"Getting everything they want for free". Bullshit. If you need a driver you bought a card which includes one of their chips. People doing kernel development don't require NVIDIA to release source code. Just open specifications for their hardware like the CPU vendors do.
The first iPod was hardly a success either. It was only much later that it got sold in droves. The curious thing is if Apple hadn't gone into the cellphone market eventually they would have lost their high-end (and high margin) music player business to cellphones anyway so they did the right move. It remains to be seen how Apple will survive without Steve Jobs however. They didn't do a great job last time he left.
You don't pay tuition in Finland unlike in most of the US or even several other countries in the EU. It is a mixed economy (most countries today have a mixed economic system) with several socialist aspects.
The closest would probably the France although they prefer to call it dirigisme. One example was their initiative to move to nuclear power generation and high-speed electric rail after the 1970s oil crisis which was state funded and highly successful. Today they are building light rail all over the country at an unprecedented level.
The ironic thing is the Chinese have a better capsule than the Russians and in a couple of years their launchers will be top notch as well. Their satellite programs are also progressing at a brisk speed. At that point there will be little they will want to steal.
Russia has sold plenty of space technology and know-how to the Chinese. Orlan and Sokol suits, allegedly the Soyuz design, allegedly information on how to design staged combustion engines, etc. Going to the ISS is more problematic. You might remember a couple of years ago the US was dead set against the Russians carrying paying customers to the ISS (even though the customers would be restricted to the Russian modules of the station). The customer was even a US citizen IIRC. In the end they had to cave in and let the Russians carry paying customers to the ISS. The Russians probably threatened that otherwise they would have no budget to continue their ISS activities. Considering how the station is dependent on Russian flights today (Progress and Soyuz) it would be impossible to operate ISS without them. It would have probably ended sooner than predicted like Skylab. The fact is the longer ISS stays on orbit the better the chance of the construction investment paying itself off.
IMO the main issue is if the instability in Pakistan increases and Al-Qaeda and the Taliban take over even. Pakistan unlike Afghanistan is actually a state with nuclear weapons.
Actually most of the people in Guantanamo (probably all) are not protected under the Geneva Convention because they are considered insurgents or partisans rather than regular armies. Most of them didn't even wear a uniform.
The Japanese had shitty tanks and in the end were fighting both the US and the Soviet Union. Considering what happened in the invasion of Germany I doubt invading Japan would have been much harder. AFAIK their AT weapons were crap and consisted mostly of AT rifles. No way those could win against latter war tanks from the Allies.
The Japanese lost most of their Navy in Midway. Contrary to the US they didn't have the resources or shipyards to quickly recuperate their losses in terms of ships. Once they lost their Navy it was relatively easy to reconquer the Pacific from them. After that they were pounded into submission with persistent bombing. They had no way to win. Especially because it was not just US vs Japan. It was US and Soviet Union vs Japan.
Actually there is a lot of SpaceX we don't know. Do you know what their main propulsion team is working on? I have heard all sorts of rumors and read past publications and it still isn't clear what the heck they are doing or what will come out. They have one other team working on SuperDraco. Probably the same guys who worked on Draco. They also have another team (probably a splinter of the main team) doing the Merlin 1D. Yet that still leaves a number of people in their staff I haven't heard about for a couple of years now. I doubt they are doing nothing, it is a for profit business after all, and there are several things they could be working on at a preliminary level. But it isn't clear what it is and what will come out.
Inflatable habitats were conceived by the Transhab project at NASA and Bigelow bought the right to use those patents. It would be a bit suicidal to compete against him using that technology given the tremendous head start he has.
