Because it's not the same design. Samsung wrapped the screen around the edge but the bezel is still there. Apple's patent is to put touch sensors in the bezel to extend the touch interface.
A flaw in your premise is that Apple didn't file for a patent but rather received one which means they filed it years ago. While the article is light on details, the patent was first filed July 2014. A second flaw is your assumption that Apple's patent is "something their rivals have been doing for 4 years". Specifically, that whatever Apple patented is exactly how their rivals did. For example, Samsung didn't exactly create a bezel-free phone. Rather they wrapped the screen around the edge of the phone. It still has a bezel. Other manufacturers have created bezel-less phones but not entirely bezel-free. The patent itself describes a way of putting the touch sensors in the bezel to extend the touch interface of the screen. Is it the first to do so? I'm not sure.
In terms of the fingerprint sensor in the screen, I'm not aware that anyone else has done that yet. There were rumors that Samsung tried to do that with the Galaxy 8 but could not make it work reliably.
More likely the switch will be to AAC eventually. While computers will probably support MP3 for a long time, portal players will be moving off of it for simplicity of chip design. Most players these days have hardware decoders for power considerations. In time, manufacturers will select chips that drop off older formats to simplify the chip.
Sean Spicer took a photo of the MLK bust in there with his phone, so the rest of your statement is an outright lie.
You are aware that there is a reason that there is an official WH photographer, right? Second if Spicer did that with his own camera, he was breaking with the policy. Third, the Trump administration not caring about security rules and policies does not surprise me.
1) There is an official White House photographer and videographer for these things.
2) In the past it might have been okay before phones and photo cameras became recording devices that could capture audio. Also the rate of miniaturization means that spy equipment are now smaller and smaller.
Just after firing Comey, Trump met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. Now this was not bad just for the optics. No American press was allowed but Russian press was allowed. No that's not worst part. The Russian press was allowed to bring in their equipment to take photos in the Oval Office. That's the worst part: Trump allowed foreign officials to bring in electronic equipment into a sensitive area of the White House. Many security experts are dismayed that was allowed to happen. Former security officers have noted that it was standing policy that no one was allowed to bring in their phone/cameras into the Oval Office.
And I'm sure this has everything to do with electricity costs and not that the US doesn't institutionalize its homeless population anymore, right?
Depends on what you call an institution. In the US a homeless person is more likely to be sent to a prison or jail facility than a homeless shelter if they are mentally ill (and many homeless are mentally ill). But that also brings up another point in that Germany tends to make sure that fewer people are homeless with their social safety network.
The problem is not the updates have bug fixes. The problem is that to get big fixes users have to get "features" they didn't want. Also a problem is that unlike the past, it was far easier to avoid a problematic update because it caused problems with your driver, programs, etc. For many if the update fails (which is a common occurrence with the current Windows update), your computer is unusable.
I can only assume that since the search happened after towing the vehicle to the impound lot, the body cam was turned off in the meantime as the officer did not think he needed to document everything in the intervening moments.
Is it likely that the guy is actually guilty in this case? Honestly no idea, but lets stipulate "Yes". I still rather he go free, because what if I'm in a similar situation, but because I've been on a date with a cop's ex-wife I'm not liked much by my local PD. This would be an easy thing to do to put me away.
I would say then this would be a clear example of how shoddy police work means criminals go free.
This is where we are now? Where we have to give "props" to our officers of the court for not committing criminal professional misconduct by suppressing evidence that the defense is legally entitled to? No wonder the cop was comfortable turning off his camera and then faking evidence when he "remembered" that it needed to be on.
There are too many stories of prosecutors hiding evidence or conveniently "forgetting" to hand over evidence to the defense.
If the court knew it was a reenactment then that's one thing, but if the officer attempted to pass-off the footage as legitimate then he needs to be found in-contempt.
From the the source article it seems that the prosecutor did not know at first.
It came out only after a prosecutor noticed some discrepancies between the body cam footage and the report and asked the officer to clarify.
Jensen replied back, saying, "For the search, the body cam shows different than the report because it was. Prior to turning my body cam on I conducted the search. Once I found the (expletive referring to evidence), I stepped back, called (a fellow officer), then activated my body cam and walked the courts through it."
