers can operate over, *and* which doesn't impose excessive operational constraints... etc... etc...
They should start mass producing those rovers. Making 10 of them is probably hardly more expensive than just making one anyway.
Mass production makes thing cheap because it uses assembly lines. You can't build these rovers or even their on assembly lines. You can't really reduce the tens of thousands of hours of hand assembly, testing, checkout, and verification. Mass production is a magic spell you can invoke by saying the magic words.
"cheap and simple" and "Mars" do not occur together
Mars mission costs are mostly sunk into the lander/package (i.e. rover.) Launchers aren't that expensive. The idea offered here is just a small inertial warhead with a simple guidance package. No tethers, retro-rockets, balloons, lander telemetry, solar collectors, autonomous navigation, etc., etc. All that complexity and cost is gone.
The guidance package required is neither simple nor cheap. Since you've gotten rid of the lander (which nowadays provides most of the cruise services) you have to provide support for the guidance system during the cruise phase - solar arrays, batteries, thermal control, communications, attitude control, command and control systems, telemetry, etc... etc... All that cost and complexity added back in.
We have reconnaissance orbiters around Mars now. The CEP could be reduced several orders of magnitude by using the orbiters for precise guidance.
When you have an actual idea on how to do that rather than the vague handwaving and smoke blowing that characterizes your proposal, get back to me.
Part of the reason for high CEP with lander missions is the deceleration profile. This is not a lander. It's a high velocity projectile following a ballistic trajectory all the way to impact.
If you have atmosphere, you're going to have a deceleration profile rather than a purely ballistic trajectory - and Mars has an atmosphere. An atmosphere that is both dynamic and poorly understood.
Why not build a cheap, simple impactor and send it to Mars.
Well, two reasons really. First, the words "cheap and simple" and "Mars" do not occur together in any rational world. Not if you intend to have more than a snowballs chance anyway. Second off, our current CEP for Mars landers is measured in kilometers, not hundreds of meters and certainly not in tens of meters. (And fixing that will do nothing but further ensure that it will be neither cheap nor simple.)
They sampled some data, re-arranged it, assigned different bits to different 'instruments', and fiddled with it until it until it sounded like a symphony. So what? The first, oh, ten thousand times or so somebody did this I suppose it was news... but the tech is old hat. Old enough that garage musicians have been doing it with off-the-shelf equipment for at least a decade.
All the other potential problems are just that - potential problems, and appeals to these problems are merely guesswork and rhetoric.
Setting aside the fact that there are very real problems (current and long term), what you say about the problems is also also of the advantages. Most of the potential advantages you posit are just that - potential. Mere guesswork and rhetoric. That is, of those of that are unique to Bitcoin (which isn't many).
The government doesn't have any, which is why the government will do its best to take it down.. and its easy to "take it down" by auditing any company that advertises on the web that they accept bitcoin.
People keep claiming this - but don't seem to have any reason for the government to do so other than "protected by my tinfoil hat, only I can see the truth".
And even so, it's pretty easy to survive such an audit as there are widespread best practices and procedures, acceptable to the IRS, for dealing in currencies other than dollars and in trade tokens like Bitcoin. So long as the appropriate taxes are paid in dollars the goverment has no reason to 'take down' Bitcoin.
Accepting BitCoin for merchandise has pretty much meant that the transaction(s) will go unreported, including taxes.
It may have meant so in the past, for transactions between individuals, but for corporations like Overstock etc... not a chance.
Timbuktu possessed an enormous library, some of it supposedly salvaged from the Great Library of Alexandria, and was a trading partner of both Portugal and Venice although it had no sailing fleet of its own. It would actually be surprising if they hadn't carried out their own voyages of exploration.
Timbuktu is a landlocked city hundreds of miles from the ocean. No shit it had no trading fleet of it's own.
