Problem is, most of those wealthy peoples' wealth is just bits in a computer.
I tend to agree about feudal life, but the Lord wouldn't be the rich banker who bought the land before the apocalypse, it would be his bodyguard, who cut his throat and took over just after they arrived there.
This has nothing to do with what's 'appropriate', it has everything to do with the 'moral pendulum' swinging back towards prudish, ultra-conservatist ways,
It's the left--particularly SJWs--leading the push against pr0n, because it promotes rape culture and is demeaning to dinosaurs.
GIMP is fantastic software, but it's audience is tiny relative to Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, Tinder, etc. If you're aiming at a large audience you've got to mind your PR a little better than calling your product GIMP.
The limited use of GIMP has very little to do with its name, and very, very, very much to do with its appalling, abysmal, clunky, counterintuitive user interface. For example, developers who do stupid things like removing the ability to save as anything other than GIMP's own.xcf format from the 'save as' dialog, thereby making it even less intuitive and even less compatible with any other GUI app out there.
I mean, seriously, when I have to search the web to find out how to save a.jpg with a new GIMP release, the UI is fscked.
As the design change proved, it was safe by spaceflight standards... provided you kept the joint temperatures above the level at which significant erosion happened. Below that, you were playing Russian Roulette.
It's one thing to say 'sure, the shuttle is safe to launch in July', and quite another to say it's safe when the temperature was below freezing overnight. Managers should understand the difference.
Question is, why didn't the USA develop the automated/remotely controlled capabilities that the Russians had??
The shuttle was capable of automated flight, if you connected the computer to a handful of systems that were designed to be manually controlled for safety. For example: the landing gear couldn't be deployed by the computer, because there was no way to raise it again... a bug that caused it to deploy in space would have been fatal.
But the more cynical would claim it was just because NASA wanted an excuse to put astronauts on board.
Because launching it on an Atlas or Titan would have been much cheaper.
Otherwise, you'd need to build a new pod with some SSMEs in it, and then either figure out a way to get the SSMEs back, or write them off on each flight; AFAIR they cost around $50,000,000 each. Were there any other LOX/LH2 engines at the time which could have been used?
The shuttle was supposed to replace all US launchers, because that was the only way to get the flight rate high enough to get anywhere near the original cost claims. Centaur was required to launch heavy payloads, because the solid-fuelled stages that fit in the shuttle's payload bay simply couldn't do so, and the shuttle would be the only option.
I knew there were safety issues with it, but I hadn't realized just how bad they were until I read this article. Someone should have told them it was batshit crazy well before they got that close to launch. Then again, this was the NASA that thought it could ignore engineers and launch Challenger with frozen, leaky SRBs.
If you're mad at Obama, you must try to open your eyes. I'm 100% opposed to Republican views (1) and yet I don't think Obama acts too far from what a Republican would do.
That's because both parties are full of power-crazed psychopaths. The only difference is which lies they tell.
Like Empire America, the seeds of capitalism's own destruction were sown at it's very birth.
Uh, no. It's socialism, and the crony 'capitalism' it feeds, that we're seeing the end of, Socialism cannot survive in a post-industrial economy, which is why big governments around the world are trying to hard to retard progress.
Slashdot Mirror
They are important, but not violate the constitution, or hypocrisy important.
Why not? The Federal government violates the constitution every day.
But it gives plausible deniability to the governments that let them tap the cables.
Problem is, most of those wealthy peoples' wealth is just bits in a computer.
I tend to agree about feudal life, but the Lord wouldn't be the rich banker who bought the land before the apocalypse, it would be his bodyguard, who cut his throat and took over just after they arrived there.
You plan to burglarize a place you know is occupied with armed individuals who are already waiting for you to turn up?
Burglars generally aren't very smart. If they were smart, they'd be bankers.
This has nothing to do with what's 'appropriate', it has everything to do with the 'moral pendulum' swinging back towards prudish, ultra-conservatist ways,
It's the left--particularly SJWs--leading the push against pr0n, because it promotes rape culture and is demeaning to dinosaurs.
The rich don't rent space in someone else's shelter. They have their own.
GIMP is fantastic software, but it's audience is tiny relative to Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, Tinder, etc. If you're aiming at a large audience you've got to mind your PR a little better than calling your product GIMP.
