Regular expressions are nothing more than a hack to make up for the fact that generalized LR parsers were quite inefficient up until a few years ago.
So you argue that the regular expressions in Emacs searching should be replaced with a spec of an LR parser?:-)
Different parsing methods are good for different applications. Check
CPAN for Perl LR parsers.
I read/. for moments like finding an argument that Regular expr should be replaced with full grammars!:-)
(And, as the saying goes -- a Fortran programmer can write Fortran in any language. Without coding standards in your group you will have large problems in any language. Perl probably is a bit more demanding. It's a tradeoff against other features.)
I took 10% out of the air as a high loss rate, for my argument.
the cargo is worth far more than the rocket.
I've seen people that know much about this claim that if the prices for a launch went down, they could build satellites much, much cheaper.
Partly a similar reason to that servers with high availability are much more expensive. And partly because of being able to "throw weight" at a problem and e.g. standardize on parts.
Yes, I of course know that a rocket has to change orientation. What I don't see is why this would be a hard/expensive problem here.
Sigh, I'm worse communicating than that ex vice president, whatever-his-name-was.
The original post took up ways for a launch to fail. I was trying to make the point that these launches can be done every hour, maybe multiple times. So even if it should have a high loss rate, it's a good deal.
I realize a rocket could start rotating outside of the atmosphere. Why is this kind of rocket so much more probable to do it that it will be a killer for the design?
You missed one quite obvious point:
If we could launch 100-200 kg packages for a few hundred dollars/kg (instead of hundred times as much/kg), we could do lots of stuff we can't do today.
Payloads heavier than that (which can't be split into small parts) will be launched some other way.
(And, yes, the Pegasus exists today. How much did it cost/kg? How many universities can afford to send some instruments somewhere?)
the
most intriguing launch technology was left off entirely
Well, I'll agree. That is cool (I check Moravec's home page every few months) -- but "just" a skyhook variant of the true elevator.:-)
I'll agree that it's a neater and probably more cost effective solution (given the right conditions) -- but hardly as cool as the real elevator going to orbit from the ground...
It's from a local cult popular in Europe/USA. It's called christianity. Like Islam, it's mostly a ripoff of judaism but with some platonic philosophy that was popular a couple of thousands year ago.
The Babel tower myth is about not reaching above ourselves and try to become gods. So we should never have left the caves/trees.
It's probability -- not certain. I'd give good odds all life (biological and silicon) is extinct in a century, anyway. We just don't know.
But I am quite certain that you guys'll have a good time without me, even if I like to think it could have been a little more interesting/strange with me.
If you're lucky, drink a beer for me in a century. If you still have a throat then.:-)
I mean, if you transplant someone's brain to make him live longer, there must be, somewhere, a body without a brain, that is, from which the brain has been removed/flushed.
(-: Well, I've heard (from her relatives) that a nurse in a transplantation ward called a speeding, bad motorcycle driver "donation material". Just vote against laws demanding helmets for motorcyclists...:-)
Seriously, the first step is to keep the brain and body reasonably healthy a few decades more. Solutions after that (remaking your body or whatever) are, today, science fiction.
The future solutions that you personally will use probably won't be dreamt up inside a couple of decades.
Me? Probably too bad genes for heart trouble to make it more than another decade. A pity, I e.g. really wanted to see the research results for the next few space telescopes.
One would hope that MS could manage that (most of the time, anyway).
A nitpick. I don't really know that much about this part, but as I've understood it:
Backwards compatibility has always been a bit troublesome for Word.
There is a payoff for Microsoft -- if someone at a work place buys a new computer and gets new versions of the office application, there is an incentive for others to upgrade their office applications.
I think it's just juvenile anti-Microsoft vitriol from OpenOffice fans
(1) This has been a standard tactic from Microsoft since long before OpenOffice existed. I tried to generate rtf for different versions of Word 8-9 years ago. I read about the subject then and about people trying to follow different versions of file formats. Nothing new under the sun.
(2) Check some book on economy; as far as I've understood, incompatibility is a classic monopolist tactic.
(3) "juvenile"?! You are insulting to people you don't know anything about. It do say something about you.
They didn't look at Reagan and shit their pants like the right would have you believe.
I'm not aware of the argument that the Soviet was scared?
I thought the argument was that Reagan built so damn much military harware that the Soviet union didn't have the economy to keep up, even with all the percents of GNP they put into the military.
Slashdot Mirror
Different parsing methods are good for different applications. Check CPAN for Perl LR parsers.
