I guess you're ok when they follow their rules to kill people? The US tried isolationism back in the beginning of last century, it doesn't work, like it or not the world is interconnected, what China does doesn't just affect Chinese, it affects the whole world. The only thing Chinese government fears is foreigners (at least for now, once China got 10 aircraft carriers, you may not feel that easy in China), that's why you don't understand how evil Chinese government is, and why they need to be stopped.
Pretty all the time I can think of. Just because it has flaws doesn't mean it can't be a model for the rest of the worlds, since the rest is much worse.
When China is finally freed from communist dictatorship, you and your bosses will be hanged in front of Tiananman Square, I'm waiting for that day to come to piss on your corpse
It's "good girl, you recited your anti-American imperialist slogan well, PLA thanks you.", which is quite correct. A lot of the stupid bashing against US on./ is just helping PLA do their work, but I guess that is the price of free speech, and hopefully freedom will win over dictatorship once again despite the ignorance of its people.
Usually people pick abstractions based on the domain they're working with (DSL), so they'd have one products table and perhaps some joins to things like customers, orders etc. Instead drupal might have nodes and then lots of joins to them, like say 65 tables (count em!) of uc_products, uc_price_per_role_option_prices, etc etc. just to sell some products.
Sorry, no experience with UC, we usually use Commerce in D7, which has no such problem. It only has 10 or so tables, thanks to the entity concept introduced in D7, no more "everything is node", but you can still customize the products if you like, very powerful.
That's because the CMS and modules try to do all things for all people.
No, that's the last thing a Drupal module wants to do, a good module will do one thing and do it well. It is true some very old modules still have a monolithic design and try to provide a whole package of features, but they're on the way out.
All those abstractions leak through to the front end and you end up managing nodes etc when you really want to get on selling stuff and managing your things (which are never really nodes). Nodes are used for things as disparate as any posting, such as a page, poll, article, forum topic, or blog entry and god knows what else, it's an abstraction too far IMHO.
It seems you haven't tried the new D7, entity has replaced node, so your things do not have to be node anymore.
It's not difficult if you've never seen anything else and think things have to work this way and that the system should bend you to its will and not vice versa.
Not sure what this means but the reason I like Drupal is I can make it do the things I want, instead of having to follow some component designer's vision of how things work (i.e. Joomla).
Who indeed.
Well I for one, and I know I don't write bad code.
Ok, thanks for the reminder, I actually didn't know that (very little WP experience, have seen some WP plugin with logic all mixed up with presentation so I just run away). That seems to be a very inefficient database design.
"Hundreds of tables with the most Byzantine schema you can imagine, even for incredibly simple needs": How is one hundred tables constitute bad design? What is the Byzantine schema you're talking about? The table schema is fairly straight forward.
"Attempts to allow customers to define the db schema by adding fields etc": Allow custom content types with fields is the major reason we use Drupal, how else can you add custom content with specific attributes to the site? This function is for site builders, not for site maintainers, you just need to use roles correctly and lock out the ones who is not supposed to use this function.
"Code in the db - that anyone ever thought this is a good idea is a huge red flag": I don't remember seeing code in Drupal core tables, 3rd party modules used to have this but it has been strongly discouraged since 7.
"Upgrades are often incompatible": Haven't seen this but I agree upgrading has the danger of breaking the site, but I think this is true for every piece of software.
"A horribly broken plugin system and ecosystem, resulting in sites which load hundreds of plugins to support simple tasks,": I guess a very complicated site may use hundreds of modules, but I never seen or developed one. You certainly do not need hundreds of modules to do a simple site, this is just false. Drupal's module ecosystem is one of the reasons we choose Drupal, each module is aiming to provide a very narrow feature set and does it very well, this is much better than the huge components in Joomla which is just not customizable.