The reason Blue Origin was selected for CCDev is kind of obvious. The ship design is different enough from the others (blunt biconic) that NASA was interested in funding it. However if you look at where most of the money was put into (CCDev 2) Blue Origin is only getting a minor chunk of the action compared with Boeing, SNC, or Space X. Not even a tenth of the money those companies are getting. Contrary to what you said ATK's proposal wasn't good. It was crap. Why? They are basically using the 'Stick' (Ares I-X lookalike) as a launcher. The 'Stick' proved to have major design flaws during the conducted tests. The test launch had vibrations higher than the limits NASA has mandated for flights carrying human passengers because of the solid propellant first stage. It also has awful failure modes because of the solid first stage. Their second stage is proposed to use a Vulcain 2 engine. Well that was originally developed as a first stage engine in Europe for Ariane 5 ECA. So it is kind of understandable why that would be a reason for concern as well. The capsule is a smaller version of Orion which has so far proven to have weight issues and is already being funded under the SLS contract. So ATK's proposal for CCDev has no technical or economic sense. SNC is being funded because they are working on a winged vehicle contrary to Boeing and SpaceX (or even Blue Origin) which are working on capsules.
Didn't you read the comment? The Intel spokesman simply said it is their policy not to release improvements if other people using the project don't usually do it. i.e. if Android was under a copyleft license Intel would release the changes. Intel contributes to a number of GPLed projects including the Linux kernel and they release the source for that.
SpaceX developed the Kestrel and Merlin engines based on LOX/Kerosene. The Merlin (with modifications) is still used by them today. The experience they got with Kestrel can be applied more or less to the hypergolic engines they eventually developed which are also pressure-fed rockets. The US and the Soviet Union followed a similar path in developing rocket engines. The manufacturing techniques and avionics they developed with Falcon 1 got reused with Falcon 9. Falcon 1 was orbital from the get go even if the payload was small.
When you look at Blue Origin it is completely different. They develop a vehicle (Goddard) using monopropellant H2O2 (which is never going to turn out a reusable orbital vehicle because the performance is crap). It can't even be called suborbital. It doesn't even leave the atmosphere. Then Blue Origin posts they are searching for propulsion engineers which have worked on chemical bi-propellant engines (WTF? how were they planning to make an RLV without decent engines?). It's like the company is run backwards or something. Now they are planning to use H2O2/Kerosene when they can't even develop a much easier LOX/Kerosene engine. There is like one orbital launch vehicle using that propellant ever (Black Arrow from the UK in the 1960s) and it used silver plated catalysts...
They seem to be working with composite structures... and that is about it. Many aerospace projects historically failed because the project didn't manage to produce a working engine. Without having a decent working engine the vehicle isn't going to get there. Ever. Heck IMO even Sierra Nevada is a more credible company. At least they manage to produce working hybrid rocket engines. XCOR has been producing working bi-propellant rocket engines for yonks. Blue Origin still hasn't.
That's because their original OS sucked. It was an unportable mess which wouldn't work on anything else than a Motorola 68k compatible processor. They had to make a whole new OS based on Linux to replace it called WebOS. IIRC it wasn't their first attempt either.
Yeah LOX has nearly the same density as H2O2. It is cryogenic but only mildly (certainly not as hard to handle as LH2). It is widely available for all sorts of industrial applications. Thankfully SpaceX didn't go that route.
Well the F-18 Super Hornet seems to work perfectly fine. The US Navy just had to slide that under Congress's nose as an "upgrade program" for it to get funding. Hadn't they done that they would probably be still flying their 1970s F-14 Tomcats. Perhaps this is a repeat of the F-111 debacle and eventually the USAF will need to buy Super Hornets because their precious prima donnas F-22 and F-35 have too high acquisition and maintenance costs. Not to mention they spend more time in the repair yard than actually flying.
Slashdot Mirror
"Getting everything they want for free". Bullshit. If you need a driver you bought a card which includes one of their chips. People doing kernel development don't require NVIDIA to release source code. Just open specifications for their hardware like the CPU vendors do.
If people die from cold in the winter or heat in the summer because they cannot afford power who cares right?
It's called the Osborne effect. You would expect Elop to know about it.