I read /. for moments like finding an argument that Regular expr should be replaced with full grammars! :-)
(And, as the saying goes -- a Fortran programmer can write Fortran in any language. Without coding standards in your group you will have large problems in any language. Perl probably is a bit more demanding. It's a tradeoff against other features.)
The elevator needs infrastructure on Earth, not on Moon.
Chicken/Egg problem. (Been/stalk problem, rather?)
How do you afford to get that infrastructure up without breaking the country's budget?
Partly a similar reason to that servers with high availability are much more expensive. And partly because of being able to "throw weight" at a problem and e.g. standardize on parts.
Yes, I of course know that a rocket has to change orientation. What I don't see is why this would be a hard/expensive problem here.
The original post took up ways for a launch to fail. I was trying to make the point that these launches can be done every hour, maybe multiple times. So even if it should have a high loss rate, it's a good deal.
I realize a rocket could start rotating outside of the atmosphere. Why is this kind of rocket so much more probable to do it that it will be a killer for the design?
(Besides, as I remember -- the Rotovar need an infrastructure in space so you have payloads to send down, too?)
Otherwise someone (e.g. ho hum, little ol' me) might mangle it again... :-)
It's a really neat system. Wish I had money enough to finance building some hardware.
Why would the spacecraft start rotating? Never mind.
If we could launch 100-200 kg packages for a few hundred dollars/kg (instead of hundred times as much/kg), we could do lots of stuff we can't do today.
Payloads heavier than that (which can't be split into small parts) will be launched some other way.
(And, yes, the Pegasus exists today. How much did it cost/kg? How many universities can afford to send some instruments somewhere?)
I'll agree that it's a neater and probably more cost effective solution (given the right conditions) -- but hardly as cool as the real elevator going to orbit from the ground...
I should have added a link to the whole site.
"Sea Dragon" was chemical (yawn) and Energia Vulkan too, right? But, sure, they were big!
(They really planned to launch using a gas core??)
It's not an article either -- it's a research report. The whole site is quite interesting, really. I should have given a link to it, too.
But enough do to mod me to Flamebait -1 above! :-)
Sorry. It was funny.
It's from a local cult popular in Europe/USA. It's called christianity. Like Islam, it's mostly a ripoff of judaism but with some platonic philosophy that was popular a couple of thousands year ago.
The Babel tower myth is about not reaching above ourselves and try to become gods. So we should never have left the caves/trees.
The original post was probably a quite fun joke.
And then you get modded up by others who doesn't keep up?! :-)
Please RTFA/RTFM etc.
It's probability -- not certain. I'd give good odds all life (biological and silicon) is extinct in a century, anyway. We just don't know.
But I am quite certain that you guys'll have a good time without me, even if I like to think it could have been a little more interesting/strange with me.
If you're lucky, drink a beer for me in a century. If you still have a throat then. :-)
Seriously, the first step is to keep the brain and body reasonably healthy a few decades more. Solutions after that (remaking your body or whatever) are, today, science fiction.
The future solutions that you personally will use probably won't be dreamt up inside a couple of decades.
Me? Probably too bad genes for heart trouble to make it more than another decade. A pity, I e.g. really wanted to see the research results for the next few space telescopes.
Backwards compatibility has always been a bit troublesome for Word.
There is a payoff for Microsoft -- if someone at a work place buys a new computer and gets new versions of the office application, there is an incentive for others to upgrade their office applications.
(2) Check some book on economy; as far as I've understood, incompatibility is a classic monopolist tactic.
(3) "juvenile"?! You are insulting to people you don't know anything about. It do say something about you.
There are certainly more.
Incompatibility is standard monopoly strategy.
So when you reach the point where you can exchange documents with Word -- it'll be when you don't think it is important.
I'll be out drinking with a potential girl friend today.
(-: Skip the "I don't believe you're a geek" jokes, plz. My creds are fine -- Perl, Emacs, C[++] and I've even installed Debian multiple times. :-)
As far as I've understood about Soviet, they expected to start a war against Nazi Germany when convenient -- for them. Hitler just got there first.
During the cold war they built up enough armored divisions to roll over western europe. Not to defend -- to attack.
You claim they used that many percent of GDP as just a psychological reaction to Germany's attack that came before their own attack was ready?
So it was pure defense to waste that large part of their total resources on all those aggressive tank divisions?
I'm sorry, but it doesn't sound believeable.
If you think NATO's scenario planning was bad, check the Soviet one.
I thought the argument was that Reagan built so damn much military harware that the Soviet union didn't have the economy to keep up, even with all the percents of GNP they put into the military.