The limited use of GIMP has very little to do with its name, and very, very, very much to do with its appalling, abysmal, clunky, counterintuitive user interface. For example, developers who do stupid things like removing the ability to save as anything other than GIMP's own .xcf format from the 'save as' dialog, thereby making it even less intuitive and even less compatible with any other GUI app out there.
I mean, seriously, when I have to search the web to find out how to save a .jpg with a new GIMP release, the UI is fscked.
Sorry. I hear it's surgically removed when you become an SJW.
As amply demonstrated by the SJWs who down-modded my comment.
Still, I did hear a really funny left-wing joke the other day:
"An Englishman, an Irishman and a Scotsman walk into a bar."
"SEXIST!"
Get a sense of humor.
Sorry. I hear it's surgically removed when you become an SJW.
Who says that?
Metrosexuals who think being 'feminist' will help them get laid?
That'll be news to the people who bought the satellites it returned from orbit after their boosters failed.
But I think the original quote related to satellites that had been in space for years, and run out of fuel, or had important systems fail.
As the design change proved, it was safe by spaceflight standards... provided you kept the joint temperatures above the level at which significant erosion happened. Below that, you were playing Russian Roulette.
It's one thing to say 'sure, the shuttle is safe to launch in July', and quite another to say it's safe when the temperature was below freezing overnight. Managers should understand the difference.
The problem is that the SRBs only burn for two minutes. You'd have to add several more, and start them sequentially in flight.
It would certainly make a great firework display^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H exciting video.
Question is, why didn't the USA develop the automated/remotely controlled capabilities that the Russians had??
The shuttle was capable of automated flight, if you connected the computer to a handful of systems that were designed to be manually controlled for safety. For example: the landing gear couldn't be deployed by the computer, because there was no way to raise it again... a bug that caused it to deploy in space would have been fatal.
But the more cynical would claim it was just because NASA wanted an excuse to put astronauts on board.
Come on. It's not like the world will end when Twitter goes bust.
The ones who'll really lose are the ones left holding the shares when that happens.
And this is different than with other internet startups how, exactly?
It's not. This is Internet Bubble 2.0.
Because launching it on an Atlas or Titan would have been much cheaper.
Otherwise, you'd need to build a new pod with some SSMEs in it, and then either figure out a way to get the SSMEs back, or write them off on each flight; AFAIR they cost around $50,000,000 each. Were there any other LOX/LH2 engines at the time which could have been used?
The shuttle was supposed to replace all US launchers, because that was the only way to get the flight rate high enough to get anywhere near the original cost claims. Centaur was required to launch heavy payloads, because the solid-fuelled stages that fit in the shuttle's payload bay simply couldn't do so, and the shuttle would be the only option.
I knew there were safety issues with it, but I hadn't realized just how bad they were until I read this article. Someone should have told them it was batshit crazy well before they got that close to launch. Then again, this was the NASA that thought it could ignore engineers and launch Challenger with frozen, leaky SRBs.
Dude, you do realize you can, you know, like, invest in the public company you work for that's, like, enriching their investors?
Oh, no, better just to bitch about the EVIL 1% than actually do something.
Presumably about 90% of them are selling advertising? Sorry, 'Sponsored Tweets' or whatever they call it.
That may be true. But, why are all almost all major pc games just shitty ports of console games now?
Because porting a shitty console game to a PC is much easier than porting a complex PC game to a console with 1/4 the power.
If you're mad at Obama, you must try to open your eyes. I'm 100% opposed to Republican views (1) and yet I don't think Obama acts too far from what a Republican would do.
That's because both parties are full of power-crazed psychopaths. The only difference is which lies they tell.
or vote them out of office
Uh, no.
You can't 'vote them out of office'. You can only vote to replace them with another asshole who's just as corrupt.
If we could 'vote them out of office', this problem would have gone away long ago, as most political offices would be empty.
The only people surprised by this are the useful idiots who actually believe--get this--that patents encourage innovation.
I mean, I know it's hard to believe anyone would fall for that crap, but some really do. We even get some posting around here now and again.
Like Empire America, the seeds of capitalism's own destruction were sown at it's very birth.
Uh, no. It's socialism, and the crony 'capitalism' it feeds, that we're seeing the end of, Socialism cannot survive in a post-industrial economy, which is why big governments around the world are trying to hard to retard progress.