I would never have figured Mexican labor would become cheaper than that found in China. Sure, there's an education gap between Chinese and Mexican labor, but Mexico has been successful at producing exports in a variety of industries.
Significant to what I'm seeing in that comparison is that while the "build it wherever labor is cheap" attitude has certainly been prevalent, I have to wonder if rising fuel costs will begin to whittle away at that? Several years ago, a man who ran a raw cotton storage facility told me that the cotton was grown here in Texas, shipped to China, manufactured into completed products, and shipped back to the United States. How much longer can transportation to and from across the Pacific be cost effective compared to other options?
You're making a big assumption here, femtobyte. When did I ever say free? My real concern is, how am I to be assured that the "public" won't get priced out of the deal? Especially if grant money intrudes and artificially inflates the market rate for such time. The astronomy "public" is more than a little influenced by government and deep-pocketed corporations, after all.
I'm having difficulty figuring out exactly how much "public access" we can really get to something that is probably going to be in demand by a lot of people doing a lot more important things than my space-equivalent of a Google Street View tour of places I'm never going and know nothing about.
Learning to code may not be an event, but that first moment when you realize what you've just done with a few lines of code (or other data depending on language of course) definitely is.
GW-BASIC and an old Wang Labs BASIC manual my dad found lying around. That, combined with some friends of similar interests. This was in middle school, back in about 1992-3.
My point is more about trying to clone designs from stolen information than about what China is capable of. China isn't stupid. They know it's more effective to partner with someone than to steal information and hope for the best. It worked with McDonnell Douglas, and it can work with Russia. You know, the nation supplying the J-31's engines at present.
Exactly my point, even in bringing up the 1970s 707 knockoff. The end result was that China decided the project wasn't worth developing further when they could just buy a much more refined and reliable product from Boeing, and even moreso when MD basically handed them the ability to build DC-9 series airframes. It is no small stretch of imagination to envision China doing what India has in partnership with Russia on the PAK FA. Much more effective than trying to modify an F-35 blueprint to suit their manufacturing capacity at present.
I'm not underestimating China. I'm overestimating the usefulness of what information they have stolen when compared to the cost of buying proven fighters from Russia.
You're absolutely right on all points, but it's not just Joe with a file and Jim bending some things. Metallurgy and materials availability are a big factor in aerospace, particularly bleeding-edge military aerospace.
I think a lot of hiring processes end up rejecting good candidates and eventually hiring poor ones based on process at this point. I know this is asking too much of HR types, but at some point you have to realize that it's better to know that a person owns up to their actions rather than hiding them constantly.
China can steal all the designs they want, but without successfully implementing the designs, I'm honestly not that concerned. In the 1970s, China managed to kludge together a weak clone of Boeing's 20+-year-old 707, powered by what are believed to have been spare 707 engines. If you think China can manage to cobble together some F-35s that will be worth the effort, or some F/A-18s that can match US spec, you need to understand that it's easier and probably more cost-effective to place orders with Sukhoi Design Bureau for something that actually works than it is to duplicate the processes needed to actually create the American aircraft mentioned above.
China doesn't have the best track record in building designs stolen aerospace designs from other countries, and has found better success in getting people to willingly hand them the capabilities and processes. China's MD-80 license production and the assistance they got from McDonnell-Douglas is the biggest factor in their current aerospace pushes being at least semi-feasible.
There is a vital difference between user experience and user results. Where the result will land is a matter of the project itself. The user experience should always be good, but the results have to rank higher than some conveniences. Beyond those vague criteria, I have little I can add without more specifics on the project itself.
Not its relevance to my question, particularly with my specification of what my question was not. my question was why users should GAF, not why politicians GAF.
People seem to be willing to call this "commercial" use too readily in this article's comment section here. I find the trend towards calling browse-only internet service disconcerting. I see no reason why I shouldn't be able to run a noncommercial box or series of boxes at home that provide myself, family, and friends, with access. Either you have internet connectivity or you don't. Arbitrarily determining that use is "commercial" simply because the average user does not use their connection the same way is asinine.
the imaginary line between business and personal usage is not drawn in any way that reflects the actual meaning of the words.
What I want to know is why in the world the publisher deserves a cent for a game already paid for. Not why they legally can put it into their license, but why they deserve it.
I actually left the fire service four years ago with a hereditary medical issue after a bit over two years professional and several years volunteer service. Landed back in IT.
My time serving definitely changed my view of what constitutes heroism though. The threshold seems to have become much lower than it once was, reserved for the Davy Crocketts and William Wallaces of the world. Now it seems to be applied to practically everyone in one way or another.
The article lacks numbers, but I have a feeling their asking price was far above and beyond the threshold of reasonable amounts. I just don't care enough to delve into it at 4:59 in the afternoon.
That's my impression as well. The domain owners seem to have played the WIPO, along with any (likely) dislike the WIPO has for men like Paul who would dismantle countless copyright extensions and protections that he feels overreach the reasonable limits of copyright's intent.
...it doesn't actually look like Paul is guilty of anything but refusing to accept a settlement that was unreasonable in the first place. I already didn't trust the WIPO before, and this certainly didn't help improve their image in my eyes.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, because baseball could totally use things to make the games longer and slower. Think of the extra advertising revenues and concessions sales!
I would never have figured Mexican labor would become cheaper than that found in China. Sure, there's an education gap between Chinese and Mexican labor, but Mexico has been successful at producing exports in a variety of industries.
