SpaceX started merely as a loss-making venture poaching ex-government and contractor employees, and taking government money - it really had nothing meritocratic to bring to the table.
Very good point. I'd just like to clarify two minor things...
1. I agree with you, that it is very easy to start a business putting stuff into space that makes money from the outset. There are plenty of real-life examples where real innovation is achieved without any requirement for up-front capital (loss-making business models), usually it's funded from initial sales.
I forget the example business models and companies.... can you remind me of them?
2. Prior to getting "poached" by SpaceX, which "really had nothing meritocratic to bring to the table.", there have been DECADES of intense innovation in the space industry thanks to an overwhelming support and encouragement from government. This intense innovation has been _so succesful_ that NASA have recently retired their last government owned space shuttles.
Elon Musk was just standing on the shoulders of giants by proposing the incremental innovation of having rockets land intact...
Wikipedia has let me down... are you able to point me in the direction of the space innovation that's recently come out of the US government organisations, making Space-X's work redundant?
(sarcasm is often lost in text, so let me be direct: IMHO, private companies like Space-X are facilitating innovation in space travel. This is their contribution to society. You can piss & moan because private people are making money out of it, but it's better than government money being wasted on useless bureaucracy supporting (or causing) scientists resting on their laurels.)
They are right, the world needs a better currency. Preferably one not regulated by nation states or corporations: maybe bitcoin or a descendant with its flaws fixed.
Okay, I'll bite (because I might learn something).
What are the flaws that need to be fixed in bitcoin, and given the world adopted democracy, Microsoft windows, and Keynesian economics despite their flaws, what makes you think bitcoin won't be accepted despite its flaws?
IIRC, Zuk didn't get just sit at home all day playing computer games, he also went to Harvard Business School.
Bill Gates didn't go to school, but he also didn't sit at home all day and play computer games.
Neither of them had a mobile phone at age 4, both of them didn't come from broken families.
Steve Jobs on the other hand, was adopted, didn't go to college, and got insanely rich. I think he even played computer games as a kid. But he died at age 37.
And no, it's not every parents fault if a kid grows "fucked up". That is likely more due to the influence of ignorance coming from society, as you have so deftly demonstrated.
Again, had you a shred of experience in this matter, you might have known that.
Hi, I have kids. I agree with GP. Sure, you can't be responsible for all instances of your kids growing up "fucked up", but generally speaking, doing stuff like divorcing the child's mother, giving them a phone at age 4, giving them games consoles and buying their love - it ain't exactly giving your kid the best start at life is it?
"Life Happens", but when you have kids, you can either say "it's the influence of society, things don't always work as planned, its not my fault you're fucked up", or you take control, be a f*cking man, and work that shit out for the sake of giving your kids the best start in life.
But to answer the original question: piss off all the requirements for video games, the only thing worse than not being with your child is letting him play video games all day.
If you think about it critically, these aircraft have onboard radar (and other combat sensors), and a flight log.
So, it would know where it last was, how far and in which direction it has traveled since loosing GPS, and what the wind-speed was on the way to where it is.
It would likely also have contour maps of the terrain it is flying over, and ground sensors.
So, with a modest bit of on-board computer power you could have it hit a high altitude and head home via the least-risk path, execute a long list of pre-determined evasive makeovers, have it open fire at anything it has a 99% confidence is an enemy entity - or for some real fun, have it work out where it is on the map, then fly about 30 ft above the terrain at mach 1.6 in the general direction of home.
Since they still know their speed, bearing, altitude and attitude, they wouldn't necessarily crash.
If I were programming the logic with very little on-board processing power, I would have them automatically ascend to a set altitude then fly straight and level until they regain consciousness.
If you had a fair-bit of on-board processing power, you might look at flying them up to a random high altitude, then execute a quasi-random set of evasive maneuvers while heading along a bearing that was set at the beginning of the mission - ie. towards friendly territory - in an effort to regain consciousness.
Either way, it would make it a much easier target and far less of a threat.
This is a moot point if you subscribe to Tesla's battery-swap program, because you drive your Model S with an old battery up to any 'swap station' and drive away with a brand new (or at least 'in service') battery.
You do take the risk & hope that Telsa are checking and cycling out decrepit batteries from their swap stations, and I recognise this doesn't eliminate the environmental problem, but it transfers the economic problem of replacing batteries back onto Tesla.
The other interesting thing is, you will notice that all aircraft always only perform positive G maneuvers (ie, to turn left, you roll left, then pull up.) The human body can sustain far less negative G's.
It will be very interesting to watch these aircraft perform in a combat situation now that they are not limited by the physical issues with a human in the cockpit.