Mayer then replied back, “Was that in the report? If not you’ve got to write a supplement explaining that your body cam was off during the search and that the body cam that does exist is a reenactment.”
Now I have to give props to the prosecutor for alerting the defense and the court about it. They could have buried it.
Has making false statements to police ever been used against the police? Seems that it should qualify if an officer lies about the circumstances in official reports.
There is now an investigation and we'll see. Most likely no. The problem is that since it was "re-enacted" without disclosing the fact gives the appearance that it could have been planted. If the officer had turned on his body cam right after and merely declared "I found this gun here a minute ago. .." most people would have given the officer the benefit of a doubt.
If I read it right, this flaw allows a person to route a SMS message intended for your phone to them. So if they have your login (which is your email normally), they can request a new password or authentication code to be sent via SMS to your (actually their) phone. They then reset your password and now have full access. Now if your bank uses an Authenticator type app then it is harder to compromise.
Well in terms of the hardware side, there is a reason that Apple is designing their own stuff. Originally Samsung supplied the SoC for the iPhone which Apple felt was adequate but wasn't exactly everything they wanted. But here is the problem: Apple could have asked more customizations but that would have cost a lot more money and time. Samsung is in the business of making mobile SoCs for many companies not just Apple so they can't just design something that Apple wants and ignore the rest of the industry.
So Apple bought out chip design companies and are designing their own SoCs and CPUs. Also part of this arrangement is they are no longer 100% dependent on Samsung to make their chips. For now Imagination has been the supplier the GPU designs. I thought it was a matter of time before Apple started designing their own GPU as well.
At play here is that Imagination has, up to now, licensed their technologies to Apple, which Apple has used in its custom-designed chips for a few years. Apple is now claiming that their custom designs no longer rely on Imagination's technology, so they're going to stop paying. Imagination is understandably asking how that's even possible, given that the new chips presumably work the same as the old ones, which means that they likely rely on Imagination's tech.
In the arena of mobile GPUs, Imagination certainly isn't the only company so it's not like they are the only choice. Qualcomm makes their own proprietary GPU. nVidia and ARM also offer designs to be licensed. I would think Apple may rely on their architectural license with ARM and leverage that into designing a Mali based GPU. But let's see the details.
I don't see why you think that's relevant. Comcast could be the best company in the world or the worst company in the world and it wouldn't change the fact that it's going to cost Comcast more money to carry its average packet than Netflix or Google. It's always cheaper when your endpoint is servers in dozens of datacenters than when it's routers in millions of homes.
Comcast is an ISP that has their own problems of being an ISP. Why is that Netflix's or Google's problem? Specifically I pointed out things Comcast could have done to reduce their costs yet failed to do so.
Comcast cannot move their customers into datacenters. Fundamentally, the only major, unavoidable difference between an access network and a service provider is that service providers can locate their endpoints in datacenters and access networks can't because their endpoints are homes and businesses. The reason access providers put their servers in datacenters is because that's much cheaper. An ISP *has* to build a municipal network, an access provider doesn't.
And Comcast could have bought out dark fiber but didn't. Comcast could have laid out fiber themselves decades ago as proposed in the Telecom act of 1996. Instead they took the money that was allocated for those expansions and didn't do them.
This is so absurdly simple and I can't understand why you refuse to acknowledge it.
I did. I said it was moot. That's the business of being an ISP. I said it's like oil companies complaining that cars are more fuel efficient these days.
I don't know the exact details of Imagination's IP claims. It might be a hail-mary/last gasp for them or there might be merit. Apple for their part seems to been on this track forever. It started when they bought out chip companies to design their own SoC and then CPU. GPU was the next step.
True and legally there are ways around this. For example, if Apple bases their GPU on ARM's Mali then they might be covered under ARM's licenses. The fine print would be whatever licensing deal ARM has with Apple and what patents ARM controls.
Oh... look. It's you with making tedious points and going in circles. Aren't you dizzy yet? At least you mentioned one obstacle, which does not necessarily stop nasa from being able to do it if you are willing to accept increased risks or costs
I don't know about you but keeping astronauts alive during their Mars mission seems to be a rather large obstacle. If NASA can't do that then the other risks and costs are moot.