The first iPod was hardly a success either. It was only much later that it got sold in droves. The curious thing is if Apple hadn't gone into the cellphone market eventually they would have lost their high-end (and high margin) music player business to cellphones anyway so they did the right move. It remains to be seen how Apple will survive without Steve Jobs however. They didn't do a great job last time he left.
You don't pay tuition in Finland unlike in most of the US or even several other countries in the EU. It is a mixed economy (most countries today have a mixed economic system) with several socialist aspects.
The closest would probably the France although they prefer to call it dirigisme. One example was their initiative to move to nuclear power generation and high-speed electric rail after the 1970s oil crisis which was state funded and highly successful. Today they are building light rail all over the country at an unprecedented level.
It used to be that the red color meant the incumbent and the blue color the other party. Eventually it stuck into the current color scheme.
That's why I only buy Android systems now. I can run any application I develop and distribute it however I want to.
The ironic thing is the Chinese have a better capsule than the Russians and in a couple of years their launchers will be top notch as well. Their satellite programs are also progressing at a brisk speed. At that point there will be little they will want to steal.
Russia has sold plenty of space technology and know-how to the Chinese. Orlan and Sokol suits, allegedly the Soyuz design, allegedly information on how to design staged combustion engines, etc. Going to the ISS is more problematic. You might remember a couple of years ago the US was dead set against the Russians carrying paying customers to the ISS (even though the customers would be restricted to the Russian modules of the station). The customer was even a US citizen IIRC. In the end they had to cave in and let the Russians carry paying customers to the ISS. The Russians probably threatened that otherwise they would have no budget to continue their ISS activities. Considering how the station is dependent on Russian flights today (Progress and Soyuz) it would be impossible to operate ISS without them. It would have probably ended sooner than predicted like Skylab. The fact is the longer ISS stays on orbit the better the chance of the construction investment paying itself off.
IMO the main issue is if the instability in Pakistan increases and Al-Qaeda and the Taliban take over even. Pakistan unlike Afghanistan is actually a state with nuclear weapons.
Actually most of the people in Guantanamo (probably all) are not protected under the Geneva Convention because they are considered insurgents or partisans rather than regular armies. Most of them didn't even wear a uniform.
I thought that was Lebanon. Or Mohammad Mosaddegh's government in Iran in the 1950s.
The Japanese had shitty tanks and in the end were fighting both the US and the Soviet Union. Considering what happened in the invasion of Germany I doubt invading Japan would have been much harder. AFAIK their AT weapons were crap and consisted mostly of AT rifles. No way those could win against latter war tanks from the Allies.
The Japanese lost most of their Navy in Midway. Contrary to the US they didn't have the resources or shipyards to quickly recuperate their losses in terms of ships. Once they lost their Navy it was relatively easy to reconquer the Pacific from them. After that they were pounded into submission with persistent bombing. They had no way to win. Especially because it was not just US vs Japan. It was US and Soviet Union vs Japan.
Actually there is a lot of SpaceX we don't know. Do you know what their main propulsion team is working on? I have heard all sorts of rumors and read past publications and it still isn't clear what the heck they are doing or what will come out. They have one other team working on SuperDraco. Probably the same guys who worked on Draco. They also have another team (probably a splinter of the main team) doing the Merlin 1D. Yet that still leaves a number of people in their staff I haven't heard about for a couple of years now. I doubt they are doing nothing, it is a for profit business after all, and there are several things they could be working on at a preliminary level. But it isn't clear what it is and what will come out.
Inflatable habitats were conceived by the Transhab project at NASA and Bigelow bought the right to use those patents. It would be a bit suicidal to compete against him using that technology given the tremendous head start he has.