I imagine it would be very difficult to catch a fighter jet that has the capability to perform a 'split-s' maneuver without first inverting, or can perform 'S' maneuvers by just rolling right, then pulling up then pulling down - rather than the traditional way of rolling right, pulling up, inverting, then pulling up again.
They might only be shooting at them now, but it doesn't look like it will be long before pilots just sit in cockpits on an aircraft carrier and control their aircraft in combat.
Am still shocked at this part... "Biologists have found them at altitudes of up to 4 km"
Do you realize what this implies? One day a spider got bored and he decided to see how high he could fly... and he went 4 fucking kilometers in the sky...
Not only that, but a biologist got bored and followed it!!
I don't know if it's different in the USA, but this in the UK and Australia failing to produce your unlock-code to LEO's will have you held for a while on trumped-up charges, then (potentially) forced to hand it over by a court-order.
As for security from the average criminal, passcodes (and thumb-unlock) can be very easily broken with a hammer or wrench (http://xkcd.com/538/).
The real risk of this revelation is the covert unlocking of a phone, but as GGP inferred - lifting, printing and forging fingerprints is beyond most would-be thieves.
Which reminds me of the scene in Demolition Man where Wesley Snipes exploits a flaw in an iris scanner to walk out of prison... I suppose it's not newsworthy to claim that you've bypassed the iPhone thumb-print scanner with a pair of bolt cutters...
If you want to know if someone is ready for another drink, just check whether their glass is empty. Forget body language, just go for the obvious.
Couldn't agree more!! I saw the headline and thought "Well isn't it bloody obvious, there's less than 1cm of amber fluid left in their glass, or they don't have a glass".
These days it's usually the POS system that's prompting the sales rep to offer you a targeted upgrade. No reason why it can't prompt the customer directly.
Combine that with a bottle of spray-on deodorant and you've got a real show.
I don't think you could pour it on seats, people would notice, but if you poured your duty-free high-proof alcohol down the isle while walking towards the front of the plane, then set fire to it with your deodorant-lighter flame-thrower - it would cause quite a show.
The same way the USA president is able to launch nuclear warheads from anywhere in the world without having to connect to the Internet.
Using that innovative and disruptive technology that Alexander Bell created.
You run a private network, then have a person stand in front of the controls that are connected to the private network, and you call them, verify your identity, then have them execute commands by your direction.
What I'm saying, is instead of being able to just put a "1" above the line, is people should be able to number the parties above the line 1 to 15 (or whatever) and thus direct their preferences, but not have to vote all 82+ senators below the line.
So you're directing your preferences [across] the senate paper, but not [down].
Almost everybody who votes below the line (except in Canberra where voters know the actual senators) vote in sequential order down each column anyway.
In effect, I'm saying we should be able to 'vote across the line'
I actually think the time has come for the idea of true democracy - where everyone gets to vote in parliament on every thing - a large percentage of the population carries a smart phone and would be able to install an app to vote in federal issues. I think that's what the Senator Online party were aiming for. If the time hasn't come already for this style of democracy, it will soon...
I know you said it, but that is exactly what the Senator Online party does.
I wonder if we could lobby one of the two new 'accidental' senators to adopt this strategy for all bills for which they have no policy or direction from their party (motoring enthusiast party of Victoria and Sports Party of WA - I'm looking at you).
I don't understand why we don't adopt the same principal that we use for the lower house, where you have the option of numbering all the parties above the line, rather than just voting "1" and relying on their preferences.
That way they would have to hand out senate 'how-to-vote' cards and the layman could override the preferences.
If people had to only number the senate parties from 1 to 15, rather than the individual senators (1 - 82 in QLD this cycle), I'm sure you would find the population that direct their preferences increases from about 2% to 80%.
On a different note, has anyone published results of the question: What percentage of people actually follow the preferences they are given by their selected party's "how-to-vote" card in the lower house?
Slashdot Mirror
>
SpaceX started merely as a loss-making venture poaching ex-government and contractor employees, and taking government money - it really had nothing meritocratic to bring to the table.
Very good point. I'd just like to clarify two minor things...
1. I agree with you, that it is very easy to start a business putting stuff into space that makes money from the outset. There are plenty of real-life examples where real innovation is achieved without any requirement for up-front capital (loss-making business models), usually it's funded from initial sales.
I forget the example business models and companies.... can you remind me of them?
2. Prior to getting "poached" by SpaceX, which "really had nothing meritocratic to bring to the table.", there have been DECADES of intense innovation in the space industry thanks to an overwhelming support and encouragement from government. This intense innovation has been _so succesful_ that NASA have recently retired their last government owned space shuttles.
