You mean, like Dirack did at the 20's? (Or was it at the 30's? I don't remeber.) Or like all kinds of nuclear, x-ray, and particle physics? None of those failed.
If we couldn't mix quantum-anything with relativity, one of those theories (maybe both) would have be disproved a long time ago. If there is something that makes people crazy is exaclty that those theories are consistent in all kinds of experiments that we are able to do, but not ont theory.
"The only non-mouse, non-trackpad surface that would be useful is some kind of trackball that could be used independently of the pointing device that allows you to rotate 3D objects"
Hey, that would be nice. I've seen some trackballs that let you move on 3D (what ordinary mouse does quite well, thank you) but never something that lets me rotate with any precision. That could also be quite cheap... Hey, maybe I have a business plan to make, good bye:)
Ok, I know several AutoCAD users, some of them are civil engineers, others are architects. Guess what interface all of them use most of the time? The command line one.
Maybe, when designing very complex 3D objects, this thing will be usefull. Just don't equate that with CAD, what is a way broader market, including things that don't even need graphical presentation, like circuit optimization.
We are great verbal communicators, but not so good plastic artists. Anyway, one of the worst realms for us is 3D, most people simply can't deal with it*, some can understand what is going on 3D, but surely not as fast as 2D. That, combined with the fact that we can read and type faster and easier than we can talk and listen leads us directly to the console.
Now, of course as some applications do benefit from graphical output, and a few benefit even from 2D input (way less than what MS want people to belive), there are applications that benefit from 3D graphics and 3D input, but don't expect something like this to be on everybody's desktop, ever.
* Natural selection and cars are working very intensely to fix that. If cars stay around for a few more generations, maybe we can revise that rule.
The structure needed to support the shields depends mostly on its weight, not size. If by using a 2 feet shield you could save a few kilograms, when compared to the thiner one, this difference will probably pay off.
Well, I'd do some similar things, but I'd insist on putting those properlers above the wings, maybe we are thinking on different properlers (different sizes), but as I see it, putting them under the wing would decrease lift. By the way, exept for under the wings, there is no place where one couldn't gain by putting a propeler.
Now, that would be a great design if it weren't for a few engineering troubles. The first, and most obvious one, is that big propelers are cheaper to produce, and, being noise an externality to the air-transport companies, there is no economic incentive to use them. That could be solved by the eletrical motors you propose, but then we get to the second problem...
Li-ion batteries have a quite low energy density, it is not merely lower than kerosene, it is at least one order of magnitude difference, and that is quite a problem to an equipement that is as sensible to weight as a plane. Hydrogen fuel-cells would solve that problem, if not by the fact that the containment and fuel-cell weight a lot, also, the cell needs to be kept wet what is hard to do at low tempereatures. I really doubt that with current technology one could build a viable passenger plane with eletrical motors.
Those wings would also be problematic. Yeah, long wings will make your plane fly using less energy, but will also cause a lot of problem while on land. Worse yet, those wings will increase the overall weight of the plaine, increasing the needed energy to put it on air, thus, increasing the noise problem. Also, they would complicate the taking-off manouvers, increasing the area where the noise is present and changing the area of procection around airports.
Anyway, those are theoreticaly good solutions. I'd recomend anybody that want to research the area, but wouldn't recomend somebody to invest on it with today's technology.
Oh, I almost also had to post a reply to myself:) I'd make those propelers run at exorbitantly hight frequencies. Since they are small, they can support it. Of course, you'd need a turbine designed for hight frequency, normal propelers wouldn't be efficient. Make the frequency bigger than 40kHz and the noise problem would go completely away!
And, yes doing business with legal entities is such a hassle, and leads to so much legal problems that it easy to make a case for going illegal from the start. My decision is to go without, but I can't really blame someone that chooses a different path.
And do something really play at Windows or OS-X? My experience is that Linux is the easiest OS to play any kind of media, you just need an experienced user to configure the hardware and install a player, everything else just go.
