To be blunt, a serious outfit would know how long their damn engine burns for.
Yeah, maybe. Maybe not. Everything you would call a serious outfit had many more failures than Space X has had so far.
Yes they need to pull it together. Yes they need a successful launch or it will call into question their whole business plan.
No having three failures, and miscalculating an engine parameter, does not prove they aren't a serious outfit. Because no serious outfit has entirely avoided these mistakes.
So, for all Musk's bluster, your lean mean private enterprise doesn't seem to have much of an edge over decades old Soviet engineering.
You say "decades old" as if it's supposed to mean that lowers the bar for Space X, as if it's the same as saying "your new microprocessor doesn't seem to have much of an edge over decades old Intel parts". They're nothing alike. "Decades old" in this case means that the Soviets just got all their on-the-pad and mid-air explosions out of the way decades ago. If you assume that having such accidents means an outfit is non-serious, then what you're really saying is that there can never be a new serious outfit again.
Uh, maybe I'm just being a grammar nazi here, but that sounds like partial disclosure to me. Full disclosure would have been saying what team you're on.
Also where you live, what kind of cool stuff you have in your house, and a list of times when you're not home.
So we've learned that not everything fits into a nice, neat category.:-p
Yes, and we've also learned that some categorical definitions are terrible.
You can never make everything clear-cut, so a definition of "mammal" where the platypus seems to be in a kind of gray-area is okay. A definition of "life" that makes it unclear whether a virus is alive or dead is acceptable.
A definition of "mammal" where cats, dogs, and chimpanzees could go either way depending on the day, and a definition of "life" that might call some rocks alive, are both useless and stupid.
A definition of "sport" where boxing may or may not be a sport from one match to the next fails the most basic qualifications of a useful definition. It is terrible.
I was sort of hoping that Unreal would lead the way, but the large number of Quake II engine licensees,lingering holdouts for software renderers, and a large population of fairly crappy 3D cards held things back. People also wanted more dark 'n' gritty - this was the '90s, remember what comic books looked like?:)
Bah, the generation I'm talking about is the post-glquake generation when having at least a Voodoo card was assumed if you wanted nice graphics. But that's a great point about the 90s and comics. I'm more than familiar with what the market's take on "edgy" was, and it was drab schlock but with lots of spikes. That bane influence has yet to lose its grip on the game industry, including its fanboys.:P
Yeah, Quake is more than ten years old, and it gets a pass on its palette because it had a literal 256-color palette to work with. The next generation of games, though, that were made with the assumption that you had at least a 16-bit color-capable video card, has no such excuse. Despite the reason behind it, Quake's color choices were rightly seen as not the way to go forward. Except, inexplicably, a huge swath of the gaming industry seemed unable to move beyond Quake. It is indeed very sad.
Re:Anyone with more knowledge explain this to me
on
AMD Fusion Details Leaked
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
So, for now, the benefits are really physical size and cost.
Power, more than size. Off-chip buses like Hypertransport are fairly power intensive, and now CPUGPU communication won't have to leave the chip. Depending on how they do the integration with the memory controller, it could also mean that less of the chip needs to be active when doing nothing more than screen refreshes from the frame buffer. But the HT link is a pretty big deal power-wise.
You don't need a color palette made up of shades of brown, grey, and black to achieve that... there's nothing wrong with having a colorful world, since it doesn't necessarily change the look & feel of the world at all.
Exactly. Game developers over the last ten years have been tied to the idea that something can only be spooky if it's dark brown and gray, and is also a sewer. I was getting sick of it eight years ago, and games that have broken that mold have been very refreshing.
Now, come to find out, the reason there was so much gray-on-dark-gray motifs in games was because there were a large number of gamers who actually agreed that this was the only way to go! That actually get pissed when a developer tries to break this old and tired mold, and try to "improve" the art by forcing it back into the mold. Hey guys, 1996 called, and they want Quake's color palette back!
Though even it seems Quake has too many colors for these people. The best example is the last pair of shots. Apparently the "Necromancer's Choice" is the same grey-on-black style I've seen a million times (not that necromancers are known for their interior decorating), and "wow gayness" is exemplified by... the color green? Yeah, how gay. You gotta wonder when not even Quake is mono-chrome enough.
So far, my biggest problem with the D3 art I've seen is that it's too bland and boring, not that it goes too far in using actual colors. But apparently I feel oppositely of some people.
Maybe I'm not up on my acronyms, but if they point is to discover asteroids years in advance so that we have time to change their course before we are obliterated, wouldn't it make more sense to be funding FAR?
