And they have the nerve to call me (-1, Flamebait)
Re:Its funny our attitude about success...
on
Soviet Moon Rocket
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
A lot more people have died in the Soviet space program than the US one. It's easy to be first if you don't care about quality and safety.
If you are alluding to brutality under communist Soviet regime then you have a point. But consider this (a link somebody posted a few comments above, mod it up, it's a good link). It describes the N1 in more detail. In particular, it describes the 4 ill-fated launch attempts. Look at these snippets:
First launch: ``Within a minute, the fire spread to the cabling and propellant lines for other engines. The KORD system shut down the entire first stage, and triggered the firing of emergency escape rockets that carried the L3S (unmanned L3) payload away from the booster as if it had been manned. The booster followed its suborbital trajectory to a point 45 km (30 mi) from the pad and crashed into the ground.''
Second launch: ``
Within ten seconds of launch, all engines were commanded to stop, yet one continued to burn. The remaining engine merely spun the rocket about its axis as it collapsed back onto the pad. The explosive impact destroyed the N1, the pad, and ground support equipment, as well as damaging a neighboring pad and a second N1 booster. Only the unmanned L3S spacecraft survived, carried to safety by its escape rocket.''
Catastrophic failure, but the emergency system seems to work (although the site does not go in to detail as to what happened on the 3rd and 4th launches).
With a parallel bus you can only send signals so fast before you hit clock skew problems: at high frequencies it becomes difficult (read: expensive) to ensure that all the wires remain in sync. A serial bus allow much higher frequencies (at the same cost), plus it saves a lot of space (more cost savings).
Precisely. The question is how many possible universes physics allows. The problem with the theory is that it is far from obvious how it is possible for one universe to differ from another universe if not by physics. How can two universes be different if their physics do not differ?
But if you accept that physics may differ, then you lose the requirement that all possibilities must be allowed by physics: after all, there is no longer "one kind of physics". Instead, there may be many differing kinds of physics, and you lose that particular defense against the inconsistency I previously mentioned. I think.
Well, that's an answer. But how about the possibility of the theory being false? How about the possibility of the theory being false in some but not all possible universes?
The problem isn't in the nature of the universe. Its in the nature of possibility.
You know, what the fuck, we might as well abandon DNS altogether and have people just trade their raw hosts files. We could have companies that sell subscriptions to premium hosts files and that charge you a fee to look up an IP address. Lots of entrepreneurial opportunities there, heck, who knows, this way the Internet might actually live up to its moneymaking potential.
Yeah. I'm convinced. Scrap this system and make it more like the telephone system. The telephone people always fucked me over good and I miss that on this cold and lonely Internet thing. Word up brutha!
There is a problem with these "a universe for every possibility" theories. Where is the universe for the possibility that there is only a single universe?
Everybody can say that "Linux needs more user friendliness". But be specific. What constitutes this "user friendliness". Well, it's things like fonts. Templates for letters, memos, labels, symbols (there are standards for all these things). Default bookmarks, default ISPs, default home pages. Partnerships. Standards like Pantone, Sorenson. Brands: Kodak, Steinberg, Adobe. All of this costs money. Where is this money going to come from? Besides. Most of us don't really need Linux to go there.
Would just like to add that the halting problem is mostly useful as a theoretical device for very generally proving or disproving propositions about specific machines, rather than as a practical problem that needs a solution though. In reality simple watchdog timers perform almost as well as a human would in assessing whether a particular program will ever end or not (also programmers tend to just avoid endless loops in their programs).
Tempest in a teapot! Tempest in a teapot! Waste your life spinning license terms to get your name in the papers! News at eleven! You heard it here first!
You know, when Slashdot posts articles like these, I can't help but wonder.
This should provide an easily scalable system
Yeah, right. Like as if anybody who reads Slashdot is going to go "Cool! I'll go and build a Mosix cluster with diskless nodes now! I've always wanted an easily scalable system and just this looks like it might be it!".
This is just how Linux works. The froddy Mandrugs and SuXe distro's may have managed to hide this fact from users because most of them were first time users anyway. Mandrugs and SuXe will have to come to terms with the rigor required to support their installed base. The underlying fragility of the Linux system lies ever more exposed.