On the "easy" OSes, there is no need for an experienced user to install a player, and the hardware work like a charm (except when it doesn't), but every damn time a user wants to see some movie there is a dependency, that can't be solved by a non-admin, must download some random software from the internet and install (pray for it not being a virus or a key-logger), and there is simply no indication anywhere of what piece of software must be installed to run that movie format. Oh, yeah, I almost forgot, even after every imaginable format is supported by local software (there go some men-mounts intalling those) a normal user is helpless trying to guess what software to use to run what movies, since all of them surely register all formats for themselves (and, on Windows, Media Player will be the default, despite any configuration).
Yes, particle radiation shielding is more or less proportional to density. That means that some mass of any material shields more or less the same way. Now, in space you want the more shielding, with less mass (even if it is a very small difference), density is not something that enters in that equation.
That's what makes they different from what we are discussing here. Ok, to be pedantic, what made them different was that the people trading their stocks expected them to pay dividends later. People don't expect lots of companies to ever pay dividends now.
And you are right, I forgot to include taxes into my definition.
One can take a plane down with nail scissors, or with some quantity of the right liquids. I just don't know how relevant is that, since one could take the same plane down with a belt, shirt, bare hands, any piece of the right metal, several compounds that could look as food (ops, have I just invented a new treat?), any right sized bar of metal or lots of other things.
Planes are fragile things, and if the motivation is only to put them down, one could way more easily change something on it while it is at land, it is not harder to pass personal screening as it is to pass passenger one.
I see, you are the 3rd person answering with the same argument. I know the mainstream thinking, but it is wrong. Let's make some thinking experiments: Suppose that this company, that just made a profit of 10% of its market valuation, reinvest all this money on R&D. Now, what should be its value? 110% of the original? But what if this investiment leads to some inovation that causes next year profit to be 30%? And what if the R&D didn't go well, and there is no inovation to show for that investiment? You will probably agree that the valuation of a company isn't as simple as you say.
Now, that it is settled that valuation is hard, tell me: How did you get that initial value you reference? The most accepted way is that a company is worth the sum of all future dividends it will yeld, amortized by interest and risk. If your stocks don't yeld dividends, and aren't expected to do so at future, they are worth US$ 0,00. I've never seen somebody propose a different valuation, except for "the market is always right" (if you ever saw one, I want to know). The problem with "the market is always right" is that it isn't, if you are investing, you are exactly searching for places where the market is wrong, so you can have an edge.
If there aren't dividends, no stock holder will ever get something out of those companies. So, no stock holder will ever by the stock to himself, every one of them will buy to sell it latter, for a different price. Now, there is a name for a scheme where everybody pay for something only because they expect to sell those things at an highter price later. The fact that some people say they reflect the value of a real company doesn't change the fact that, in reallity, there is no connection between the company and those pieces of paper. Anwer me, if the company goes away and nobody gets informed will there be any difference on the way it is traded?
It is like cigarette companies giving (useless) cancer treatment for free, and people complaining that this will make the competing business (that actualy curate people) go out of business.
You know, analogies have some limits on how far one can push them.
Anti-virus sellers will never claim that Windows is less secure than the alternatives. It's the only way they stay in business, if they ever recommend any other plataform, they'd become useless. MS can hurt those companies any way they want, it won't create a problem bigger than extinction.
Hey, all hardware sellers that I know are infected by that virus you cite. I didn't know that it self propagated, but looking that way makes perfect sense, since I have to clean every computer I buy from any of them.
That's yet more homogeinity on Windows. That can only be bad, except if you look from the point of view that it will make people go to other plataforms (no, I don't think that will be enough to make a net positive).
I've said previously, but it is on topic again. MS has no choice, they must do something with their anti-virus, and can't really sell it. If some governemnt make them stop distributing, they win, but they can't really decide that alone.
"Let's not lie to ourselves and say that if we put the same dumb users in front of say an Ubuntu install that they wouldn't click on somefamouspersonnaked.deb or something."
Yeah, they'd click. And KMail would save the file at their homedir for them. Now, if they are that stupid, I really doubt they'll be able to locate that latter, but if they can locate the file, are persistent enough, have unrestricted sudo priviledges, and don't take that time to think about what they are doing, yes, they'll get infected.
