No sane human being would have anticipated what we currently take for granted. An example of disruptive technology would be an economic extraction of fuel from lunar or asteroid material. Then you could make and sell fuel in space. Satellite operators would obviously buy fuel from you if your price was cheaper than a new launch from earth. Once you are up there gassing the satellites up, why not offer repair services as well? Once you offer repair services, why not expand your infrastructure to build satellites up there? You will automate as much of this as is possible, but chances are you'll still need humans in the loop. Rather than shoot them up as-needed, it might be cheaper to keep them on-station. They'll need human stuff to keep them alive. Air, food, water at the least. Now you are growing food in space.
It's really not hard to see a rational path to increased presence in space. Launches are getting cheaper, and with that demand is going up. With demand going up, there is more money available for space R&D and competition of the economic rather than the dick-waving kind. I can't possibly hope to see the future, and neither can you - but right now the trend is towards more involvement in space, not the status quo.
There was a time - not so long ago - when modern, evolved humans couldn't grasp why we would ever need the concept of a zero.
Helium 3 extraction? Production of goods meant for consumption in space? I mean, use a little imagination. The gravity well is significantly lower on the moon. If you need a significant amount of manufactured goods in space, it's not hard to imagine how the moon could eventually become viable just because launch costs would be much lower.
How can we ever hope to colonize the New World, when we can't even live at peace among ourselves here in continental Europe? The climate experiences wild swings, our ships are not reliable, and the land is populated with murderous savages. I know you all really like Queen Isabella, but this is all just fantasy. There may be riches in the New World, but it will never be worth the time or effort to extract them.
I know the case isn't $2000, but people blinging out on their case are not exactly price sensitive. It's not a dig - I have a nice case because I like the look, noise suppression, vibration reduction, and the serviceability. But let's be honest, it's a frivolous expense - my old stamped sheet metal case with the sharp edges was perfectly serviceable.
Whether or not millions watched it, it's like reporting on usenet banter, or for that matter Slashdot comments. It's quick, easy content for newspapers with zero value added.
A couple of points: 1. The people lining up are not necessarily the people buying the products of the companies featured in the article. 2. Given the example is a $2000 custom-built rig, we are firmly in Apple territory. The cases by NZXT in the summary can be very bling.
For me it would not work. In the summer, when the weather is best for cycling I need to drop the kids off at camp on my way to work. In the winter, I swing by their school on the way home from work to pick them up from after school activities. Not everyday, but it complicates things. Add it to the abject terror of biking in on narrow busy roads, weather unpleasantness, and the loss of time (and therefore money) - it just won't work for me. I'll even use the showers at work:)
So more commute time, less safety, inability to shuttle kids around, requirement of shower when I get to work, susceptibility to rain and snow... what's not to like? At least if I survived I'd be in good cardiovascular health.
There are very weak employee protection rules here - it's an "at will" employment state. I'm not an employee in any case - I'm a contractor/consultant.
Our suburb is very old and train-centered. Our elementary school is less than half a mile from the house and we walk the kids daily. Or did, anyway - the older one now gets on the bus.
I did a 40 minute commute for a single year when my wife got a new job. I bought a fuel efficient shitbox and listened to a lot of radio. That was pre-kids and she worked long hours, so I didn't feel like I was missing out on much. Now I'd hate that. But hey, some people drive cabs all day so I can't really complain. I have colleagues who drive an hour. One is getting married but he is downtown and his new wife works over an hour away (in no traffic) in an adjacent state. They are trying to figure out what to do - for now he may keep his downtown condo but only use it weeknights and then they will live together on weekends until one of them finds something more convenient. Single=Easy:)
I don't think I did that at all. I defended my decision to be in the 'burbs, but not the concept of the 'burbs. You have to play the hand you are dealt. And yes, I'm white, but my wife is not - so you got that wrong, too. The main reason we picked the suburb that we are in is because it has both a lot of diversity and decent schools.
But seriously, whichever one makes the most $$....if they have to move, then you do.
Uh, that's what I did - and the place I found was 15 miles from her workplace. She works in the absolute shittiest part of the city. If there was an engineering job there, I couldn't find it.
I don't really disagree, but how does that rebut my point? You can't say "move close to work" when there are people in the household who work 15 miles apart - the best you can do is split the difference. Bad schools mean some areas are less attractive if you have kids. Uprooting the kids is of course an option, but it is not without cost - so one weighs the costs and the benefits. Would you uproot your kids to save 5 minutes on your commute? How about 30? That line is very dependent on your circumstances.
My job is suburban. Even so, for a while when I was single I lived in the city before I got tired of the commute and high rent.
My kids simply cannot use the public education system in the city, so it's a non-starter there. I'd have to pay for private school.
My wife actually works in the city, which is why here commute is so hellish.
Our compromise is that we live in a first-ring suburb with excellent bus and train access. We can be downtown in 20 minutes on public transit, which ironically is better downtown access than when I lived in Manhattan. The schools aren't the absolute best, but they are good enough if you stay on top of your kids, and you don't need to worry about testing into a magnet school. We've had the same cars for 10 years and we've maybe driven 110,000 miles between the two of them... we're not exactly captives to the automobile.