Elon Musk was just standing on the shoulders of giants by proposing the incremental innovation of having rockets land intact...
Wikipedia has let me down... are you able to point me in the direction of the space innovation that's recently come out of the US government organisations, making Space-X's work redundant?
(sarcasm is often lost in text, so let me be direct: IMHO, private companies like Space-X are facilitating innovation in space travel. This is their contribution to society. You can piss & moan because private people are making money out of it, but it's better than government money being wasted on useless bureaucracy supporting (or causing) scientists resting on their laurels.)
If you import something for $999 USD today, it would be assessed as a $1,056.25 AUD import.
This would probably attract and additional:
$55 Customs Processing Fee
$50 Import Duty (assuming the standard 2.5% import duties)
$105.63 GST
It needs to be less than $1,000 AUD per shipment.
They are right, the world needs a better currency. Preferably one not regulated by nation states or corporations: maybe bitcoin or a descendant with its flaws fixed.
Okay, I'll bite (because I might learn something).
What are the flaws that need to be fixed in bitcoin, and given the world adopted democracy, Microsoft windows, and Keynesian economics despite their flaws, what makes you think bitcoin won't be accepted despite its flaws?
IIRC, Zuk didn't get just sit at home all day playing computer games, he also went to Harvard Business School.
Bill Gates didn't go to school, but he also didn't sit at home all day and play computer games.
Neither of them had a mobile phone at age 4, both of them didn't come from broken families.
Steve Jobs on the other hand, was adopted, didn't go to college, and got insanely rich. I think he even played computer games as a kid. But he died at age 37.
And no, it's not every parents fault if a kid grows "fucked up". That is likely more due to the influence of ignorance coming from society, as you have so deftly demonstrated.
Again, had you a shred of experience in this matter, you might have known that.
Hi, I have kids. I agree with GP. Sure, you can't be responsible for all instances of your kids growing up "fucked up", but generally speaking, doing stuff like divorcing the child's mother, giving them a phone at age 4, giving them games consoles and buying their love - it ain't exactly giving your kid the best start at life is it?
"Life Happens", but when you have kids, you can either say "it's the influence of society, things don't always work as planned, its not my fault you're fucked up", or you take control, be a f*cking man, and work that shit out for the sake of giving your kids the best start in life.
Agreed - you suck as a parent.
But to answer the original question: piss off all the requirements for video games, the only thing worse than not being with your child is letting him play video games all day.
Then buy one of these phones, so they can call you, mom, and nobody else: http://www.gps-practice-and-fun.com/kid-phones.html
Best thing is, with the GPS you'll be able to see where your other half is taking him.
"LLVM's Libc++ Now Has C++1Y Standard Library Support"
Seriously, is that a real headline, or did your cat just walk across the keyboard?!
If you think about it critically, these aircraft have onboard radar (and other combat sensors), and a flight log.
So, it would know where it last was, how far and in which direction it has traveled since loosing GPS, and what the wind-speed was on the way to where it is.
It would likely also have contour maps of the terrain it is flying over, and ground sensors.
So, with a modest bit of on-board computer power you could have it hit a high altitude and head home via the least-risk path, execute a long list of pre-determined evasive makeovers, have it open fire at anything it has a 99% confidence is an enemy entity - or for some real fun, have it work out where it is on the map, then fly about 30 ft above the terrain at mach 1.6 in the general direction of home.
Since they still know their speed, bearing, altitude and attitude, they wouldn't necessarily crash.
If I were programming the logic with very little on-board processing power, I would have them automatically ascend to a set altitude then fly straight and level until they regain consciousness.
If you had a fair-bit of on-board processing power, you might look at flying them up to a random high altitude, then execute a quasi-random set of evasive maneuvers while heading along a bearing that was set at the beginning of the mission - ie. towards friendly territory - in an effort to regain consciousness.
Either way, it would make it a much easier target and far less of a threat.
This is a moot point if you subscribe to Tesla's battery-swap program, because you drive your Model S with an old battery up to any 'swap station' and drive away with a brand new (or at least 'in service') battery.
You do take the risk & hope that Telsa are checking and cycling out decrepit batteries from their swap stations, and I recognise this doesn't eliminate the environmental problem, but it transfers the economic problem of replacing batteries back onto Tesla.
The other interesting thing is, you will notice that all aircraft always only perform positive G maneuvers (ie, to turn left, you roll left, then pull up.) The human body can sustain far less negative G's.
It will be very interesting to watch these aircraft perform in a combat situation now that they are not limited by the physical issues with a human in the cockpit.
