I'll just reply to your comment, though it is a general reply to the above. What makes Ariane different is that all development costs are paid for by the government, to the contractor. The contractor will therefore charge the maximum development cost that he can - and a bigger rocket means a more expensive rocket. In the eyes of a government contractor, this is a very good thing - so they use cost accounting to justify it.
In the private sector (where by that I mean that private money funds all development and deployment costs), the amount of money the company makes is inversely related to the cost of the project - so they will choose the least expensive configuration.
If you look at the current private company business plans, they are all trying for maximum flight rate of minimally sized craft. If you look at the government funded spacecraft, they are all going after maximum single launch payload. This is not a coincidence...
I doubt the launch is that much cheaper, and in the long run it definately won't be. Look at it this way - yes, there is a small marginal decrease in launch price as mass increases. But there is a much larger marginal increase in launch price as launch rate goes down. This could have been done in two launches. The vehicle design cost and launch personel cost (the primary cost components) is slightly higher (per kg) for a lower launch mass, but the cost is sunk (you have to pay the people even when you do not launch, and you have to pay interest on your design cost loans even when you do not launch). Essentially, the second launch is almost free! The only reason is doesn't seem that way is cost accounting, where the cost is spread out per flight. A more realistic accounting method is to say that the first flight costs $10B, and every flight thereafter costs only $10M.
In the free market, most companies know this - but in a government market, no one cares...
This is not true - the advantage just moves from "having the best software" to "having the best software engineers" (which we should greatly desire!). For example, look at Toyota. Whether you like their cars or not, they have the best manufacturing facilities on the planet. All of their methods are known - you can even go take a plant tour! They use very expensive workers (USA workers). And yet they maintain a consistant advantage - the rest of the industry plays catch up!
The same is true of software - have you ever had a program that was finished? Is there a competitive advantage in being able to use the server more effectively?
Technically, no - if people see value that isn't there, they are just wrong and someone will take them out of the decision making process by removing their great heaping wads of cash.
A bubble is when people invest based on the perception of increasing value, rather than the value itself. (It's an economic term, just consult an economic text.)
I don't really disagree with you, but I would caution you - a common failing in science (if not THE common failing) is that scientists regularly discount data that doesn't match their expectations, until the evidence is overwhelming. That's why new, incredible theories such as QM and relativity are often looked down on as junk science early on.
I was actually thinking of getting the passwords to the routers / servers / etc, not the machine itself. Most of the keyloggers would plug in behind the computer - how often do people look there?
You can describe a security arangement, I can describe a break. It sounds like you are relatively secure - but most people are not! (Fobs are difficult, but not impossible, to defeat)
How about this: Late at night, I come in to work - notice that you are not at your desk, and attach a hardware keyboard sniffer to your keyboard. A few days later, I mosy over and disconnect it.
What do I have at that point? Enough info for a serious carreer boost!
I'm also an EE, hi there! Basically, that's why I said an infinite signal to noise ratio. Mbits/s does not scale linearly with MHz, but it does scale with signal to noise ratio. Essentially, snr defines the limit you are refering to.
An easy way to look at that is Amplitude Modulation (AM). Lets pretend that you have REALLY good signal to noise ratio - basically no noise. Use 44.1 KHz of bandwith, transmit CD quality sound, and you can get 44.1 KHz * 16 bits/Hz out of it.
Of course, in reality you use the time domain as well as the amplitude domain, but that is the idea.
Exactly true - the best example of a truely communist society is most families. A small group of people that trust each other can form a communist society, and it will be more efficient than a capitalistic one.
It just doesn't handle complexity or failure of trust.
Youare talking about the distribution of wealth, I am talking about the distribution of income. Obviously, some people have hoarded high incomes, and now have high wealth - but that does not change the basic relationship of about 75% of income goes to workers, 25% of income goes to return on capital. It comes down to the fact that putting in more capital gives about a 25% return, and putting in more labor gives about a 75% return (not quite that simple, but that's where you start). Look up "GDP marginal return on capital" to get started (that is probably not the official name, but some good stuff seems to appear in that search).
It really is amazing how little people know about economics. For example: Does saving more (by custom or fiat) cause sustainable economic growth?
BTW, most of the people in the top 5% of the US work harder and smarter than everyone else to get there (although there is a lot of luck involved, of course). Think about all the rich people you known (though admittedly, I probably have a better sample than you) - 1. Bill Gates 2. Warren Buffett 3. Paul Allen 4. Helen Walton 5. S. Robson Walton 6. John Walton 7. Jim Walton 8. Alice Walton 9. Larry Ellison 10. Michael Dell, and that guy you know that built a company and sold it. What do they have in common? They worked their buts off, and were better at what they did than everyone else. (Admittedly, the Waltons had their father/husband work hard and now they are executives, but they still work long hours).