By sending up more radiation shielding (water) or by packing more fuel to shorten the trip which reduces exposure.
As for shortening the trip, what technology do you propose to do that? Without advances in propulsion (which don't exist), it will be about a 9 month journey. Certainly NASA is going to look into shortening the trip as much as possible; however, the best estimates are 9 months one way. That does not include a round trip nor time on Mars. At best a trip to Mars is multi-year endeavor for astronauts. It would be less if NASA does not plant the astronauts to return or live.
Here is the problem: An average Mars mission will take 9 months one way to Mars. Even on the ISS with all the latest in life support technology, ISS has to be re-supplied every 3 months. What we are talking about basics like air, water, and food. We haven't even gotten to things like parts and mission supplies.
However you seemed focused on exposure which isn't really the main problem.
Yes, you potentially increase danger but there are cost considerations to limit those dangers. Again, the reason the 2030's were set was because of funding and because NASA was left basically directionless for quite some time.
I'm still talking about the practical nature of getting a crew to Mars alive long enough to complete a mission. There are dangers but I'm still talking about practicality.
That isn't a limit for a manned mission to mars within a decade. That is a cost benefit analysis of what is acceptable risks and costs we are willing to bear.
I don't know why this is even important. There are always risks and rewards which is part of space exploration. As I've stated previously this is about the practicality and the work that will be needed to make Mars happen which you nor Trump seem to understand.
This tells me you haven't followed space news about this. A launch system was a major consideration and always has been. That was one of the goals of Project Constellation but there were other systems on the horizon from SpaceX, and SLS. When project Constellation was canceled and subsequently the heavy lift rocket it funded nasa was left without a heavy rocket or shuttle. When Obama gave the goal of 2030's for NASA it was around the same time that NASA was directed to get out of LEO and privatize those launch capabilities giving SpaceX a market to service. The idea being, Nasa didn't need to develop a heavly lift rocket because someone else will. We have it now. It isn't 2009.
You just demonstrated my point. I said the launch system isn't the only obstacle to Mars which you then talked about the history of the launch system and ignored all the other problems.
Descriptors aside, he said try for first and for sure achieve in second. That is very possible.
And I have said to you repeatedly, Trump should stop opposing the science needed for this if he wants to accomplish his goal.
Even as far back as 2009 it was just a matter of money. Yes, it is one of those problems you can solve by throwing lots of money at it.
No it's not. There's a lot science and engineering to overcome. Money is just the start. Some things may not have solutions and no amount of money
Even SpaceX's timeline is within the possibility of Trumps albeit a little late.
If and only if the launch system was the only problem to be solved. Please tell me how NASA is going to overcome the issue of life support.
Yes, there are challenges but you haven't really said anything that could stop NASA from achieving that goal if money was supplied and direction given by their boss (Trump). Whether you would want to spend that money is the question.
well if did any research, you'd know that life support is a major obstacle to overcome. There are some ideas to help but it's a major problem.
Yes OS X still has a server version but so does Windows. But the point was/is that OS X only has one version for most consumers. Some businesses and consumers may need the server version but Apple doesn't split their consumer version into multiple flavors.
So, when someone says: "Trump is an idiot because he wants it done in 4 years given the state of the project now" and I correct their timeline and wonder how that is different from another president that made a similar goal... That means I am a snowflake that can't take any criticism of Trump? top kek.
When someone does thing idiotic, what you call it? This was from the article: " Trump replied: "Well, we want to try and do it during my first term or, at worst, during my second term." First term would be idiotic. Second term would require lots of work.
At least someone else mentioned the space race as to why Kennedy wasn't stupid for doing but even then that doesn't excuse the claim that trump is an idiot for making nearly the same kind of goal.
And why am I answerable to what someone else said? And again, my opinion isn't that Trump is an idiot for wanting it. I said Trump was an idiot for not understanding why it can't be done in 4 years. It might be done in 8 years if he doesn't do things to sabotage the program.
It wasn't even a goal just a quib a question to an astronaut in a publicity stunt for nerds like you and me to discuss and to get excited about
Trump says a lot of things. I personally don't believe he wants to do it for another other reason than publicity.