"and therefore have a huge attack surface and a huge amount of unmaintained, scarily bad code.": I don't follow this logic, there's no difference in terms of attack surface whether you use one big component or 5 small modules, as long as they provide the same features. As for unmaintained, scarily bad code, this could exist for any CMS that allows 3rd party to write extensions. I haven't encountered much bad code in my work with Drupal, and if you subscribe to the security mailing list, you get regular security updates on the vulnerabilities found in modules.
"I've seen sites with hundreds of these modules loaded.the learning curve is huge and the code extremely fragile due to the above decisions": Learning curve is big, and you could break the site if you don't know what you're doing, but the reward is you can fine tune the site to your needs with little efforts.
"Content is all stored in 'nodes' which are infinitely flexible, and therefore infinitely opaque and difficult to work with": I don't see any difficulty in working with nodes, it's pretty straight forward.
"There are no pros or professionals working with Drupal - anyone who was a pro would have run a mile a long time ago, so don't listen when someone says 'oh well you just don't know drupal well enough'": Where's the proof for this? If there're no pros working with Drupal, who contributed the thousands of modules for Drupal?
There is no reason to use PHP unless you want to use Drupal, which is much bettern than the open source CMS in other platform/languages (DotNetNuke, Java CMS based on portlet API)
And Drupal has very good separation between data, business logic and presentation, this is one of its strong points, using the theme system you can completely replace the presentation of a module without touching the module's insides; using hooks you can tweak the business logic to your liking while reusing everything else.
You're quoting American media and website to support your points, good luck finding similar information on China in Chinese media. If you even try to publish these stuff on Chinese media, you risk being sent to labor camps.
No matter how you try to drag the United States down to China's level, it just won't work, democracy is not at the same level at dictatorship, no matter how corrupt it is.
The race started in 2010, so it's already been going for more than 2 years now, and it's not for companies, it's for privately funded teams. I do agree that the goal may be too high this time and probably none of the teams could complete it.
"IIRC most of the article was not about the costs themself but about the discrepencies between NASAs figures and Europes figures.": Sure, but that doesn't make the data any less valid, I just picked the first reference I found on Google, if you have reference to prove your point, you're free to share them.
"One has to wonder why so cheap since none of the costs have come down. Most analysts believe it is because they are in desparate needs of funds and like the airlines, an discounted seat brings in more revenue than an empty one.": I'd like to see this analysis, because SpaceX is estimating their crewed Dragon would be priced at $140 million, which is even cheaper.
"Comparing the Soyuz to another group is like comparing apples and oranges. You are comparing different lift vehicles, different launch sites, different capitalization patterns and a host of other things.": I didn't start the comparison, if you have an apple to apple comparison please just make it.
"Instead of Soyuz, you could have just as easily picked the shuttle, which had an average mission cost of $450million": But the Shuttle orbiter is reused, which means most of the mission cost would be launch cost to send the orbiter up there, what you should use is the orbiter price tag of $1.3 to 2 billion, which is indeed much more expensive than a satellite, but the orbiter is also so much bigger than satellite (100 tons vis a few tons).
In term of technology, you're right, but in term of economy the cost to launch the Mars spacecraft to LEO is a major expense, if you check the cost breakdown at the end of this article, it shows the launcher is the most expensive part of the mission. Given cheap access to LEO, I think it would be much easier to design the rest of the mission since mass constraint would be greatly reduced.
And make sure you have more than one running at the same time. SpaceX uses non rad-hardened computers on Dragon, and in their last mission one computer had to reboot due to a radiation hit, but the system works fine since they have redundancy, this is explained in detail here. So no, hardware in spacecraft does not have to be hardened against radiation, and off the shelf junk will work. Of course this doesn't mean you can use iPhone on Mars rover since in Dragon's case it's a short mission and they're under the protection of Earth's magnetic field, it just means you need to design your system in a case by case basis and avoid over-generalization.
Slashdot Mirror
What are you talking about? You have no clue what my country even is.
I think I have made my feeling for the Chinese government pretty clear on this thread, if you still don't understand then I couldnt' help you.