Really, don't just believe what you have been told - challenge it, predict the effect of their proposal on the real world (where people do not work hard for $1, they only give $1 worth of work). You cannot just give away money - money is a measure that you use to determine if you will get fed if you give away non-food related labor. If the government gives away money, then I know that accepting your money in exchange for something you want from me will not result in food getting made... unless you think farmers should work for free... and transport companies... and packagers... etc
To see what happens when the government tries to take money from people and give it to other people, see Argentina. They started as one of the best economies in the world (higher growth than the US!), and then Unions and expensive government totally destroyed it.
BTW, Karl Marx has been definitively proven wrong. One of the base tenets of his theory leading to communism is that as capitalistic economies progress, the people that own the means of production take all the profits, leaving nothing for the workers. It turns out that the division of profit between labor and capital is and has been ~75% labor, ~25% capital for as long as we can measure. This turns out to be a direct consequence of the ratio between the marginal productivity of labor and the marginal productivity of capital.
No; in a truely democratic communistic society, we would vote to decide the price. Everyone but you would vote that it should be free. Then we would take your snowcones, and you would try to get out of the country before the next vote (where we take whatever you have left)!
Basically, you seem to be saying that circumstancial evidence is not really evidence - which is totally correct, of course. I was merely pointing out that in the absolute absence of anything else, you might as well use circumstancial evidence.
(This is not true of ID vs Evolution, for example, but I don't really get all out of shape over such things)
Slashdot Mirror
Ah yes, but can you log in and drop all iptables input chains (with a default deny rule)?
How many of us have done that remotely? (2000 miles away?)
I'll just reply to your comment, though it is a general reply to the above. What makes Ariane different is that all development costs are paid for by the government, to the contractor. The contractor will therefore charge the maximum development cost that he can - and a bigger rocket means a more expensive rocket. In the eyes of a government contractor, this is a very good thing - so they use cost accounting to justify it.
In the private sector (where by that I mean that private money funds all development and deployment costs), the amount of money the company makes is inversely related to the cost of the project - so they will choose the least expensive configuration.
If you look at the current private company business plans, they are all trying for maximum flight rate of minimally sized craft. If you look at the government funded spacecraft, they are all going after maximum single launch payload. This is not a coincidence...
I doubt the launch is that much cheaper, and in the long run it definately won't be. Look at it this way - yes, there is a small marginal decrease in launch price as mass increases. But there is a much larger marginal increase in launch price as launch rate goes down. This could have been done in two launches. The vehicle design cost and launch personel cost (the primary cost components) is slightly higher (per kg) for a lower launch mass, but the cost is sunk (you have to pay the people even when you do not launch, and you have to pay interest on your design cost loans even when you do not launch). Essentially, the second launch is almost free! The only reason is doesn't seem that way is cost accounting, where the cost is spread out per flight. A more realistic accounting method is to say that the first flight costs $10B, and every flight thereafter costs only $10M.
In the free market, most companies know this - but in a government market, no one cares...
This is not true - the advantage just moves from "having the best software" to "having the best software engineers" (which we should greatly desire!). For example, look at Toyota. Whether you like their cars or not, they have the best manufacturing facilities on the planet. All of their methods are known - you can even go take a plant tour! They use very expensive workers (USA workers). And yet they maintain a consistant advantage - the rest of the industry plays catch up!
The same is true of software - have you ever had a program that was finished? Is there a competitive advantage in being able to use the server more effectively?
Software engineering is not going away...
Technically, no - if people see value that isn't there, they are just wrong and someone will take them out of the decision making process by removing their great heaping wads of cash.
A bubble is when people invest based on the perception of increasing value, rather than the value itself. (It's an economic term, just consult an economic text.)
Not all religions (even limiting to those that profess to be Christian) have a problem with that...
In fact, 60% of scientists believe in God - and 50% of evolutionary biologists do!
The arrogance of some people here is just incredible.
both be and not be simultaneously dosen't mean that God can't do it.
Thereby using quantum mechanics to build the definitive proof of the existence of god!
I don't really disagree with you, but I would caution you - a common failing in science (if not THE common failing) is that scientists regularly discount data that doesn't match their expectations, until the evidence is overwhelming. That's why new, incredible theories such as QM and relativity are often looked down on as junk science early on.
That difference is about 12 years...
And I do know what I am talking about...
I was actually thinking of getting the passwords to the routers / servers / etc, not the machine itself. Most of the keyloggers would plug in behind the computer - how often do people look there?