When did I ever say that I was not in favor of a Mars missions? Please point that out. You are using a strawman argument. Pointing out that getting it done in 4 years given the state of things today is not practical. If Trump wants to do it in 8 years, he has to stop opposing science and properly fund the project.
Probably to get a feel for what would excite the electorate on a project like that because everything is money in politics. Yet somehow, he is an idiot for talking about something that should get us nerds excited because... Trump. I don't understand. I really don't.
Again the problem is that you don't understand that nerds are not opposed to the project. I'm not opposed to Trump being the first President to do it. I am asserting out that he doesn't understand what it takes. He doesn't understand why it might take 8 years. He doesn't understand there is a great deal of work to be done. He can't simply sign an executive order and it will happen. Someone has to do the real work, and Trump has never been the type of person to do that.
The only limit to getting to Mars in 4-8 years is money (in politics that is everything) which a lot of people in NASA and the industry have been saying for some time. Yet, now it's different because Trump brought it up. WHY? Hell, the reason the Mars missions were pushed to the 2030's was because of funding!
Do you really know the limits are because I don't think you do understand the scope of the mission? There are lots of problems to be solved. It's not just a matter of money. Money is merely the start. The Mars program has not received the funding it should and money would help. Even if all the problems were solved, the systems have to be built. That will take some time. 4-8 years is ambitious at best, foolhardy at worst. This is why 2030s is the current projected date.
What I get from you is this: "No.. No.. It's totally different this time! You see Trump is stupid and ur stupid cuz u defend Trump! LOL u mad bro".... Quite the uh... "argument" you have.
It would help if you weren't so sensitive about Trump. So far I have pointed about real, practical issues about the Mars mission.
Yes, put it in a video about you DESTROYING penandpaper. So far it has been because War, budget (cuts to auxiliary programs), Trump is egotistical and it's only 4 years. Sorry if I don't find those convincing or truthful.
Is stating a fact that Trump's proposed budget does nothing about the deficit but rather shifts the spending from domestic programs to military increases going to always trigger you?
Aside from the Space Race argument the others are weak to me but even that doesn't take into account that Kennedy didn't have the infrastructure or industry starting on that goal while Trump does have that behind him so it becomes an entirely budgetary decision.
Your sentence makes no sense with reality. Currently there exists no rockets for Mars. The modules do not exist. As part of previous administrations, there has been some money spent towards the Mars mission so plans and designs are in the works. If Trump wants to go to Mars in 4 or 8 years, he's going to have to direct lots of money towards that endeavor including funding scientific research.
So, the other argument about budgets and cuts when talking about a purely budgetary thing is dumb because it's possible to continue funding those auxiliary programs by that new directive to "get your ass to mars".
The flaw with this argument is that the lack of forethought. If you want to get to Mars, it has to be funded. Period. Currently NASA has many other programs that have nothing to do with Mars, but NASA has always had programs that had nothing to with their main mission in the past: The Space Shuttle, the Moon, etc. In fact when the main focus was the Space Shuttle, NASA was conducting missions to Mars to lay the groundwork for future missions. When the main focus will be Mars, NASA will probably be conducting exploratory missions to other planets. But according to you they should not plan for the future and only focus on the one thing that you want them to focus on. That is a lack of forethought.
Saying "but but Trump is cutting science funding for auxiliary programs that would make that mission possible" is a stupid argument because the budget of any mission might include that. Any other scientific program funding cut is what I was alluding to in my last point...
No I did not say that. Again, read above. I said Trump has proposed cutting science programs some of which will hurt the Mars mission. More critically the Trump administration has not proposed an actual budget for Mars but rather simply directs cuts to other programs. There has not been any detailed study of what it will take to get to Mars in 4 or 8 years. Merely the directive has been to do so and fund it by cutting other things.
That doesn't even being to address: there is a difference between a POTUS saying something and doing something. Also it's 4-8 years not 4. There is a difference.
So a proposed budget sent to Congress is not "something"? How about all the signed executive orders? Are they "something" to you? I said 4 or 8 years in the above statements. Please read.
Did I miss the fact that NASA was trying to get out of LEO for the last few number of years?
Yes, this is my point: You need to research more. While NASA is not currently deploying the retired space shuttle to ISS, they have not stopped designing future launch systems like the SLS which would be used for any Mars missions. NASA also has not stopped satellites as part of other missions. NASA might use other rockets for certain missions like Atlas and Space X instead of using 100% their own rockets.