The reason Blue Origin was selected for CCDev is kind of obvious. The ship design is different enough from the others (blunt biconic) that NASA was interested in funding it. However if you look at where most of the money was put into (CCDev 2) Blue Origin is only getting a minor chunk of the action compared with Boeing, SNC, or Space X. Not even a tenth of the money those companies are getting. Contrary to what you said ATK's proposal wasn't good. It was crap. Why? They are basically using the 'Stick' (Ares I-X lookalike) as a launcher. The 'Stick' proved to have major design flaws during the conducted tests. The test launch had vibrations higher than the limits NASA has mandated for flights carrying human passengers because of the solid propellant first stage. It also has awful failure modes because of the solid first stage. Their second stage is proposed to use a Vulcain 2 engine. Well that was originally developed as a first stage engine in Europe for Ariane 5 ECA. So it is kind of understandable why that would be a reason for concern as well. The capsule is a smaller version of Orion which has so far proven to have weight issues and is already being funded under the SLS contract. So ATK's proposal for CCDev has no technical or economic sense. SNC is being funded because they are working on a winged vehicle contrary to Boeing and SpaceX (or even Blue Origin) which are working on capsules.
I guess someone will have to get Gnash to work. Or something.
It's what happened with Wine. They switched to GPL as a response.
Didn't you read the comment? The Intel spokesman simply said it is their policy not to release improvements if other people using the project don't usually do it. i.e. if Android was under a copyleft license Intel would release the changes. Intel contributes to a number of GPLed projects including the Linux kernel and they release the source for that.
Just compare SpaceX with Blue Origin.
SpaceX developed the Kestrel and Merlin engines based on LOX/Kerosene. The Merlin (with modifications) is still used by them today. The experience they got with Kestrel can be applied more or less to the hypergolic engines they eventually developed which are also pressure-fed rockets. The US and the Soviet Union followed a similar path in developing rocket engines. The manufacturing techniques and avionics they developed with Falcon 1 got reused with Falcon 9. Falcon 1 was orbital from the get go even if the payload was small.
When you look at Blue Origin it is completely different. They develop a vehicle (Goddard) using monopropellant H2O2 (which is never going to turn out a reusable orbital vehicle because the performance is crap). It can't even be called suborbital. It doesn't even leave the atmosphere. Then Blue Origin posts they are searching for propulsion engineers which have worked on chemical bi-propellant engines (WTF? how were they planning to make an RLV without decent engines?). It's like the company is run backwards or something. Now they are planning to use H2O2/Kerosene when they can't even develop a much easier LOX/Kerosene engine. There is like one orbital launch vehicle using that propellant ever (Black Arrow from the UK in the 1960s) and it used silver plated catalysts...
They seem to be working with composite structures... and that is about it. Many aerospace projects historically failed because the project didn't manage to produce a working engine. Without having a decent working engine the vehicle isn't going to get there. Ever. Heck IMO even Sierra Nevada is a more credible company. At least they manage to produce working hybrid rocket engines. XCOR has been producing working bi-propellant rocket engines for yonks. Blue Origin still hasn't.
That's because their original OS sucked. It was an unportable mess which wouldn't work on anything else than a Motorola 68k compatible processor. They had to make a whole new OS based on Linux to replace it called WebOS. IIRC it wasn't their first attempt either.
Yeah LOX has nearly the same density as H2O2. It is cryogenic but only mildly (certainly not as hard to handle as LH2). It is widely available for all sorts of industrial applications. Thankfully SpaceX didn't go that route.
Blue Origin doesn't seem to have a credible roadmap for what they are doing in strategic terms. That is the problem.
When the requirements are insane the project is probably going to be botched. That was the case with Shuttle. Well that and the funding cuts.
Well the F-18 Super Hornet seems to work perfectly fine. The US Navy just had to slide that under Congress's nose as an "upgrade program" for it to get funding. Hadn't they done that they would probably be still flying their 1970s F-14 Tomcats. Perhaps this is a repeat of the F-111 debacle and eventually the USAF will need to buy Super Hornets because their precious prima donnas F-22 and F-35 have too high acquisition and maintenance costs. Not to mention they spend more time in the repair yard than actually flying.