Anyway my point is we did think ahead, spent a lot of time planning out where we are in relation to our jobs and weighing factors like access to the city and schools. But I'm not single, so I sit in traffic.
When I was a bachelor, I would rent within walking distance of my employer, even though it was in the suburbs and it involved me cutting through some business parks. Then I got married and my wife got a job. Then my employer moved. Then we had kids and had to think about school districts. We moved to a place that is a 5 mile commute (in heavy traffic) for her and a 10 mile commute for me (in light to moderate traffic) with a decent school system. But either of us could get fired tomorrow and our commute could change, and we wouldn't be able to move without uprooting our kids and selling our home.
By that definition, no one has invented anything. Edison just improved the light bulb. Bell just improved the telephone. Why all this energy spent on semantics? Apple had the first mass-market home computer, the first mass-market GUI, the first mass-market MP3 player, the first mass-market smartphone, the first mass-market tablet. You don't like the term "invented"... OK, let's not use that. It's still a very impressive record of whatever-you-want-to-call it.
"Lately"? They've tried pushing into home entertainment. I don't think it's going to work out, but they are still trying. Steve Jobs is gone, and he was at the helm for all of the other stuff and I can't see into the future - so maybe they are done. But I wouldn't put my money on that.
Meh, then your definition of "invent" is too strict. True, they didn't invent the home computer. But after a few tries they managed to find a formula that worked and an entire industry was born. They didn't invent the GUI - but they finally innovated a recipe that worked with the Mac and the PC world never looked the same. Then they did it again with the iPod, the iPhone, and the iPad - all categories that technically existed, but sucked. I could write any one of those off as a lucky fluke, but they've done it several times. They've failed several times, too... for instance they got too crazy with the Newton and Palm figured out the formula instead. Even the lightbulb was an iterative design and not something popped into existence by Edison.
Slashdot Mirror
No sane human being would have anticipated what we currently take for granted. An example of disruptive technology would be an economic extraction of fuel from lunar or asteroid material. Then you could make and sell fuel in space. Satellite operators would obviously buy fuel from you if your price was cheaper than a new launch from earth. Once you are up there gassing the satellites up, why not offer repair services as well? Once you offer repair services, why not expand your infrastructure to build satellites up there? You will automate as much of this as is possible, but chances are you'll still need humans in the loop. Rather than shoot them up as-needed, it might be cheaper to keep them on-station. They'll need human stuff to keep them alive. Air, food, water at the least. Now you are growing food in space.
It's really not hard to see a rational path to increased presence in space. Launches are getting cheaper, and with that demand is going up. With demand going up, there is more money available for space R&D and competition of the economic rather than the dick-waving kind. I can't possibly hope to see the future, and neither can you - but right now the trend is towards more involvement in space, not the status quo.
There was a time - not so long ago - when modern, evolved humans couldn't grasp why we would ever need the concept of a zero.
For now, yes. I'm obviously not talking about now. In 1960 there was no demand for communications satellites.
It's a problem, but one that is probably solvable even with current technology and a lot of engineering.
Helium 3 extraction? Production of goods meant for consumption in space? I mean, use a little imagination. The gravity well is significantly lower on the moon. If you need a significant amount of manufactured goods in space, it's not hard to imagine how the moon could eventually become viable just because launch costs would be much lower.
How can we ever hope to colonize the New World, when we can't even live at peace among ourselves here in continental Europe? The climate experiences wild swings, our ships are not reliable, and the land is populated with murderous savages. I know you all really like Queen Isabella, but this is all just fantasy. There may be riches in the New World, but it will never be worth the time or effort to extract them.
It's mild compared to getting shot down (e.g. Russia shooting down MH17) . But in peacetime losing position can be pretty damn dangerous.
Sounds like what will really happen in a conflict.
Exactly right. In a conflict, all hell would break loose and there would be collateral damage.
When there is no conflict, civilian users of GPS can be forgiven for getting a little steamed if they become "collateral damage".
If NATO wants to simulate a loss of GPS, they can certainly do that without "help".
I know the case isn't $2000, but people blinging out on their case are not exactly price sensitive. It's not a dig - I have a nice case because I like the look, noise suppression, vibration reduction, and the serviceability. But let's be honest, it's a frivolous expense - my old stamped sheet metal case with the sharp edges was perfectly serviceable.
Whether or not millions watched it, it's like reporting on usenet banter, or for that matter Slashdot comments. It's quick, easy content for newspapers with zero value added.
A couple of points:
1. The people lining up are not necessarily the people buying the products of the companies featured in the article.
2. Given the example is a $2000 custom-built rig, we are firmly in Apple territory. The cases by NZXT in the summary can be very bling.
If I wanted to read shitty Twitter wars, I'd go to Twitter. Jesus, the whole press is infected with reporting on Tweets.