Or was Trump being dumb again and directing NASA before taking office and NASA listened? Where have you been? -.-
Slashdot Mirror
Because it's not the same design. Samsung wrapped the screen around the edge but the bezel is still there. Apple's patent is to put touch sensors in the bezel to extend the touch interface.
In terms of the fingerprint sensor in the screen, I'm not aware that anyone else has done that yet. There were rumors that Samsung tried to do that with the Galaxy 8 but could not make it work reliably.
More likely the switch will be to AAC eventually. While computers will probably support MP3 for a long time, portal players will be moving off of it for simplicity of chip design. Most players these days have hardware decoders for power considerations. In time, manufacturers will select chips that drop off older formats to simplify the chip.
Sean Spicer took a photo of the MLK bust in there with his phone, so the rest of your statement is an outright lie.
You are aware that there is a reason that there is an official WH photographer, right? Second if Spicer did that with his own camera, he was breaking with the policy. Third, the Trump administration not caring about security rules and policies does not surprise me.
1) There is an official White House photographer and videographer for these things.
2) In the past it might have been okay before phones and photo cameras became recording devices that could capture audio. Also the rate of miniaturization means that spy equipment are now smaller and smaller.
Just after firing Comey, Trump met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. Now this was not bad just for the optics. No American press was allowed but Russian press was allowed. No that's not worst part. The Russian press was allowed to bring in their equipment to take photos in the Oval Office. That's the worst part: Trump allowed foreign officials to bring in electronic equipment into a sensitive area of the White House. Many security experts are dismayed that was allowed to happen. Former security officers have noted that it was standing policy that no one was allowed to bring in their phone/cameras into the Oval Office.
And I'm sure this has everything to do with electricity costs and not that the US doesn't institutionalize its homeless population anymore, right?
Depends on what you call an institution. In the US a homeless person is more likely to be sent to a prison or jail facility than a homeless shelter if they are mentally ill (and many homeless are mentally ill). But that also brings up another point in that Germany tends to make sure that fewer people are homeless with their social safety network.
The problem is not the updates have bug fixes. The problem is that to get big fixes users have to get "features" they didn't want. Also a problem is that unlike the past, it was far easier to avoid a problematic update because it caused problems with your driver, programs, etc. For many if the update fails (which is a common occurrence with the current Windows update), your computer is unusable.
I can only assume that since the search happened after towing the vehicle to the impound lot, the body cam was turned off in the meantime as the officer did not think he needed to document everything in the intervening moments.
Is it likely that the guy is actually guilty in this case? Honestly no idea, but lets stipulate "Yes". I still rather he go free, because what if I'm in a similar situation, but because I've been on a date with a cop's ex-wife I'm not liked much by my local PD. This would be an easy thing to do to put me away.
I would say then this would be a clear example of how shoddy police work means criminals go free.
This is where we are now? Where we have to give "props" to our officers of the court for not committing criminal professional misconduct by suppressing evidence that the defense is legally entitled to? No wonder the cop was comfortable turning off his camera and then faking evidence when he "remembered" that it needed to be on.
There are too many stories of prosecutors hiding evidence or conveniently "forgetting" to hand over evidence to the defense.
If the court knew it was a reenactment then that's one thing, but if the officer attempted to pass-off the footage as legitimate then he needs to be found in-contempt.
From the the source article it seems that the prosecutor did not know at first. It came out only after a prosecutor noticed some discrepancies between the body cam footage and the report and asked the officer to clarify.
Jensen replied back, saying, "For the search, the body cam shows different than the report because it was. Prior to turning my body cam on I conducted the search. Once I found the (expletive referring to evidence), I stepped back, called (a fellow officer), then activated my body cam and walked the courts through it."
Mayer then replied back, “Was that in the report? If not you’ve got to write a supplement explaining that your body cam was off during the search and that the body cam that does exist is a reenactment.”
Now I have to give props to the prosecutor for alerting the defense and the court about it. They could have buried it.
Has making false statements to police ever been used against the police? Seems that it should qualify if an officer lies about the circumstances in official reports.