Just like cruise ships are registered all over the world, typically in countries with fewer regulations
Which sounds impressive until you know the rest of the story... which is that, despite the regulations of the nation-of-registry they're still subject to certain health and safety regulations of the nations whose ports they enter. They still need insurance, and no reputable insurance company will touch them unless the ship has been certified by a known Classification Society. Etc... etc...
Flags of convenience aren't what they used to be, and even so cruise ships have a vested interested in not being thought of as shithole rustbuckets.
The Domincans created a Quechua/Spanish dictionary before Pizarro even reached Cusco, so it's not unreasonable.
I didn't say it was unreasonable, I said the OP's contention that it could be whipped up in a short time was unreasonable.
The dating is problematic though, unless perhaps it was created by the Portuguese or Venetian merchants that were suspected to have been using secret trade routs to bring rare items to Europe before the 'official' discovery of the Americas.
Not believed by anyone not wearing a tinfoil chapeau that I know of.
Well not over night, but it doesn't take that long.
A claim completely unsupported by your link.
A Phonetic equivalence seems quite plausible, and you can whip up a phonetic equivalence chart for your private use, or the use of a small group in a few hours.
That's probably true for your and me who have grown up with a phonetic system. I wouldn't think it to be true of someone who didn't grow up in a phonetic system and to whom the whole idea is new. The one historic example with which I'm familiar to twelve years to create.
So if you want to spend time systematically analyzing software as art, perhaps the Right way to go about it would be the way architectural reviewers do, not the way literature or "high art" reviewers do it.
The problem is... so long as the building doesn't fall down, architectural reviewers review architecture in exactly the same way that literature and "high art" reviewers review their field. It's all about buzzwords and status and soft theory. The engineering is left "as an exercise for the student" and treated as mere mechanics.
Yes, that also means that anyone who is intelligent and reflective will be uncomfortable with eating meat
One of the most classic strawmen ever - defining those who fail to agree with you as unintelligent and ignorant. You're not insightful, you're a jackass in human skin.
The difference is that in the adult world, the basis is on work performance, competence, and factors that directly affect how a given candidate will (or won't) contribute to the team.
But that's not what you said - you said, specifically, that you weeded resumes based on the reputation in the eyes of of others of the individual applying for the job. "Dickwad" was the exact term if I'm not mistaken.
And that's not on a different level, no matter how much smoke you blow.
Slashdot Mirror
Oklahoma City, Boston, Aurora.... One act? I just counted three, and I'm not even halfway through my first cup of coffee.
No, you just need to adjust your tinfoil chapeau, it's a little tight and the resulting lack of bloodflow to the brain is causing hallucinations.
How is not behaving like an ignorant jackass "having a stick up my ass"? The one with a problem my friend is you for even momentarily considering "bombarding his inbox".
Not me. But then I'm not five years old, emotionally, psychologically, or physically.
Of course you doubt it, you're clueless idiot.
Moron. The problem isn't the number of birds, it's having the view of the sky cut off by canyon walls.
No shit sherlock. What other genius insights do you have that the guys at JPL don't know? Poor them, all they can do is build the biggest wheel that can fit in the available space - while morons like you just wave their magical wands and magic larger wheels into place.
Orders of magnitude more difficult to reach, far more difficult terrain to rover, far narrower communications windows.... The targeting teams have a very difficult job indeed, they have to reach places that are both scientifically interesting, *and* that the vehicles have a reasonable chance of surviving a landing at, *and* offers terrain the rovers can operate over, *and* which doesn't impose excessive operational constraints... etc... etc...
Mass production makes thing cheap because it uses assembly lines. You can't build these rovers or even their on assembly lines. You can't really reduce the tens of thousands of hours of hand assembly, testing, checkout, and verification. Mass production is a magic spell you can invoke by saying the magic words.
The guidance package required is neither simple nor cheap. Since you've gotten rid of the lander (which nowadays provides most of the cruise services) you have to provide support for the guidance system during the cruise phase - solar arrays, batteries, thermal control, communications, attitude control, command and control systems, telemetry, etc... etc... All that cost and complexity added back in.