I guess you're ok when they follow their rules to kill people? The US tried isolationism back in the beginning of last century, it doesn't work, like it or not the world is interconnected, what China does doesn't just affect Chinese, it affects the whole world. The only thing Chinese government fears is foreigners (at least for now, once China got 10 aircraft carriers, you may not feel that easy in China), that's why you don't understand how evil Chinese government is, and why they need to be stopped.
They stand for everything that is wrong with this world, they need to be stopped before it's too late.
Pretty all the time I can think of. Just because it has flaws doesn't mean it can't be a model for the rest of the worlds, since the rest is much worse.
Not the Chinese communist dictatorship government, the worker and people of China wants to fuck their government too.
When China is finally freed from communist dictatorship, you and your bosses will be hanged in front of Tiananman Square, I'm waiting for that day to come to piss on your corpse
It's "good girl, you recited your anti-American imperialist slogan well, PLA thanks you.", which is quite correct. A lot of the stupid bashing against US on ./ is just helping PLA do their work, but I guess that is the price of free speech, and hopefully freedom will win over dictatorship once again despite the ignorance of its people.
Sorry, no experience with UC, we usually use Commerce in D7, which has no such problem. It only has 10 or so tables, thanks to the entity concept introduced in D7, no more "everything is node", but you can still customize the products if you like, very powerful.
No, that's the last thing a Drupal module wants to do, a good module will do one thing and do it well. It is true some very old modules still have a monolithic design and try to provide a whole package of features, but they're on the way out.
It seems you haven't tried the new D7, entity has replaced node, so your things do not have to be node anymore.
Not sure what this means but the reason I like Drupal is I can make it do the things I want, instead of having to follow some component designer's vision of how things work (i.e. Joomla).
Well I for one, and I know I don't write bad code.
Thanks for the tip.
Ok, thanks for the reminder, I actually didn't know that (very little WP experience, have seen some WP plugin with logic all mixed up with presentation so I just run away). That seems to be a very inefficient database design.
"Hundreds of tables with the most Byzantine schema you can imagine, even for incredibly simple needs": How is one hundred tables constitute bad design? What is the Byzantine schema you're talking about? The table schema is fairly straight forward.
"Attempts to allow customers to define the db schema by adding fields etc": Allow custom content types with fields is the major reason we use Drupal, how else can you add custom content with specific attributes to the site? This function is for site builders, not for site maintainers, you just need to use roles correctly and lock out the ones who is not supposed to use this function.
"Code in the db - that anyone ever thought this is a good idea is a huge red flag": I don't remember seeing code in Drupal core tables, 3rd party modules used to have this but it has been strongly discouraged since 7.
"Upgrades are often incompatible": Haven't seen this but I agree upgrading has the danger of breaking the site, but I think this is true for every piece of software.
"A horribly broken plugin system and ecosystem, resulting in sites which load hundreds of plugins to support simple tasks,": I guess a very complicated site may use hundreds of modules, but I never seen or developed one. You certainly do not need hundreds of modules to do a simple site, this is just false. Drupal's module ecosystem is one of the reasons we choose Drupal, each module is aiming to provide a very narrow feature set and does it very well, this is much better than the huge components in Joomla which is just not customizable.
"and therefore have a huge attack surface and a huge amount of unmaintained, scarily bad code.": I don't follow this logic, there's no difference in terms of attack surface whether you use one big component or 5 small modules, as long as they provide the same features. As for unmaintained, scarily bad code, this could exist for any CMS that allows 3rd party to write extensions. I haven't encountered much bad code in my work with Drupal, and if you subscribe to the security mailing list, you get regular security updates on the vulnerabilities found in modules.
"I've seen sites with hundreds of these modules loaded.the learning curve is huge and the code extremely fragile due to the above decisions": Learning curve is big, and you could break the site if you don't know what you're doing, but the reward is you can fine tune the site to your needs with little efforts.
"Content is all stored in 'nodes' which are infinitely flexible, and therefore infinitely opaque and difficult to work with": I don't see any difficulty in working with nodes, it's pretty straight forward.