I wouldn't give unrestricted sudo priviledges to such a user, but I can imagine how some would end-up with those priviledges. Now, the bar for Windows is way lower (double-click and go), and, since the capacity of infections to spread decrease exponentialy with the number (proportion) of people were it can spread; taking also diversity into acount, you'll have a situation where almost no virus can be sucessfull.
"There is nothing that is inherently insecure about Windows."
Yes there is. There are three things that are inherently insecure on Windows, the software design, the interface design and the actual implementation. Everything else is ok.
That is exactly the point, MS couldn't sell anti-virus software in any way. The only options they have is distributing it for free, or not distributing at all. This latter option looks like the best for them, but they can't take it anymore since they spent a small fortune buying an anti-virus a few years ago, expecting to sell the product, and have to explain to shareholders why they didn't see the criminal consequences of selling protection against your own incompetence.
Now, they'll only have to explain things to the governments around the world, and those are way more receptive than shareholders. The only thing that can happen is them being forced to stop distributing the anti-virus, that is the best outcome for MS anyway.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but if you bought some stocks expecting growth, and not dividends, you are part of a Ponzi scheme (and if you expected dividends, you wouldn't probably buy since most are way overvalued).
"It could retain it, in which case I own x% of a richer company, so my shares should be worth x% more."
Only if, by doing so the company has the potential to get bigger profits at future, and return those as dividends. Or, maybe, if the shareholders are planning to dissolve the company, so they'll take all the money at some point. If there is no expectation of dividends, and there is no possibility of dissolving the company out of a bankrupcy, how do you claim that those pieces of paper are worth any thing at all?
Yes, and you are right. If the stockholders bought their stock expecting the comanies to pay dividends at some time, you have a stable situation; risky, but viable and, in general stable. The company can change hands before it issue dividends, the only needed characteristic here is that the company is valuated by the amount if dividends it's expected to pay.
But if they bought it expecting to sell at a bigger price at future, and don't expect the company to issue dividends, you are again at a Ponzy scheme.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean, like Dirack did at the 20's? (Or was it at the 30's? I don't remeber.) Or like all kinds of nuclear, x-ray, and particle physics? None of those failed.
If we couldn't mix quantum-anything with relativity, one of those theories (maybe both) would have be disproved a long time ago. If there is something that makes people crazy is exaclty that those theories are consistent in all kinds of experiments that we are able to do, but not ont theory.
Hey, that would be nice. I've seen some trackballs that let you move on 3D (what ordinary mouse does quite well, thank you) but never something that lets me rotate with any precision. That could also be quite cheap... Hey, maybe I have a business plan to make, good bye :)
Ok, I know several AutoCAD users, some of them are civil engineers, others are architects. Guess what interface all of them use most of the time? The command line one.
Maybe, when designing very complex 3D objects, this thing will be usefull. Just don't equate that with CAD, what is a way broader market, including things that don't even need graphical presentation, like circuit optimization.
We are great verbal communicators, but not so good plastic artists. Anyway, one of the worst realms for us is 3D, most people simply can't deal with it*, some can understand what is going on 3D, but surely not as fast as 2D. That, combined with the fact that we can read and type faster and easier than we can talk and listen leads us directly to the console.
Now, of course as some applications do benefit from graphical output, and a few benefit even from 2D input (way less than what MS want people to belive), there are applications that benefit from 3D graphics and 3D input, but don't expect something like this to be on everybody's desktop, ever.
* Natural selection and cars are working very intensely to fix that. If cars stay around for a few more generations, maybe we can revise that rule.
The structure needed to support the shields depends mostly on its weight, not size. If by using a 2 feet shield you could save a few kilograms, when compared to the thiner one, this difference will probably pay off.
Well, I'd do some similar things, but I'd insist on putting those properlers above the wings, maybe we are thinking on different properlers (different sizes), but as I see it, putting them under the wing would decrease lift. By the way, exept for under the wings, there is no place where one couldn't gain by putting a propeler.
Now, that would be a great design if it weren't for a few engineering troubles. The first, and most obvious one, is that big propelers are cheaper to produce, and, being noise an externality to the air-transport companies, there is no economic incentive to use them. That could be solved by the eletrical motors you propose, but then we get to the second problem...