There is now an investigation and we'll see. Most likely no. The problem is that since it was "re-enacted" without disclosing the fact gives the appearance that it could have been planted. If the officer had turned on his body cam right after and merely declared "I found this gun here a minute ago. . ." most people would have given the officer the benefit of a doubt.
If I read it right, this flaw allows a person to route a SMS message intended for your phone to them. So if they have your login (which is your email normally), they can request a new password or authentication code to be sent via SMS to your (actually their) phone. They then reset your password and now have full access. Now if your bank uses an Authenticator type app then it is harder to compromise.
Well in terms of the hardware side, there is a reason that Apple is designing their own stuff. Originally Samsung supplied the SoC for the iPhone which Apple felt was adequate but wasn't exactly everything they wanted. But here is the problem: Apple could have asked more customizations but that would have cost a lot more money and time. Samsung is in the business of making mobile SoCs for many companies not just Apple so they can't just design something that Apple wants and ignore the rest of the industry.
So Apple bought out chip design companies and are designing their own SoCs and CPUs. Also part of this arrangement is they are no longer 100% dependent on Samsung to make their chips. For now Imagination has been the supplier the GPU designs. I thought it was a matter of time before Apple started designing their own GPU as well.
At play here is that Imagination has, up to now, licensed their technologies to Apple, which Apple has used in its custom-designed chips for a few years. Apple is now claiming that their custom designs no longer rely on Imagination's technology, so they're going to stop paying. Imagination is understandably asking how that's even possible, given that the new chips presumably work the same as the old ones, which means that they likely rely on Imagination's tech.
In the arena of mobile GPUs, Imagination certainly isn't the only company so it's not like they are the only choice. Qualcomm makes their own proprietary GPU. nVidia and ARM also offer designs to be licensed. I would think Apple may rely on their architectural license with ARM and leverage that into designing a Mali based GPU. But let's see the details.
I don't see why you think that's relevant. Comcast could be the best company in the world or the worst company in the world and it wouldn't change the fact that it's going to cost Comcast more money to carry its average packet than Netflix or Google. It's always cheaper when your endpoint is servers in dozens of datacenters than when it's routers in millions of homes.
Comcast is an ISP that has their own problems of being an ISP. Why is that Netflix's or Google's problem? Specifically I pointed out things Comcast could have done to reduce their costs yet failed to do so.
Comcast cannot move their customers into datacenters. Fundamentally, the only major, unavoidable difference between an access network and a service provider is that service providers can locate their endpoints in datacenters and access networks can't because their endpoints are homes and businesses. The reason access providers put their servers in datacenters is because that's much cheaper. An ISP *has* to build a municipal network, an access provider doesn't.
And Comcast could have bought out dark fiber but didn't. Comcast could have laid out fiber themselves decades ago as proposed in the Telecom act of 1996. Instead they took the money that was allocated for those expansions and didn't do them.
This is so absurdly simple and I can't understand why you refuse to acknowledge it.
I did. I said it was moot. That's the business of being an ISP. I said it's like oil companies complaining that cars are more fuel efficient these days.
You should have used #DadJoke to tag this.
I don't know the exact details of Imagination's IP claims. It might be a hail-mary/last gasp for them or there might be merit. Apple for their part seems to been on this track forever. It started when they bought out chip companies to design their own SoC and then CPU. GPU was the next step.
True and legally there are ways around this. For example, if Apple bases their GPU on ARM's Mali then they might be covered under ARM's licenses. The fine print would be whatever licensing deal ARM has with Apple and what patents ARM controls.
I know. I mean it's not like it's a planet 55 million km away from Earth that requires crossing a void of life-hostile space to reach.
Oh... look. It's you with making tedious points and going in circles. Aren't you dizzy yet? At least you mentioned one obstacle, which does not necessarily stop nasa from being able to do it if you are willing to accept increased risks or costs
I don't know about you but keeping astronauts alive during their Mars mission seems to be a rather large obstacle. If NASA can't do that then the other risks and costs are moot.
By sending up more radiation shielding (water) or by packing more fuel to shorten the trip which reduces exposure.