"There are no pros or professionals working with Drupal - anyone who was a pro would have run a mile a long time ago, so don't listen when someone says 'oh well you just don't know drupal well enough'": Where's the proof for this? If there're no pros working with Drupal, who contributed the thousands of modules for Drupal?
There is no reason to use PHP unless you want to use Drupal, which is much bettern than the open source CMS in other platform/languages (DotNetNuke, Java CMS based on portlet API)
And Drupal has very good separation between data, business logic and presentation, this is one of its strong points, using the theme system you can completely replace the presentation of a module without touching the module's insides; using hooks you can tweak the business logic to your liking while reusing everything else.
You have a chance to elect this Conservative government of yours out of office in the next election, no such chance for the Chinese.
You're quoting American media and website to support your points, good luck finding similar information on China in Chinese media. If you even try to publish these stuff on Chinese media, you risk being sent to labor camps.
No matter how you try to drag the United States down to China's level, it just won't work, democracy is not at the same level at dictatorship, no matter how corrupt it is.
The race started in 2010, so it's already been going for more than 2 years now, and it's not for companies, it's for privately funded teams. I do agree that the goal may be too high this time and probably none of the teams could complete it.
"IIRC most of the article was not about the costs themself but about the discrepencies between NASAs figures and Europes figures.": Sure, but that doesn't make the data any less valid, I just picked the first reference I found on Google, if you have reference to prove your point, you're free to share them.
"One has to wonder why so cheap since none of the costs have come down. Most analysts believe it is because they are in desparate needs of funds and like the airlines, an discounted seat brings in more revenue than an empty one.": I'd like to see this analysis, because SpaceX is estimating their crewed Dragon would be priced at $140 million, which is even cheaper.
"Comparing the Soyuz to another group is like comparing apples and oranges. You are comparing different lift vehicles, different launch sites, different capitalization patterns and a host of other things.": I didn't start the comparison, if you have an apple to apple comparison please just make it.
"Instead of Soyuz, you could have just as easily picked the shuttle, which had an average mission cost of $450million": But the Shuttle orbiter is reused, which means most of the mission cost would be launch cost to send the orbiter up there, what you should use is the orbiter price tag of $1.3 to 2 billion, which is indeed much more expensive than a satellite, but the orbiter is also so much bigger than satellite (100 tons vis a few tons).
"However, the actual cost to put a capsule into space is much more than a satellite.": Not really.
Russians are selling Soyuz seats at $60 million per seat, this gives the entire Soyuz mission price at $180 million, including the launcher.
Compare that to the $50 million to $250 million price tag of a communication satellite, the crewed spacecraft is not at all expensive.
It would be helpful to actually read the article I referenced when doing discussions like this, otherwise we're just talking over each other.
In term of technology, you're right, but in term of economy the cost to launch the Mars spacecraft to LEO is a major expense, if you check the cost breakdown at the end of this article, it shows the launcher is the most expensive part of the mission. Given cheap access to LEO, I think it would be much easier to design the rest of the mission since mass constraint would be greatly reduced.
Well if SpaceX can get the reusable Falcon working, 2033 is about right for a Mars landing powered by cheap commercial space transportation.
I think Bill Gates is already working on it.
Using Anti-Drone Drones?
I'm no expert, but I assume driving or riding a supply truck in WWII Germany makes you a legitimate target for US fighters and bombers.
Or paint your face...
Why do we need this project when USRP is already doing it for years?
And make sure you have more than one running at the same time. SpaceX uses non rad-hardened computers on Dragon, and in their last mission one computer had to reboot due to a radiation hit, but the system works fine since they have redundancy, this is explained in detail here. So no, hardware in spacecraft does not have to be hardened against radiation, and off the shelf junk will work. Of course this doesn't mean you can use iPhone on Mars rover since in Dragon's case it's a short mission and they're under the protection of Earth's magnetic field, it just means you need to design your system in a case by case basis and avoid over-generalization.