You can describe a security arangement, I can describe a break. It sounds like you are relatively secure - but most people are not! (Fobs are difficult, but not impossible, to defeat)
administrators PC is unable to be used as a tool to gain said information
Until you install a keyboard sniffer dongle, and you ownzor them.
How about this: Late at night, I come in to work - notice that you are not at your desk, and attach a hardware keyboard sniffer to your keyboard. A few days later, I mosy over and disconnect it.
What do I have at that point? Enough info for a serious carreer boost!
They use a custom built Windows version, not available for sale. It runs no services. It still gets hacked occasionally...
...meet basic mission requirements and be autonomous and storable in orbit...
Go back and read the specs of their orbital modules again. This is exactly what they have designed - and one is orbiting us right now.
I'm also an EE, hi there! Basically, that's why I said an infinite signal to noise ratio. Mbits/s does not scale linearly with MHz, but it does scale with signal to noise ratio. Essentially, snr defines the limit you are refering to.
An easy way to look at that is Amplitude Modulation (AM). Lets pretend that you have REALLY good signal to noise ratio - basically no noise. Use 44.1 KHz of bandwith, transmit CD quality sound, and you can get 44.1 KHz * 16 bits/Hz out of it.
Of course, in reality you use the time domain as well as the amplitude domain, but that is the idea.
Exactly true - the best example of a truely communist society is most families. A small group of people that trust each other can form a communist society, and it will be more efficient than a capitalistic one.
It just doesn't handle complexity or failure of trust.
Youare talking about the distribution of wealth, I am talking about the distribution of income. Obviously, some people have hoarded high incomes, and now have high wealth - but that does not change the basic relationship of about 75% of income goes to workers, 25% of income goes to return on capital. It comes down to the fact that putting in more capital gives about a 25% return, and putting in more labor gives about a 75% return (not quite that simple, but that's where you start). Look up "GDP marginal return on capital" to get started (that is probably not the official name, but some good stuff seems to appear in that search).
It really is amazing how little people know about economics. For example: Does saving more (by custom or fiat) cause sustainable economic growth?
BTW, most of the people in the top 5% of the US work harder and smarter than everyone else to get there (although there is a lot of luck involved, of course). Think about all the rich people you known (though admittedly, I probably have a better sample than you) - 1. Bill Gates 2. Warren Buffett 3. Paul Allen 4. Helen Walton 5. S. Robson Walton 6. John Walton 7. Jim Walton 8. Alice Walton 9. Larry Ellison 10. Michael Dell, and that guy you know that built a company and sold it. What do they have in common? They worked their buts off, and were better at what they did than everyone else. (Admittedly, the Waltons had their father/husband work hard and now they are executives, but they still work long hours).
Really, don't just believe what you have been told - challenge it, predict the effect of their proposal on the real world (where people do not work hard for $1, they only give $1 worth of work). You cannot just give away money - money is a measure that you use to determine if you will get fed if you give away non-food related labor. If the government gives away money, then I know that accepting your money in exchange for something you want from me will not result in food getting made... unless you think farmers should work for free... and transport companies... and packagers... etc
To see what happens when the government tries to take money from people and give it to other people, see Argentina. They started as one of the best economies in the world (higher growth than the US!), and then Unions and expensive government totally destroyed it.
BTW, Karl Marx has been definitively proven wrong. One of the base tenets of his theory leading to communism is that as capitalistic economies progress, the people that own the means of production take all the profits, leaving nothing for the workers. It turns out that the division of profit between labor and capital is and has been ~75% labor, ~25% capital for as long as we can measure. This turns out to be a direct consequence of the ratio between the marginal productivity of labor and the marginal productivity of capital.
Interesting stuff!
US airlines move about 600 million passengers around the US every year. (source)
Long haul trains move far less, but it is concievable that eventually rockets could be as common as aircraft are now.
No; in a truely democratic communistic society, we would vote to decide the price. Everyone but you would vote that it should be free. Then we would take your snowcones, and you would try to get out of the country before the next vote (where we take whatever you have left)!
and the difficulty of getting the silly thing to run
Wow, if I were that dumb, I'd keep it to myself! (They have a live CD, you have trouble putting CDs in drives?)
Later in that document it says something to the effect of: "but the government can do whatever it wants to," I'm sure this falls under that part.
Basically, you seem to be saying that circumstancial evidence is not really evidence - which is totally correct, of course. I was merely pointing out that in the absolute absence of anything else, you might as well use circumstancial evidence.
(This is not true of ID vs Evolution, for example, but I don't really get all out of shape over such things)