Liar!! I've seen national treasure 1 AND 2. C'mon, you're just part of the order, trying to keep all of the other rightful heirs from becoming really rich and buying nice cars.
Yeah, but remember the part of the 1st one, where Nicolas Cage tells the bad guy that the next clue involves Paul Revere or some BS, so that he runs off and lets Cage & crew go after the real treasure?
The National Treasure movies are basically the same trick, played on the public.
And I disagree that "the attacks were designed to be linked with Islamic terrorism" is a "fact" unless the persons or person that did it tell us that's why they did it.
No, because the attacks could be designed to be linked with terrorists, without that being why they did it. Much like the anthrax itself was designed to harm or kill or at least terrorize the people it was sent to, but we don't know why.
The envelopes that contained the anthrax also contained letters that appeared to be written by Islamic terrorists -- "Death to America", "Allah is great" and so on. So, designed to be linked with Islamic terrorism is a fact. And, of course, it worked, at least at first.
Why the perpetrator would do that is a different story. To throw off law enforcement? To further create fear and hatred of Islamic terrorists for some personal/political reason? Who knows? But the fact is that they did it.
I am the first to decry annoying conspiracy theorists, but I think you do bring up an interesting possibility many might not have considered. Claiming you weren't implying government involvement is a bit disingenuous, though.
If the FBI was right about him, then the government -- or at minimum one functionary in it -- was involved. And perhaps there were others involved to help cover up for him (I'd like to think it's harder to get anthrax out of the facility than simply not writing a log entry), at which point you can call it a conspiracy. That doesn't mean that the government all the way up to Bush was specifically plotting to use anthrax against Americans, otherwise the FBI never would have been pursuing the case in a manner that lead to the truth; they'd have found some Arab to send off to gitmo instead. Actual conspiracy, including within the government, isn't all that rare. You just have to be able to comprehend that not all conspiracies are all-encompassing.
I think you are feeding your personal troll here a bit too much.:)
The OP's problem is that he thinks purely in black/white extremes. Either the government had nothing to do with it at any level whatsoever, or it's a vast conspiracy straight out of Enemy of the State or The Illuminati. Since the latter is ridiculous, it must be the former. Suggesting it isn't the former means that you think it is the latter. It's a simplistic way of thinking, and yes I'll admit it's fun to throw the middle ground in his face and watch him fail to deal with it.:)
its not your "facts" you see me dancing a strawman in front of
You put facts in quotes, as if they might be up for grabs, which is pretty funny. Do you not know who the article is about? Do you not know what was in the envelopes that were mailed a week after 9/l1 other than anthrax?
but please, why do you keep responding? who am i to doubt the vast secret YOU alone have stumbled upon!
It's funny how you keep assuming I'm talking about a "vast secret", like it simply must be some huge incredible conspiracy I'm talking about like it's a Will Smith movie, instead of actually thinking about the issue at hand for yourself for two seconds. It's not secret at all, it's plain as day. I keep responding so that you realize this instead of making dancing strawmen to no purpose.
what do yur "facts" prove, friend?
It's rather simple and obvious, isn't it? If the FBI is correct, this means that the anthrax mailings that caused so much terror and fear of further Islamic terrorism in our own country in the wake of 9/11, in fact originated from within a highly controlled army installation and were released by a highly trusted American researcher, and that this person intended for people already shitting bricks in the wake of 9/11 to believe that it was evidence of further Islamic terrorism.
That's what it proves. That's all it proves. We don't know the true purpose, whether the ties to Islamic terror were just a cover or if that was the goal in and of itself, whether it had been planned long before 9/11 but they decided to make use of the opportunity, or if it was planned on the spot, if anyone else was involved, why the targets were chosen, at random, for a specific purpose of revenge or a specific purpose of making a point. This is all unknown, and, if he truly was the culprit and thus the culprit is dead, may never be known.
Yet at the very least, it would mean Anthrax escaped from a U.S. Army research lab and was used to terrorize Americans. To stave off the stupidity that I'm sure is coming, no this does not mean the "U.S. Army" as a monolithic single-minded entity did it on purpose, any more than the CIA allowed Robert Hanssen to spy for the Russians. But similar Hanssen, it means high-level positions with access to biological agents cannot necessarily be trusted, an episode like this one could happen again, and it could take the better part of a decade before anyone figured out what happened. I would think that is at least some cause for concern. It might also cause some pause in a thinking person to consider how easily the cover of Islamic terror was abused.
If the FBI is wrong, well, that has its own implications I'll leave as an exercise to the reader.
please, educate me. i'm all ears
I hope despite your insincerity here that in spite of yourself something got through and the clue bell range at least once.
