is a kinda naive way to refer to horizontal integration of the industry.. and considering that you were replying to a guy who I thought was very naive, I'm overdosing on naivety here. Vertical integration has some great virtues but is not representative of a mature industry.
I think its a great idea.. there's no reason why the IDE release cycle has to be tied to the compiler release cycle.. except that Microsoft likes the lockin.
most serious Microsoft-oriented shops will upgrade to Visual Studio 2010 and never look back
Of course, implying that you're not a serious Microsoft-oriented shop if you don't upgrade. This is the exact opposite of the case. As Microsoft regularly changes stuff in VS that no-one wants, most people don't upgrade until necessity forces it on them. It's entirely network effects. If you're using precompiled third party libraries and they upgrade, chances are you'll be forced to upgrade. If Microsoft made it easier to use the new IDE without upgrading the compilers, the standard lib, the header install, etc, I imagine more people would accept the feature improvements (and the bug fixes!) to the IDE without trepidation.
As Jobs can do no wrong, I suggest that he load some more requirements and restrictions on iPhone developers.. oh, and maybe someone can let me know, can Apple remotely delete apps off iPhones? If not, they should get on that. Customers *love* that.
Ask the Russians, they're the only ones who have been doing any heavy lift rocket engine research in the last 40 years. The biggest rocket in the US arsenal, the Atlas V, uses Russian engines.
Ya know how everyone is moaning that the shuttle is going to be retired and NASA will lose the expertise of that workforce? Well that's what happened after Apollo. The expertise of the F1 was lost and now the only way to get back that capability is to do the research all over again (hopefully better with modern amenities and materials) or license it from Russia..
Alternately: accept the reality that large scale missions can't be achieved over presidential transitions and plan missions that are short enough in duration for the current President to take the credit when they are successfully completed.
Here I was thinking that it worked because there was national prestige at stake and the hearts and minds of the world. The Soviets were basically saying "haha! we're better than you" and the US needed to prove that they weren't. The same is not true now. No matter how much time and effort you put into making the airfield look legit and pretend to talk into radios, the planes will not come flying out of the sky with food and supplies. Give up on the Apollo cargo cult, people have been trying to rekindle that fire for 40 years.
If the "moon program" had been designed as an international partnership from the beginning, with each nation focusing on the capabilities they actually have instead of stuff that they might have after pouring $9billion down the drain, Russia could have been flying the crew to orbit for free with the US supplying the heavy lift to take them beyond LEO. But no, Griffin had to go with his shockingly bad plan to put an overweight capsule on a solid rocket booster with an air-startable SSME (that doesn't exist btw) as an upper stage, followed by two redesigns in mid-stream, including the creation of a new solid rocket booster, completely defeating the purpose of using a solid in the first place. And after spending enough money to fund nearly 50 COTS programs they flew a big bottle rocket into the ocean. Is it any wonder why they canceled it?
There's a "ride" at the Cape where you get into a pressurized module in the cargo bay of a mockup shuttle and they rattle you around a bit. It's not fun, but I'm sure its educational or something. Anyway, it's actual size, 15 ft by 60 ft (4.6 m by 18.3 m), they cram about 80 people into it. Even the fattest Americans, who can fit in the seats, wouldn't overmass the shuttle. There's no reason they couldn't actually make this module and take that many people into space.. but of course, NASA would never do that.
the rocket is just going straight up, what's so hard?
No, it's not.
Are you telling me that if I had the best part of $60 million I couldn't design, build and fly my own rocket in to space?
Elon Musk has spent a good part of a billion so far, has some of the brightest minds in the world working for him, and that's the cheapest *anyone* has developed a launcher for so far.
Just strap a sealed chamber onto a grain silo of fuel, surely?
They agreed to pay $51 million adjusted for inflation.. the seats are for the 2012-2013 timeframe because they've already signed at this price last year - another reason why this is old news.
Umm.. what I said, (I assume you don't read the whole thread, because, well, we're on Slashdot), is that they fired on the wounded and people trying to collect the wounded. If you go and watch the whole video you'll see that. There's no excuse for that, no matter who you think you're fighting.
Much as someone who attains a grandmaster ranking playing internet chess is completely clueless when placed in front of an actual chess board, my complex understanding of poker strategy evaporates the second I sit down at an actual poker table.
haha, yes! Obviously you've never played chess either. Here's an idea, get out from behind the computer and experience the real world sometime.
I love Slashdot. The assumption that I'm a fish just because I recognize that poker is a game about people, not cards, and over the Internet you just can't play the game. I recommend *you* go play some IRL poker and discover how *shit* you are at it, even if you think you're a superstar online. Hell, most online players can't even move from one online system to another without starting from scratch.
Slashdot Mirror
reinventing the wheel
is a kinda naive way to refer to horizontal integration of the industry.. and considering that you were replying to a guy who I thought was very naive, I'm overdosing on naivety here. Vertical integration has some great virtues but is not representative of a mature industry.
Bad, bad, bad, bad, bad idea.