When you have an actual idea on how to do that rather than the vague handwaving and smoke blowing that characterizes your proposal, get back to me.
If you have atmosphere, you're going to have a deceleration profile rather than a purely ballistic trajectory - and Mars has an atmosphere. An atmosphere that is both dynamic and poorly understood.
Well, two reasons really. First, the words "cheap and simple" and "Mars" do not occur together in any rational world. Not if you intend to have more than a snowballs chance anyway. Second off, our current CEP for Mars landers is measured in kilometers, not hundreds of meters and certainly not in tens of meters. (And fixing that will do nothing but further ensure that it will be neither cheap nor simple.)
And how do the couriers coordinate without using the telecomm network or the internet?
The long term problem isn't deflation - it's that having a fixed quantity of currency limits the maximum size of the economy using it.
Same answer - so what? The data is so heavily manipulated to produce a pre-determined result that it doesn't really matter where it's from.
They sampled some data, re-arranged it, assigned different bits to different 'instruments', and fiddled with it until it until it sounded like a symphony. So what? The first, oh, ten thousand times or so somebody did this I suppose it was news... but the tech is old hat. Old enough that garage musicians have been doing it with off-the-shelf equipment for at least a decade.
Setting aside the fact that there are very real problems (current and long term), what you say about the problems is also also of the advantages. Most of the potential advantages you posit are just that - potential. Mere guesswork and rhetoric. That is, of those of that are unique to Bitcoin (which isn't many).
People keep claiming this - but don't seem to have any reason for the government to do so other than "protected by my tinfoil hat, only I can see the truth".
And even so, it's pretty easy to survive such an audit as there are widespread best practices and procedures, acceptable to the IRS, for dealing in currencies other than dollars and in trade tokens like Bitcoin. So long as the appropriate taxes are paid in dollars the goverment has no reason to 'take down' Bitcoin.
It may have meant so in the past, for transactions between individuals, but for corporations like Overstock etc... not a chance.
Timbuktu is a landlocked city hundreds of miles from the ocean. No shit it had no trading fleet of it's own.
And you're a clueless moron.
Which sounds impressive until you know the rest of the story... which is that, despite the regulations of the nation-of-registry they're still subject to certain health and safety regulations of the nations whose ports they enter. They still need insurance, and no reputable insurance company will touch them unless the ship has been certified by a known Classification Society. Etc... etc...
Flags of convenience aren't what they used to be, and even so cruise ships have a vested interested in not being thought of as shithole rustbuckets.
I didn't say it was unreasonable, I said the OP's contention that it could be whipped up in a short time was unreasonable.
Not believed by anyone not wearing a tinfoil chapeau that I know of.
A claim completely unsupported by your link.
That's probably true for your and me who have grown up with a phonetic system. I wouldn't think it to be true of someone who didn't grow up in a phonetic system and to whom the whole idea is new. The one historic example with which I'm familiar to twelve years to create.
The problem is... so long as the building doesn't fall down, architectural reviewers review architecture in exactly the same way that literature and "high art" reviewers review their field. It's all about buzzwords and status and soft theory. The engineering is left "as an exercise for the student" and treated as mere mechanics.
The only surprising thing is that it's taken this long for him to figure this out.
It's not that we can't stand that it's different - it's that we can't stand that it's different, counter-intuitive, inconsistent, and broken.
There, fixed that for you. And properly explained why the article is on the front page to boot.
One of the most classic strawmen ever - defining those who fail to agree with you as unintelligent and ignorant. You're not insightful, you're a jackass in human skin.
That sound you heard was my point whooshing over your pointy head.
But that's not what you said - you said, specifically, that you weeded resumes based on the reputation in the eyes of of others of the individual applying for the job. "Dickwad" was the exact term if I'm not mistaken.
And that's not on a different level, no matter how much smoke you blow.
Emphasis added... and just further reinforces the notion that it's not on a 'way different level' from a high school clique.