See, you can't even stop talking to your strawman for a single second.
All I said was that the deceased and accused was a top researcher at an army-run research lab, and that the attacks were designed so as to be linked with Islamic terrorism. These are both facts, not speculation, not conspiracy, they are proven facts.
And of course you ignore that, and turn that into "the gummint is responsible for all the evil in the world". But that's not what I said, implied, or am getting at. You, who cannot see past your own idiotic false dichotomies and strawmen, not only can't see that, you aren't even mentally capable of addressing it. And yes, I have no respect for your self-imposed idiocy either. Prove you can do something other than babble at your imaginary enemy or you're as delusional as the conspiracy theorists you rail against.
Yes, it's a strawman -- do you know what that means? Spend as long as you like defending it then knocking it down if that irrelevance is what is fun for you. Ignore the reality of who was accused and what they may have been trying to accomplish if the accusation is true, or what it means if it is false. In fact, pretend it was never even mentioned, like you did in the worthless post I'm replying to. Strawmen, platitudes, false dichotomy, and most of all deliberate ignorance are what pass for insight for you, and I already said nevermind to that.
Um... you do realize that if this guy was responsible, that means that the anthrax came from inside one of the top anthrax researchers in a Army-run facility, sent with a clear intent to link the anthrax with Islamic terrorism in the wake of 9/11?
And if he didn't do it, what does that mean about the FBI investigation?
There is no good option here.
however, rabid, paranoid schizophrenic musings on all evil in the world falling at the government's doorstep
Of course that's how all the sporn got created in the first place, by people defining how their own race should look. Feel free to make penis monsters to your heart's content. (actually my favorite was "The Beast With Two Backs", euphemism made literal heh)
Slashdot Mirror
To be blunt, a serious outfit would know how long their damn engine burns for.
Yeah, maybe. Maybe not. Everything you would call a serious outfit had many more failures than Space X has had so far.
Yes they need to pull it together. Yes they need a successful launch or it will call into question their whole business plan.
No having three failures, and miscalculating an engine parameter, does not prove they aren't a serious outfit. Because no serious outfit has entirely avoided these mistakes.
So, for all Musk's bluster, your lean mean private enterprise doesn't seem to have much of an edge over decades old Soviet engineering.
You say "decades old" as if it's supposed to mean that lowers the bar for Space X, as if it's the same as saying "your new microprocessor doesn't seem to have much of an edge over decades old Intel parts". They're nothing alike. "Decades old" in this case means that the Soviets just got all their on-the-pad and mid-air explosions out of the way decades ago. If you assume that having such accidents means an outfit is non-serious, then what you're really saying is that there can never be a new serious outfit again.
Ha, nice one. I should have said "language nazi" and covered all the bases. Or "everything nazi". That would have worked.
"Full disclosure: I am on a team."
Uh, maybe I'm just being a grammar nazi here, but that sounds like partial disclosure to me. Full disclosure would have been saying what team you're on.
Also where you live, what kind of cool stuff you have in your house, and a list of times when you're not home.
So we've learned that not everything fits into a nice, neat category. :-p
Yes, and we've also learned that some categorical definitions are terrible.
You can never make everything clear-cut, so a definition of "mammal" where the platypus seems to be in a kind of gray-area is okay. A definition of "life" that makes it unclear whether a virus is alive or dead is acceptable.
A definition of "mammal" where cats, dogs, and chimpanzees could go either way depending on the day, and a definition of "life" that might call some rocks alive, are both useless and stupid.
A definition of "sport" where boxing may or may not be a sport from one match to the next fails the most basic qualifications of a useful definition. It is terrible.
The best way to imagine it is almost like being in a RL army. You can't just hop in your jeep, drive to Germany, and have a fight.
Well screw that, I'm not joining the army then!
And 1 GeV = 1.783×1027 kg
Slashdot ate your formatting it looks like. I'll write it as 1.783E-27 kg to get around it.
You pick a number that would never come up to mark the end of data input. like 99 for a year.
That's stupid. Obviously a much better choice for a sentinel in a year field is 0.
Aw man, and here I was hoping the story would be about a Highlander mmog. :(
In his mind, he's a legend. In real life, a fry cook at Denny's.
That's just his secret identity!
So shut up and discuss the interesting stuff we have know now :D :D
Or get high and stare at the trippy pictures
Can't I do both?