As for shortening the trip, what technology do you propose to do that? Without advances in propulsion (which don't exist), it will be about a 9 month journey. Certainly NASA is going to look into shortening the trip as much as possible; however, the best estimates are 9 months one way. That does not include a round trip nor time on Mars. At best a trip to Mars is multi-year endeavor for astronauts. It would be less if NASA does not plant the astronauts to return or live.
Here is the problem: An average Mars mission will take 9 months one way to Mars. Even on the ISS with all the latest in life support technology, ISS has to be re-supplied every 3 months. What we are talking about basics like air, water, and food. We haven't even gotten to things like parts and mission supplies.
However you seemed focused on exposure which isn't really the main problem.
Yes, you potentially increase danger but there are cost considerations to limit those dangers. Again, the reason the 2030's were set was because of funding and because NASA was left basically directionless for quite some time.
I'm still talking about the practical nature of getting a crew to Mars alive long enough to complete a mission. There are dangers but I'm still talking about practicality.
That isn't a limit for a manned mission to mars within a decade. That is a cost benefit analysis of what is acceptable risks and costs we are willing to bear.
I don't know why this is even important. There are always risks and rewards which is part of space exploration. As I've stated previously this is about the practicality and the work that will be needed to make Mars happen which you nor Trump seem to understand.
This tells me you haven't followed space news about this. A launch system was a major consideration and always has been. That was one of the goals of Project Constellation but there were other systems on the horizon from SpaceX, and SLS. When project Constellation was canceled and subsequently the heavy lift rocket it funded nasa was left without a heavy rocket or shuttle. When Obama gave the goal of 2030's for NASA it was around the same time that NASA was directed to get out of LEO and privatize those launch capabilities giving SpaceX a market to service. The idea being, Nasa didn't need to develop a heavly lift rocket because someone else will. We have it now. It isn't 2009.
You just demonstrated my point. I said the launch system isn't the only obstacle to Mars which you then talked about the history of the launch system and ignored all the other problems.
Descriptors aside, he said try for first and for sure achieve in second. That is very possible.
And I have said to you repeatedly, Trump should stop opposing the science needed for this if he wants to accomplish his goal.
Even as far back as 2009 it was just a matter of money. Yes, it is one of those problems you can solve by throwing lots of money at it.
No it's not. There's a lot science and engineering to overcome. Money is just the start. Some things may not have solutions and no amount of money
Even SpaceX's timeline is within the possibility of Trumps albeit a little late.
If and only if the launch system was the only problem to be solved. Please tell me how NASA is going to overcome the issue of life support.
Yes, there are challenges but you haven't really said anything that could stop NASA from achieving that goal if money was supplied and direction given by their boss (Trump). Whether you would want to spend that money is the question.
well if did any research, you'd know that life support is a major obstacle to overcome. There are some ideas to help but it's a major problem.
Yes OS X still has a server version but so does Windows. But the point was/is that OS X only has one version for most consumers. Some businesses and consumers may need the server version but Apple doesn't split their consumer version into multiple flavors.
So, when someone says: "Trump is an idiot because he wants it done in 4 years given the state of the project now" and I correct their timeline and wonder how that is different from another president that made a similar goal... That means I am a snowflake that can't take any criticism of Trump? top kek.
When someone does thing idiotic, what you call it? This was from the article: " Trump replied: "Well, we want to try and do it during my first term or, at worst, during my second term." First term would be idiotic. Second term would require lots of work.
At least someone else mentioned the space race as to why Kennedy wasn't stupid for doing but even then that doesn't excuse the claim that trump is an idiot for making nearly the same kind of goal.
And why am I answerable to what someone else said? And again, my opinion isn't that Trump is an idiot for wanting it. I said Trump was an idiot for not understanding why it can't be done in 4 years. It might be done in 8 years if he doesn't do things to sabotage the program.
It wasn't even a goal just a quib a question to an astronaut in a publicity stunt for nerds like you and me to discuss and to get excited about
Trump says a lot of things. I personally don't believe he wants to do it for another other reason than publicity.
When did I ever say that I was not in favor of a Mars missions? Please point that out. You are using a strawman argument. Pointing out that getting it done in 4 years given the state of things today is not practical. If Trump wants to do it in 8 years, he has to stop opposing science and properly fund the project.
Probably to get a feel for what would excite the electorate on a project like that because everything is money in politics. Yet somehow, he is an idiot for talking about something that should get us nerds excited because... Trump. I don't understand. I really don't.