Significant to what I'm seeing in that comparison is that while the "build it wherever labor is cheap" attitude has certainly been prevalent, I have to wonder if rising fuel costs will begin to whittle away at that? Several years ago, a man who ran a raw cotton storage facility told me that the cotton was grown here in Texas, shipped to China, manufactured into completed products, and shipped back to the United States. How much longer can transportation to and from across the Pacific be cost effective compared to other options?
You're making a big assumption here, femtobyte. When did I ever say free? My real concern is, how am I to be assured that the "public" won't get priced out of the deal? Especially if grant money intrudes and artificially inflates the market rate for such time. The astronomy "public" is more than a little influenced by government and deep-pocketed corporations, after all.
I'm having difficulty figuring out exactly how much "public access" we can really get to something that is probably going to be in demand by a lot of people doing a lot more important things than my space-equivalent of a Google Street View tour of places I'm never going and know nothing about.
Learning to code may not be an event, but that first moment when you realize what you've just done with a few lines of code (or other data depending on language of course) definitely is.
GW-BASIC and an old Wang Labs BASIC manual my dad found lying around. That, combined with some friends of similar interests. This was in middle school, back in about 1992-3.
My point is more about trying to clone designs from stolen information than about what China is capable of. China isn't stupid. They know it's more effective to partner with someone than to steal information and hope for the best. It worked with McDonnell Douglas, and it can work with Russia. You know, the nation supplying the J-31's engines at present.
Exactly my point, even in bringing up the 1970s 707 knockoff. The end result was that China decided the project wasn't worth developing further when they could just buy a much more refined and reliable product from Boeing, and even moreso when MD basically handed them the ability to build DC-9 series airframes. It is no small stretch of imagination to envision China doing what India has in partnership with Russia on the PAK FA. Much more effective than trying to modify an F-35 blueprint to suit their manufacturing capacity at present.
I'm not underestimating China. I'm overestimating the usefulness of what information they have stolen when compared to the cost of buying proven fighters from Russia.
China can steal all the designs they want, but without successfully implementing the designs, I'm honestly not that concerned.
North Korea buys from China. Are you scared now?
If North Korea buys shoddy F-35 knockoffs from China, no. In fact, at that point I may be less scared than I was before.
Cost effectiveness wasn't in the design spec. This is government contracts we're talking about here!
You're absolutely right on all points, but it's not just Joe with a file and Jim bending some things. Metallurgy and materials availability are a big factor in aerospace, particularly bleeding-edge military aerospace.
I think a lot of hiring processes end up rejecting good candidates and eventually hiring poor ones based on process at this point. I know this is asking too much of HR types, but at some point you have to realize that it's better to know that a person owns up to their actions rather than hiding them constantly.
China can steal all the designs they want, but without successfully implementing the designs, I'm honestly not that concerned. In the 1970s, China managed to kludge together a weak clone of Boeing's 20+-year-old 707, powered by what are believed to have been spare 707 engines. If you think China can manage to cobble together some F-35s that will be worth the effort, or some F/A-18s that can match US spec, you need to understand that it's easier and probably more cost-effective to place orders with Sukhoi Design Bureau for something that actually works than it is to duplicate the processes needed to actually create the American aircraft mentioned above.
China doesn't have the best track record in building designs stolen aerospace designs from other countries, and has found better success in getting people to willingly hand them the capabilities and processes. China's MD-80 license production and the assistance they got from McDonnell-Douglas is the biggest factor in their current aerospace pushes being at least semi-feasible.
There is a vital difference between user experience and user results. Where the result will land is a matter of the project itself. The user experience should always be good, but the results have to rank higher than some conveniences. Beyond those vague criteria, I have little I can add without more specifics on the project itself.
Not its relevance to my question, particularly with my specification of what my question was not. my question was why users should GAF, not why politicians GAF.
Exactly. You are paying for guaranteed uptime and (in my opinion it's ridiculous that this is considered business-only, but) an unblocked Port 80.
People seem to be willing to call this "commercial" use too readily in this article's comment section here. I find the trend towards calling browse-only internet service disconcerting. I see no reason why I shouldn't be able to run a noncommercial box or series of boxes at home that provide myself, family, and friends, with access. Either you have internet connectivity or you don't. Arbitrarily determining that use is "commercial" simply because the average user does not use their connection the same way is asinine.
the imaginary line between business and personal usage is not drawn in any way that reflects the actual meaning of the words.
AC doesn't bother to comprehend a post before responding. Go figure.
What I want to know is why in the world the publisher deserves a cent for a game already paid for. Not why they legally can put it into their license, but why they deserve it.
I actually left the fire service four years ago with a hereditary medical issue after a bit over two years professional and several years volunteer service. Landed back in IT.
My time serving definitely changed my view of what constitutes heroism though. The threshold seems to have become much lower than it once was, reserved for the Davy Crocketts and William Wallaces of the world. Now it seems to be applied to practically everyone in one way or another.
The article lacks numbers, but I have a feeling their asking price was far above and beyond the threshold of reasonable amounts. I just don't care enough to delve into it at 4:59 in the afternoon.
That's my impression as well. The domain owners seem to have played the WIPO, along with any (likely) dislike the WIPO has for men like Paul who would dismantle countless copyright extensions and protections that he feels overreach the reasonable limits of copyright's intent.
...it doesn't actually look like Paul is guilty of anything but refusing to accept a settlement that was unreasonable in the first place. I already didn't trust the WIPO before, and this certainly didn't help improve their image in my eyes.
Google Streetview begs to differ.