I was sort of hoping that Unreal would lead the way, but the large number of Quake II engine licensees,lingering holdouts for software renderers, and a large population of fairly crappy 3D cards held things back. People also wanted more dark 'n' gritty - this was the '90s, remember what comic books looked like? :)
Bah, the generation I'm talking about is the post-glquake generation when having at least a Voodoo card was assumed if you wanted nice graphics. But that's a great point about the 90s and comics. I'm more than familiar with what the market's take on "edgy" was, and it was drab schlock but with lots of spikes. That bane influence has yet to lose its grip on the game industry, including its fanboys. :P
Yeah, Quake is more than ten years old, and it gets a pass on its palette because it had a literal 256-color palette to work with. The next generation of games, though, that were made with the assumption that you had at least a 16-bit color-capable video card, has no such excuse. Despite the reason behind it, Quake's color choices were rightly seen as not the way to go forward. Except, inexplicably, a huge swath of the gaming industry seemed unable to move beyond Quake. It is indeed very sad.
So, for now, the benefits are really physical size and cost.
Power, more than size. Off-chip buses like Hypertransport are fairly power intensive, and now CPUGPU communication won't have to leave the chip. Depending on how they do the integration with the memory controller, it could also mean that less of the chip needs to be active when doing nothing more than screen refreshes from the frame buffer. But the HT link is a pretty big deal power-wise.
You don't need a color palette made up of shades of brown, grey, and black to achieve that... there's nothing wrong with having a colorful world, since it doesn't necessarily change the look & feel of the world at all.
Exactly. Game developers over the last ten years have been tied to the idea that something can only be spooky if it's dark brown and gray, and is also a sewer. I was getting sick of it eight years ago, and games that have broken that mold have been very refreshing.
Now, come to find out, the reason there was so much gray-on-dark-gray motifs in games was because there were a large number of gamers who actually agreed that this was the only way to go! That actually get pissed when a developer tries to break this old and tired mold, and try to "improve" the art by forcing it back into the mold. Hey guys, 1996 called, and they want Quake's color palette back!
Though even it seems Quake has too many colors for these people. The best example is the last pair of shots. Apparently the "Necromancer's Choice" is the same grey-on-black style I've seen a million times (not that necromancers are known for their interior decorating), and "wow gayness" is exemplified by... the color green? Yeah, how gay. You gotta wonder when not even Quake is mono-chrome enough.
So far, my biggest problem with the D3 art I've seen is that it's too bland and boring, not that it goes too far in using actual colors. But apparently I feel oppositely of some people.
That's why NEAR should get lots more funding.
Maybe I'm not up on my acronyms, but if they point is to discover asteroids years in advance so that we have time to change their course before we are obliterated, wouldn't it make more sense to be funding FAR?
Liar!! I've seen national treasure 1 AND 2. C'mon, you're just part of the order, trying to keep all of the other rightful heirs from becoming really rich and buying nice cars.
Yeah, but remember the part of the 1st one, where Nicolas Cage tells the bad guy that the next clue involves Paul Revere or some BS, so that he runs off and lets Cage & crew go after the real treasure?
The National Treasure movies are basically the same trick, played on the public.
And I disagree that "the attacks were designed to be linked with Islamic terrorism" is a "fact" unless the persons or person that did it tell us that's why they did it.
No, because the attacks could be designed to be linked with terrorists, without that being why they did it. Much like the anthrax itself was designed to harm or kill or at least terrorize the people it was sent to, but we don't know why.
The envelopes that contained the anthrax also contained letters that appeared to be written by Islamic terrorists -- "Death to America", "Allah is great" and so on. So, designed to be linked with Islamic terrorism is a fact. And, of course, it worked, at least at first.
Why the perpetrator would do that is a different story. To throw off law enforcement? To further create fear and hatred of Islamic terrorists for some personal/political reason? Who knows? But the fact is that they did it.
I am the first to decry annoying conspiracy theorists, but I think you do bring up an interesting possibility many might not have considered. Claiming you weren't implying government involvement is a bit disingenuous, though.
If the FBI was right about him, then the government -- or at minimum one functionary in it -- was involved. And perhaps there were others involved to help cover up for him (I'd like to think it's harder to get anthrax out of the facility than simply not writing a log entry), at which point you can call it a conspiracy. That doesn't mean that the government all the way up to Bush was specifically plotting to use anthrax against Americans, otherwise the FBI never would have been pursuing the case in a manner that lead to the truth; they'd have found some Arab to send off to gitmo instead. Actual conspiracy, including within the government, isn't all that rare. You just have to be able to comprehend that not all conspiracies are all-encompassing.