I think its a great idea.. there's no reason why the IDE release cycle has to be tied to the compiler release cycle.. except that Microsoft likes the lockin.
most serious Microsoft-oriented shops will upgrade to Visual Studio 2010 and never look back
Of course, implying that you're not a serious Microsoft-oriented shop if you don't upgrade. This is the exact opposite of the case. As Microsoft regularly changes stuff in VS that no-one wants, most people don't upgrade until necessity forces it on them. It's entirely network effects. If you're using precompiled third party libraries and they upgrade, chances are you'll be forced to upgrade. If Microsoft made it easier to use the new IDE without upgrading the compilers, the standard lib, the header install, etc, I imagine more people would accept the feature improvements (and the bug fixes!) to the IDE without trepidation.
I love it when a plan comes together.
As Jobs can do no wrong, I suggest that he load some more requirements and restrictions on iPhone developers.. oh, and maybe someone can let me know, can Apple remotely delete apps off iPhones? If not, they should get on that. Customers *love* that.
Ask the Russians, they're the only ones who have been doing any heavy lift rocket engine research in the last 40 years. The biggest rocket in the US arsenal, the Atlas V, uses Russian engines.
Ya know how everyone is moaning that the shuttle is going to be retired and NASA will lose the expertise of that workforce? Well that's what happened after Apollo. The expertise of the F1 was lost and now the only way to get back that capability is to do the research all over again (hopefully better with modern amenities and materials) or license it from Russia..
Alternately: accept the reality that large scale missions can't be achieved over presidential transitions and plan missions that are short enough in duration for the current President to take the credit when they are successfully completed.
Here I was thinking that it worked because there was national prestige at stake and the hearts and minds of the world. The Soviets were basically saying "haha! we're better than you" and the US needed to prove that they weren't. The same is not true now. No matter how much time and effort you put into making the airfield look legit and pretend to talk into radios, the planes will not come flying out of the sky with food and supplies. Give up on the Apollo cargo cult, people have been trying to rekindle that fire for 40 years.
Probably the funniest thing you've ever written dude, and I notice that you do know how to make capital letters.. you're so close!
This is Australia, we don't have lobbyists.
We call campaign contributions "bribes" and we call politicians who take them "criminals."
If the "moon program" had been designed as an international partnership from the beginning, with each nation focusing on the capabilities they actually have instead of stuff that they might have after pouring $9billion down the drain, Russia could have been flying the crew to orbit for free with the US supplying the heavy lift to take them beyond LEO. But no, Griffin had to go with his shockingly bad plan to put an overweight capsule on a solid rocket booster with an air-startable SSME (that doesn't exist btw) as an upper stage, followed by two redesigns in mid-stream, including the creation of a new solid rocket booster, completely defeating the purpose of using a solid in the first place. And after spending enough money to fund nearly 50 COTS programs they flew a big bottle rocket into the ocean. Is it any wonder why they canceled it?
There's a "ride" at the Cape where you get into a pressurized module in the cargo bay of a mockup shuttle and they rattle you around a bit. It's not fun, but I'm sure its educational or something. Anyway, it's actual size, 15 ft by 60 ft (4.6 m by 18.3 m), they cram about 80 people into it. Even the fattest Americans, who can fit in the seats, wouldn't overmass the shuttle. There's no reason they couldn't actually make this module and take that many people into space.. but of course, NASA would never do that.
the rocket is just going straight up, what's so hard?
No, it's not.
Are you telling me that if I had the best part of $60 million I couldn't design, build and fly my own rocket in to space?
Elon Musk has spent a good part of a billion so far, has some of the brightest minds in the world working for him, and that's the cheapest *anyone* has developed a launcher for so far.
Just strap a sealed chamber onto a grain silo of fuel, surely?
Good luck with that.
How's that Falcon-9 coming along?
It's 3 months away ;)
They agreed to pay $51 million adjusted for inflation.. the seats are for the 2012-2013 timeframe because they've already signed at this price last year - another reason why this is old news.
The average cost to launch a Space Shuttle is about $450 million per mission.
7 seats = $64M/seat.
6 seats = $75M/seat.
The shuttle can actually seat 10 in rescue configuration but never has, thankfully.
Well, that and they've had to increase production because now there's more demand.
More costs, higher prices.
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20090513/155009780.html
Yawn.
[citation needed]
Drunk people do stuff like that.
Russians like to drink.
You do the math.
Well, the iPad isn't nuclear powered, but I guess if it was...
Umm.. what I said, (I assume you don't read the whole thread, because, well, we're on Slashdot), is that they fired on the wounded and people trying to collect the wounded. If you go and watch the whole video you'll see that. There's no excuse for that, no matter who you think you're fighting.
Much as someone who attains a grandmaster ranking playing internet chess is completely clueless when placed in front of an actual chess board, my complex understanding of poker strategy evaporates the second I sit down at an actual poker table.
haha, yes! Obviously you've never played chess either. Here's an idea, get out from behind the computer and experience the real world sometime.
No.. it means you're playing a different game to me.. and ya know, everyone else who plays *Poker*.
You're playing the Internet gaming version of dice and think you're a Poker player, you're not. Fuck off and die please.
I love Slashdot. The assumption that I'm a fish just because I recognize that poker is a game about people, not cards, and over the Internet you just can't play the game. I recommend *you* go play some IRL poker and discover how *shit* you are at it, even if you think you're a superstar online. Hell, most online players can't even move from one online system to another without starting from scratch.