Conceptually, the biggest problem with P3P is that it presupposes that the browser is already in control of sensitive and confidential information. This jibes perfectly with the vision behind schemes like Passport and product activation.
Practically, the system is a nightmare to configure. If this thing ever gets widespread adoption I am sure we will see a surge of privacy consultants and third party privacy management tools.
Just because people repeat [a program should do one thing well instead of many things poorly] endlessly doesn't make it "wisdom" (though maybe it becomes "accepted")
Then you end with:
alot of programming methodologies [...] recommend programming wide and shallow, and in an iterative way.
Basically you are rejecting one kind of accepted wisdom based on another kind of accepted wisdom.
MS Office is popular because it's from Microsoft. Features have very little to do with it except in so far as they lock out the competition (through better integration for example). There could be a world in which people use different text editors to suit there specific needs, you know. I think that's possible.
I'm not that impressed with the examples you've given. Mozilla is years late. GCC 3.0 idem, and buggy to boot. Besides, none of the programs really goes against the maxim of "do a few things well instead of many things poorly". Mozilla is the worst offender, and guess what, it's also the worst-run project. GCC is a compiler. Emacs and vim are text-editors. They do that very well.
Office is a good example of an app that does many things. But that's not bad in itself. If you have to make the choice, then it is better to do one thing well than to do many things poorly. If you have to make the choice. Microsoft doesn't really have to make that choice, so they can afford something baroque like Office.
You get to see more results and get more satisfaction sooner by showing fewer capabilities in many fields, compared to showing many capabilities in fewer fields.
Of course this flies straight in the face of accepted wisdom that it's better to have an app do a few things well than to have it do many things poorly.
Yeah, digital audio has really taken off. I didn't even think that was news anymore. The way a lot of it is implemented, and what with the number of snake-oil salesmen in the music industry, it's still a laborious process though.
For one, there is the proliferation of formats: you have SCSI, ADAT, SP/DIF (coaxial & optical), USB (1.0 & 2.0), 8/16/32 bits + different sample rates, and you have to buy outrageous (and outrageously expensive) "converter boxes" for every one of them. Then of course you have to pay extra for equipment that does not honor some kind of copyright protection scheme.
Add to that the fact that the software has become so complex and outlandish that you really need a manual to go with your pirated copy, and you almost start to get the sense that they don't really trust the people to make music.
Slashdot Mirror
First launch: ``Within a minute, the fire spread to the cabling and propellant lines for other engines. The KORD system shut down the entire first stage, and triggered the firing of emergency escape rockets that carried the L3S (unmanned L3) payload away from the booster as if it had been manned. The booster followed its suborbital trajectory to a point 45 km (30 mi) from the pad and crashed into the ground.''
Second launch: `` Within ten seconds of launch, all engines were commanded to stop, yet one continued to burn. The remaining engine merely spun the rocket about its axis as it collapsed back onto the pad. The explosive impact destroyed the N1, the pad, and ground support equipment, as well as damaging a neighboring pad and a second N1 booster. Only the unmanned L3S spacecraft survived, carried to safety by its escape rocket.''
Catastrophic failure, but the emergency system seems to work (although the site does not go in to detail as to what happened on the 3rd and 4th launches).
To think that some people waste their time having sex! They must be stupid
Well, I suppose. But I am still confused. To use your analogy, do the planets in our universe constitute all possible planets? Why or why not?
With a parallel bus you can only send signals so fast before you hit clock skew problems: at high frequencies it becomes difficult (read: expensive) to ensure that all the wires remain in sync. A serial bus allow much higher frequencies (at the same cost), plus it saves a lot of space (more cost savings).
Have you ever run a Fido node?
Argh. Yes, we know about MOSIX. We like MOSIX. MOSIX is cool. Satisfied? That still does not an easily scalable system make.
But if you accept that physics may differ, then you lose the requirement that all possibilities must be allowed by physics: after all, there is no longer "one kind of physics". Instead, there may be many differing kinds of physics, and you lose that particular defense against the inconsistency I previously mentioned. I think.