Li-ion batteries have a quite low energy density, it is not merely lower than kerosene, it is at least one order of magnitude difference, and that is quite a problem to an equipement that is as sensible to weight as a plane. Hydrogen fuel-cells would solve that problem, if not by the fact that the containment and fuel-cell weight a lot, also, the cell needs to be kept wet what is hard to do at low tempereatures. I really doubt that with current technology one could build a viable passenger plane with eletrical motors.
Those wings would also be problematic. Yeah, long wings will make your plane fly using less energy, but will also cause a lot of problem while on land. Worse yet, those wings will increase the overall weight of the plaine, increasing the needed energy to put it on air, thus, increasing the noise problem. Also, they would complicate the taking-off manouvers, increasing the area where the noise is present and changing the area of procection around airports.
Anyway, those are theoreticaly good solutions. I'd recomend anybody that want to research the area, but wouldn't recomend somebody to invest on it with today's technology.
Oh, I almost also had to post a reply to myself :) I'd make those propelers run at exorbitantly hight frequencies. Since they are small, they can support it. Of course, you'd need a turbine designed for hight frequency, normal propelers wouldn't be efficient. Make the frequency bigger than 40kHz and the noise problem would go completely away!
Obligatory XKCD link.
And, yes doing business with legal entities is such a hassle, and leads to so much legal problems that it easy to make a case for going illegal from the start. My decision is to go without, but I can't really blame someone that chooses a different path.
And do something really play at Windows or OS-X? My experience is that Linux is the easiest OS to play any kind of media, you just need an experienced user to configure the hardware and install a player, everything else just go.
On the "easy" OSes, there is no need for an experienced user to install a player, and the hardware work like a charm (except when it doesn't), but every damn time a user wants to see some movie there is a dependency, that can't be solved by a non-admin, must download some random software from the internet and install (pray for it not being a virus or a key-logger), and there is simply no indication anywhere of what piece of software must be installed to run that movie format. Oh, yeah, I almost forgot, even after every imaginable format is supported by local software (there go some men-mounts intalling those) a normal user is helpless trying to guess what software to use to run what movies, since all of them surely register all formats for themselves (and, on Windows, Media Player will be the default, despite any configuration).
It is probably cheapper to correct the defects caused by uncharged radiation that it is to shield it.
But, anyway, I'm do not deal with radiation shielding on a daily basis, so that is only a guess.
Yes, particle radiation shielding is more or less proportional to density. That means that some mass of any material shields more or less the same way. Now, in space you want the more shielding, with less mass (even if it is a very small difference), density is not something that enters in that equation.
That's what makes they different from what we are discussing here. Ok, to be pedantic, what made them different was that the people trading their stocks expected them to pay dividends later. People don't expect lots of companies to ever pay dividends now.
And you are right, I forgot to include taxes into my definition.
One can take a plane down with nail scissors, or with some quantity of the right liquids. I just don't know how relevant is that, since one could take the same plane down with a belt, shirt, bare hands, any piece of the right metal, several compounds that could look as food (ops, have I just invented a new treat?), any right sized bar of metal or lots of other things.
Planes are fragile things, and if the motivation is only to put them down, one could way more easily change something on it while it is at land, it is not harder to pass personal screening as it is to pass passenger one.
I see, you are the 3rd person answering with the same argument. I know the mainstream thinking, but it is wrong. Let's make some thinking experiments: Suppose that this company, that just made a profit of 10% of its market valuation, reinvest all this money on R&D. Now, what should be its value? 110% of the original? But what if this investiment leads to some inovation that causes next year profit to be 30%? And what if the R&D didn't go well, and there is no inovation to show for that investiment? You will probably agree that the valuation of a company isn't as simple as you say.
Now, that it is settled that valuation is hard, tell me: How did you get that initial value you reference? The most accepted way is that a company is worth the sum of all future dividends it will yeld, amortized by interest and risk. If your stocks don't yeld dividends, and aren't expected to do so at future, they are worth US$ 0,00. I've never seen somebody propose a different valuation, except for "the market is always right" (if you ever saw one, I want to know). The problem with "the market is always right" is that it isn't, if you are investing, you are exactly searching for places where the market is wrong, so you can have an edge.