Again the problem is that you don't understand that nerds are not opposed to the project. I'm not opposed to Trump being the first President to do it. I am asserting out that he doesn't understand what it takes. He doesn't understand why it might take 8 years. He doesn't understand there is a great deal of work to be done. He can't simply sign an executive order and it will happen. Someone has to do the real work, and Trump has never been the type of person to do that.
The only limit to getting to Mars in 4-8 years is money (in politics that is everything) which a lot of people in NASA and the industry have been saying for some time. Yet, now it's different because Trump brought it up. WHY? Hell, the reason the Mars missions were pushed to the 2030's was because of funding!
Do you really know the limits are because I don't think you do understand the scope of the mission? There are lots of problems to be solved. It's not just a matter of money. Money is merely the start. The Mars program has not received the funding it should and money would help. Even if all the problems were solved, the systems have to be built. That will take some time. 4-8 years is ambitious at best, foolhardy at worst. This is why 2030s is the current projected date.
What I get from you is this: "No.. No.. It's totally different this time! You see Trump is stupid and ur stupid cuz u defend Trump! LOL u mad bro".... Quite the uh... "argument" you have.
It would help if you weren't so sensitive about Trump. So far I have pointed about real, practical issues about the Mars mission.
Yes, put it in a video about you DESTROYING penandpaper. So far it has been because War, budget (cuts to auxiliary programs), Trump is egotistical and it's only 4 years. Sorry if I don't find those convincing or truthful.
Is stating a fact that Trump's proposed budget does nothing about the deficit but rather shifts the spending from domestic programs to military increases going to always trigger you?
Aside from the Space Race argument the others are weak to me but even that doesn't take into account that Kennedy didn't have the infrastructure or industry starting on that goal while Trump does have that behind him so it becomes an entirely budgetary decision.
Your sentence makes no sense with reality. Currently there exists no rockets for Mars. The modules do not exist. As part of previous administrations, there has been some money spent towards the Mars mission so plans and designs are in the works. If Trump wants to go to Mars in 4 or 8 years, he's going to have to direct lots of money towards that endeavor including funding scientific research.
So, the other argument about budgets and cuts when talking about a purely budgetary thing is dumb because it's possible to continue funding those auxiliary programs by that new directive to "get your ass to mars".
The flaw with this argument is that the lack of forethought. If you want to get to Mars, it has to be funded. Period. Currently NASA has many other programs that have nothing to do with Mars, but NASA has always had programs that had nothing to with their main mission in the past: The Space Shuttle, the Moon, etc. In fact when the main focus was the Space Shuttle, NASA was conducting missions to Mars to lay the groundwork for future missions. When the main focus will be Mars, NASA will probably be conducting exploratory missions to other planets. But according to you they should not plan for the future and only focus on the one thing that you want them to focus on. That is a lack of forethought.
Saying "but but Trump is cutting science funding for auxiliary programs that would make that mission possible" is a stupid argument because the budget of any mission might include that. Any other scientific program funding cut is what I was alluding to in my last point...
No I did not say that. Again, read above. I said Trump has proposed cutting science programs some of which will hurt the Mars mission. More critically the Trump administration has not proposed an actual budget for Mars but rather simply directs cuts to other programs. There has not been any detailed study of what it will take to get to Mars in 4 or 8 years. Merely the directive has been to do so and fund it by cutting other things.
That doesn't even being to address: there is a difference between a POTUS saying something and doing something. Also it's 4-8 years not 4. There is a difference.
So a proposed budget sent to Congress is not "something"? How about all the signed executive orders? Are they "something" to you? I said 4 or 8 years in the above statements. Please read.
Did I miss the fact that NASA was trying to get out of LEO for the last few number of years?
Yes, this is my point: You need to research more. While NASA is not currently deploying the retired space shuttle to ISS, they have not stopped designing future launch systems like the SLS which would be used for any Mars missions. NASA also has not stopped satellites as part of other missions. NASA might use other rockets for certain missions like Atlas and Space X instead of using 100% their own rockets.
Or was Trump being dumb again and directing NASA before taking office and NASA listened? Where have you been? -.-
I would ask you the