I think you are feeding your personal troll here a bit too much. :)
The OP's problem is that he thinks purely in black/white extremes. Either the government had nothing to do with it at any level whatsoever, or it's a vast conspiracy straight out of Enemy of the State or The Illuminati. Since the latter is ridiculous, it must be the former. Suggesting it isn't the former means that you think it is the latter. It's a simplistic way of thinking, and yes I'll admit it's fun to throw the middle ground in his face and watch him fail to deal with it. :)
Hope that helps.
its not your "facts" you see me dancing a strawman in front of
You put facts in quotes, as if they might be up for grabs, which is pretty funny. Do you not know who the article is about? Do you not know what was in the envelopes that were mailed a week after 9/l1 other than anthrax?
but please, why do you keep responding? who am i to doubt the vast secret YOU alone have stumbled upon!
It's funny how you keep assuming I'm talking about a "vast secret", like it simply must be some huge incredible conspiracy I'm talking about like it's a Will Smith movie, instead of actually thinking about the issue at hand for yourself for two seconds. It's not secret at all, it's plain as day. I keep responding so that you realize this instead of making dancing strawmen to no purpose.
what do yur "facts" prove, friend?
It's rather simple and obvious, isn't it? If the FBI is correct, this means that the anthrax mailings that caused so much terror and fear of further Islamic terrorism in our own country in the wake of 9/11, in fact originated from within a highly controlled army installation and were released by a highly trusted American researcher, and that this person intended for people already shitting bricks in the wake of 9/11 to believe that it was evidence of further Islamic terrorism.
That's what it proves. That's all it proves. We don't know the true purpose, whether the ties to Islamic terror were just a cover or if that was the goal in and of itself, whether it had been planned long before 9/11 but they decided to make use of the opportunity, or if it was planned on the spot, if anyone else was involved, why the targets were chosen, at random, for a specific purpose of revenge or a specific purpose of making a point. This is all unknown, and, if he truly was the culprit and thus the culprit is dead, may never be known.
Yet at the very least, it would mean Anthrax escaped from a U.S. Army research lab and was used to terrorize Americans. To stave off the stupidity that I'm sure is coming, no this does not mean the "U.S. Army" as a monolithic single-minded entity did it on purpose, any more than the CIA allowed Robert Hanssen to spy for the Russians. But similar Hanssen, it means high-level positions with access to biological agents cannot necessarily be trusted, an episode like this one could happen again, and it could take the better part of a decade before anyone figured out what happened. I would think that is at least some cause for concern. It might also cause some pause in a thinking person to consider how easily the cover of Islamic terror was abused.
If the FBI is wrong, well, that has its own implications I'll leave as an exercise to the reader.
please, educate me. i'm all ears
I hope despite your insincerity here that in spite of yourself something got through and the clue bell range at least once.
See, you can't even stop talking to your strawman for a single second.
All I said was that the deceased and accused was a top researcher at an army-run research lab, and that the attacks were designed so as to be linked with Islamic terrorism. These are both facts, not speculation, not conspiracy, they are proven facts.
And of course you ignore that, and turn that into "the gummint is responsible for all the evil in the world". But that's not what I said, implied, or am getting at. You, who cannot see past your own idiotic false dichotomies and strawmen, not only can't see that, you aren't even mentally capable of addressing it. And yes, I have no respect for your self-imposed idiocy either. Prove you can do something other than babble at your imaginary enemy or you're as delusional as the conspiracy theorists you rail against.
Yes, it's a strawman -- do you know what that means? Spend as long as you like defending it then knocking it down if that irrelevance is what is fun for you. Ignore the reality of who was accused and what they may have been trying to accomplish if the accusation is true, or what it means if it is false. In fact, pretend it was never even mentioned, like you did in the worthless post I'm replying to. Strawmen, platitudes, false dichotomy, and most of all deliberate ignorance are what pass for insight for you, and I already said nevermind to that.
Um... you do realize that if this guy was responsible, that means that the anthrax came from inside one of the top anthrax researchers in a Army-run facility, sent with a clear intent to link the anthrax with Islamic terrorism in the wake of 9/11?
And if he didn't do it, what does that mean about the FBI investigation?
There is no good option here.
however, rabid, paranoid schizophrenic musings on all evil in the world falling at the government's doorstep
Oh. I recognize this strawman. Nevermind.
Of course that's how all the sporn got created in the first place, by people defining how their own race should look. Feel free to make penis monsters to your heart's content. (actually my favorite was "The Beast With Two Backs", euphemism made literal heh)
Actually I'm not, I'm fixed point.
Oh, well heh, I think modding someone funny for being funny is nice enough for a little o' that real life karma. :)