If there aren't dividends, no stock holder will ever get something out of those companies. So, no stock holder will ever by the stock to himself, every one of them will buy to sell it latter, for a different price. Now, there is a name for a scheme where everybody pay for something only because they expect to sell those things at an highter price later. The fact that some people say they reflect the value of a real company doesn't change the fact that, in reallity, there is no connection between the company and those pieces of paper. Anwer me, if the company goes away and nobody gets informed will there be any difference on the way it is traded?
It is like cigarette companies giving (useless) cancer treatment for free, and people complaining that this will make the competing business (that actualy curate people) go out of business.
You know, analogies have some limits on how far one can push them.
Anti-virus sellers will never claim that Windows is less secure than the alternatives. It's the only way they stay in business, if they ever recommend any other plataform, they'd become useless. MS can hurt those companies any way they want, it won't create a problem bigger than extinction.
Hey, all hardware sellers that I know are infected by that virus you cite. I didn't know that it self propagated, but looking that way makes perfect sense, since I have to clean every computer I buy from any of them.
That's yet more homogeinity on Windows. That can only be bad, except if you look from the point of view that it will make people go to other plataforms (no, I don't think that will be enough to make a net positive).
I've said previously, but it is on topic again. MS has no choice, they must do something with their anti-virus, and can't really sell it. If some governemnt make them stop distributing, they win, but they can't really decide that alone.
Funny, "morro" is the portuguese word for die, when conjungated in "I die". I think that is also true for spanish.
Yeah, they'd click. And KMail would save the file at their homedir for them. Now, if they are that stupid, I really doubt they'll be able to locate that latter, but if they can locate the file, are persistent enough, have unrestricted sudo priviledges, and don't take that time to think about what they are doing, yes, they'll get infected.
I wouldn't give unrestricted sudo priviledges to such a user, but I can imagine how some would end-up with those priviledges. Now, the bar for Windows is way lower (double-click and go), and, since the capacity of infections to spread decrease exponentialy with the number (proportion) of people were it can spread; taking also diversity into acount, you'll have a situation where almost no virus can be sucessfull.
Yes there is. There are three things that are inherently insecure on Windows, the software design, the interface design and the actual implementation. Everything else is ok.
That is exactly the point, MS couldn't sell anti-virus software in any way. The only options they have is distributing it for free, or not distributing at all. This latter option looks like the best for them, but they can't take it anymore since they spent a small fortune buying an anti-virus a few years ago, expecting to sell the product, and have to explain to shareholders why they didn't see the criminal consequences of selling protection against your own incompetence.
Now, they'll only have to explain things to the governments around the world, and those are way more receptive than shareholders. The only thing that can happen is them being forced to stop distributing the anti-virus, that is the best outcome for MS anyway.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but if you bought some stocks expecting growth, and not dividends, you are part of a Ponzi scheme (and if you expected dividends, you wouldn't probably buy since most are way overvalued).
Only if, by doing so the company has the potential to get bigger profits at future, and return those as dividends. Or, maybe, if the shareholders are planning to dissolve the company, so they'll take all the money at some point. If there is no expectation of dividends, and there is no possibility of dissolving the company out of a bankrupcy, how do you claim that those pieces of paper are worth any thing at all?
Yes, and you are right. If the stockholders bought their stock expecting the comanies to pay dividends at some time, you have a stable situation; risky, but viable and, in general stable. The company can change hands before it issue dividends, the only needed characteristic here is that the company is valuated by the amount if dividends it's expected to pay.
But if they bought it expecting to sell at a bigger price at future, and don't expect the company to issue dividends, you are again at a Ponzy scheme.
"how large a secret fortress I could build with it...."
You'll can probably build some undergroung fortress with some 20km or 30km of radius, I guess. With a doomsday machine still on budget!
Quite impressive, even more when you think that all that comes from the questioning of why do coal shine red when hot...