For me it would not work. In the summer, when the weather is best for cycling I need to drop the kids off at camp on my way to work. In the winter, I swing by their school on the way home from work to pick them up from after school activities. Not everyday, but it complicates things. Add it to the abject terror of biking in on narrow busy roads, weather unpleasantness, and the loss of time (and therefore money) - it just won't work for me. I'll even use the showers at work :)
And that will reduce my commute times?
So more commute time, less safety, inability to shuttle kids around, requirement of shower when I get to work, susceptibility to rain and snow... what's not to like? At least if I survived I'd be in good cardiovascular health.
There are very weak employee protection rules here - it's an "at will" employment state. I'm not an employee in any case - I'm a contractor/consultant.
Our suburb is very old and train-centered. Our elementary school is less than half a mile from the house and we walk the kids daily. Or did, anyway - the older one now gets on the bus.
I did a 40 minute commute for a single year when my wife got a new job. I bought a fuel efficient shitbox and listened to a lot of radio. That was pre-kids and she worked long hours, so I didn't feel like I was missing out on much. Now I'd hate that. But hey, some people drive cabs all day so I can't really complain. I have colleagues who drive an hour. One is getting married but he is downtown and his new wife works over an hour away (in no traffic) in an adjacent state. They are trying to figure out what to do - for now he may keep his downtown condo but only use it weeknights and then they will live together on weekends until one of them finds something more convenient. Single=Easy :)
I don't think I did that at all. I defended my decision to be in the 'burbs, but not the concept of the 'burbs. You have to play the hand you are dealt. And yes, I'm white, but my wife is not - so you got that wrong, too. The main reason we picked the suburb that we are in is because it has both a lot of diversity and decent schools.
No need to argue, we have data!
But seriously, whichever one makes the most $$....if they have to move, then you do.
Uh, that's what I did - and the place I found was 15 miles from her workplace. She works in the absolute shittiest part of the city. If there was an engineering job there, I couldn't find it.
I don't really disagree, but how does that rebut my point? You can't say "move close to work" when there are people in the household who work 15 miles apart - the best you can do is split the difference. Bad schools mean some areas are less attractive if you have kids. Uprooting the kids is of course an option, but it is not without cost - so one weighs the costs and the benefits. Would you uproot your kids to save 5 minutes on your commute? How about 30? That line is very dependent on your circumstances.
No, it's not because I'm suburban.
My job is suburban. Even so, for a while when I was single I lived in the city before I got tired of the commute and high rent.
My kids simply cannot use the public education system in the city, so it's a non-starter there. I'd have to pay for private school.
My wife actually works in the city, which is why here commute is so hellish.
Our compromise is that we live in a first-ring suburb with excellent bus and train access. We can be downtown in 20 minutes on public transit, which ironically is better downtown access than when I lived in Manhattan. The schools aren't the absolute best, but they are good enough if you stay on top of your kids, and you don't need to worry about testing into a magnet school. We've had the same cars for 10 years and we've maybe driven 110,000 miles between the two of them... we're not exactly captives to the automobile.
Anyway my point is we did think ahead, spent a lot of time planning out where we are in relation to our jobs and weighing factors like access to the city and schools. But I'm not single, so I sit in traffic.
Easy to say when single.
When I was a bachelor, I would rent within walking distance of my employer, even though it was in the suburbs and it involved me cutting through some business parks. Then I got married and my wife got a job. Then my employer moved. Then we had kids and had to think about school districts. We moved to a place that is a 5 mile commute (in heavy traffic) for her and a 10 mile commute for me (in light to moderate traffic) with a decent school system. But either of us could get fired tomorrow and our commute could change, and we wouldn't be able to move without uprooting our kids and selling our home.
There is at least some benefit in having their entire team using a single tool across platforms. Apparently deemed worth the porting effort, anyway.
By that definition, no one has invented anything. Edison just improved the light bulb. Bell just improved the telephone. Why all this energy spent on semantics? Apple had the first mass-market home computer, the first mass-market GUI, the first mass-market MP3 player, the first mass-market smartphone, the first mass-market tablet. You don't like the term "invented"... OK, let's not use that. It's still a very impressive record of whatever-you-want-to-call it.
"Lately"? They've tried pushing into home entertainment. I don't think it's going to work out, but they are still trying. Steve Jobs is gone, and he was at the helm for all of the other stuff and I can't see into the future - so maybe they are done. But I wouldn't put my money on that.
Meh, then your definition of "invent" is too strict. True, they didn't invent the home computer. But after a few tries they managed to find a formula that worked and an entire industry was born. They didn't invent the GUI - but they finally innovated a recipe that worked with the Mac and the PC world never looked the same. Then they did it again with the iPod, the iPhone, and the iPad - all categories that technically existed, but sucked. I could write any one of those off as a lucky fluke, but they've done it several times. They've failed several times, too... for instance they got too crazy with the Newton and Palm figured out the formula instead. Even the lightbulb was an iterative design and not something popped into existence by Edison.
That's what "poor" means.