I imagine it would be very difficult to catch a fighter jet that has the capability to perform a 'split-s' maneuver without first inverting, or can perform 'S' maneuvers by just rolling right, then pulling up then pulling down - rather than the traditional way of rolling right, pulling up, inverting, then pulling up again.
They might only be shooting at them now, but it doesn't look like it will be long before pilots just sit in cockpits on an aircraft carrier and control their aircraft in combat.
Am still shocked at this part... "Biologists have found them at altitudes of up to 4 km"
Do you realize what this implies? One day a spider got bored and he decided to see how high he could fly... and he went 4 fucking kilometers in the sky...
Not only that, but a biologist got bored and followed it!!
How do they even do that?
I don't know if it's different in the USA, but this in the UK and Australia failing to produce your unlock-code to LEO's will have you held for a while on trumped-up charges, then (potentially) forced to hand it over by a court-order.
As for security from the average criminal, passcodes (and thumb-unlock) can be very easily broken with a hammer or wrench (http://xkcd.com/538/).
The real risk of this revelation is the covert unlocking of a phone, but as GGP inferred - lifting, printing and forging fingerprints is beyond most would-be thieves.
Which reminds me of the scene in Demolition Man where Wesley Snipes exploits a flaw in an iris scanner to walk out of prison... I suppose it's not newsworthy to claim that you've bypassed the iPhone thumb-print scanner with a pair of bolt cutters...
If you want to know if someone is ready for another drink, just check whether their glass is empty. Forget body language, just go for the obvious.
Couldn't agree more!! I saw the headline and thought "Well isn't it bloody obvious, there's less than 1cm of amber fluid left in their glass, or they don't have a glass".
Mustn't have been an Australian study.
Any half decent POS system does that.
These days it's usually the POS system that's prompting the sales rep to offer you a targeted upgrade. No reason why it can't prompt the customer directly.
(Let's get this thread on the NSA watch list)
Combine that with a bottle of spray-on deodorant and you've got a real show.
I don't think you could pour it on seats, people would notice, but if you poured your duty-free high-proof alcohol down the isle while walking towards the front of the plane, then set fire to it with your deodorant-lighter flame-thrower - it would cause quite a show.
Others were dangerous, but not hand grenades.
They were "live smoke, flare, riot, and flash bang grenades".
Sure, it's not going to make a hole in the cabin, but I bet it would cause a bit of a stir if used at 36,000ft.
Well duh. Sharks need more than 3 ounces of water.
The words of somebody who hasn't seen Sharknado!
The same way the USA president is able to launch nuclear warheads from anywhere in the world without having to connect to the Internet.
Using that innovative and disruptive technology that Alexander Bell created.
You run a private network, then have a person stand in front of the controls that are connected to the private network, and you call them, verify your identity, then have them execute commands by your direction.
c0lo: I did the same.
He's a teetotaller too, so he can't be trusted.
Ironic that he gave us the NBN and no Internet filter though.
Fun Fact: You do not have to show ID at a polling booth in Australia.
Fun Fact #2: No cameras are allowed in polling booths in Australia.
Anybody over the age of 18 who knows the name and address of a registered voter can turn up at 8:00am and vote.
Robbak:
What I'm saying, is instead of being able to just put a "1" above the line, is people should be able to number the parties above the line 1 to 15 (or whatever) and thus direct their preferences, but not have to vote all 82+ senators below the line.
So you're directing your preferences [across] the senate paper, but not [down].
Almost everybody who votes below the line (except in Canberra where voters know the actual senators) vote in sequential order down each column anyway.
In effect, I'm saying we should be able to 'vote across the line'
I actually think the time has come for the idea of true democracy - where everyone gets to vote in parliament on every thing - a large percentage of the population carries a smart phone and would be able to install an app to vote in federal issues. I think that's what the Senator Online party were aiming for. If the time hasn't come already for this style of democracy, it will soon...
I know you said it, but that is exactly what the Senator Online party does.
http://www.senatoronline.org.au/
I wonder if we could lobby one of the two new 'accidental' senators to adopt this strategy for all bills for which they have no policy or direction from their party (motoring enthusiast party of Victoria and Sports Party of WA - I'm looking at you).
I don't understand why we don't adopt the same principal that we use for the lower house, where you have the option of numbering all the parties above the line, rather than just voting "1" and relying on their preferences.
That way they would have to hand out senate 'how-to-vote' cards and the layman could override the preferences.
If people had to only number the senate parties from 1 to 15, rather than the individual senators (1 - 82 in QLD this cycle), I'm sure you would find the population that direct their preferences increases from about 2% to 80%.
On a different note, has anyone published results of the question: What percentage of people actually follow the preferences they are given by their selected party's "how-to-vote" card in the lower house?
Correct. My bad, thank you.