The problem isn't in the nature of the universe. Its in the nature of possibility.
You know, what the fuck, we might as well abandon DNS altogether and have people just trade their raw hosts files. We could have companies that sell subscriptions to premium hosts files and that charge you a fee to look up an IP address. Lots of entrepreneurial opportunities there, heck, who knows, this way the Internet might actually live up to its moneymaking potential.
Yeah. I'm convinced. Scrap this system and make it more like the telephone system. The telephone people always fucked me over good and I miss that on this cold and lonely Internet thing. Word up brutha!
There's rather a big difference between a volcano 4000 miles away and a firecracker in your hand.
There is a problem with these "a universe for every possibility" theories. Where is the universe for the possibility that there is only a single universe?
Everybody can say that "Linux needs more user friendliness". But be specific. What constitutes this "user friendliness". Well, it's things like fonts. Templates for letters, memos, labels, symbols (there are standards for all these things). Default bookmarks, default ISPs, default home pages. Partnerships. Standards like Pantone, Sorenson. Brands: Kodak, Steinberg, Adobe. All of this costs money. Where is this money going to come from? Besides. Most of us don't really need Linux to go there.
Would just like to add that the halting problem is mostly useful as a theoretical device for very generally proving or disproving propositions about specific machines, rather than as a practical problem that needs a solution though. In reality simple watchdog timers perform almost as well as a human would in assessing whether a particular program will ever end or not (also programmers tend to just avoid endless loops in their programs).
- Unsure what to make of this?
- Confused by S(SKK)(K(Sq(S(S(SKK)(KS))(KK))))?
- Interested in learning about S-K?
Then we can help you meet women just like you!Tempest in a teapot! Tempest in a teapot! Waste your life spinning license terms to get your name in the papers! News at eleven! You heard it here first!
This should provide an easily scalable system
Yeah, right. Like as if anybody who reads Slashdot is going to go "Cool! I'll go and build a Mosix cluster with diskless nodes now! I've always wanted an easily scalable system and just this looks like it might be it!".
This is just how Linux works. The froddy Mandrugs and SuXe distro's may have managed to hide this fact from users because most of them were first time users anyway. Mandrugs and SuXe will have to come to terms with the rigor required to support their installed base. The underlying fragility of the Linux system lies ever more exposed.
You misspelled "ubiquitous".
Best Regards,
Pussy Is Money.
Practically, the system is a nightmare to configure. If this thing ever gets widespread adoption I am sure we will see a surge of privacy consultants and third party privacy management tools.
MS Office is popular because it's from Microsoft. Features have very little to do with it except in so far as they lock out the competition (through better integration for example). There could be a world in which people use different text editors to suit there specific needs, you know. I think that's possible.
I'm not that impressed with the examples you've given. Mozilla is years late. GCC 3.0 idem, and buggy to boot. Besides, none of the programs really goes against the maxim of "do a few things well instead of many things poorly". Mozilla is the worst offender, and guess what, it's also the worst-run project. GCC is a compiler. Emacs and vim are text-editors. They do that very well.
Office is a good example of an app that does many things. But that's not bad in itself. If you have to make the choice, then it is better to do one thing well than to do many things poorly. If you have to make the choice. Microsoft doesn't really have to make that choice, so they can afford something baroque like Office.
You get to see more results and get more satisfaction sooner by showing fewer capabilities in many fields, compared to showing many capabilities in fewer fields. Of course this flies straight in the face of accepted wisdom that it's better to have an app do a few things well than to have it do many things poorly.
Heh :) You are just so cool ;) :D >)
For one, there is the proliferation of formats: you have SCSI, ADAT, SP/DIF (coaxial & optical), USB (1.0 & 2.0), 8/16/32 bits + different sample rates, and you have to buy outrageous (and outrageously expensive) "converter boxes" for every one of them. Then of course you have to pay extra for equipment that does not honor some kind of copyright protection scheme.
Add to that the fact that the software has become so complex and outlandish that you really need a manual to go with your pirated copy, and you almost start to get the sense that they don't really trust the people to make music.