3D TV is another question - there's simply not enough 3D material to justify their price. Besides, wearing 3D glasses at home is just tiring. Can you provide the numbers on 3D movie sales?
Well, I have anecdotal data - here in Russia 3D movie theaters are almost always booked on the first days while 2D theaters are quite often free.
http://boxofficequant.com/ has 3D statistics, the 3D revenue is growing and is about the same as for 2D films, even though 3D theaters are only a fraction of 2D theaters. The move to 3D is actually one of the smartest investments for film studios, it's hardly a 'continued struggle'.
Most 3D movies are now filmed with a camera focused at infinity (except when director wants you to focus on some part of the scene) so you can focus on small details just fine.
We'll evolve past you, don't you worry. There were quite similar reactions in a lot of people for the first 2D movies. Maybe it takes some time to get used to 3D or maybe you need to start viewing 3D movies as a kid.
Well, most so called 'live action' films are so CGI-laden these days that very soon they might replace actors with CGI (that's why I actually prefer pure CGI films). And I agree that the impact of 3D in live action movies is much less, but it's still more interesting than plain old 2D movies.
Besides, it looks like 3D forces directors to pay attention to small details - a scratch on a wall has to have depth and you won't get away by simply painting it.
So basically we have a groupthink "3D is uncool because I'm too cool to like it!" here.
In reality, 3D movies are getting better and better. Some of the effects are much more pronounced in 3D and directors are starting to use them correctly. And in fact most people actually prefer 3D over 2D movies.
Yes, you can. Prior art in another field doesn't count since you're not patenting a chemical but its application. I.e. you can get a patent for "the use of sodium cyanide to cure cancer" and I can get a patent for "the use of sodium cyanide to extract valuable minerals from depleted iron ore".
You can actually take a drug for a certain disease and patent its application as a cure for ANOTHER disease. Though that is very rare (there's only a handful of cases) because you have to show the lack of prior art and sufficient non-obviousness.
"Real" SSTO spaceplanes would actually use LESS fuel per kg to LEO than a conventional rocket.
The first stage, where you need all your high thrust-to-mass, dont care about ISP stuff, tends to need quite heavy structure, as that's where you're biggest fuel weight and highest stresses tned to be - why carry a bunch of extra fuel in later stages to haul al that deadweight around? And why pile even more weight on that to heat-shield the first stage for reentry?
You're thinking wrong. Spaceplanes do NOT need a high thrust-to-mass first stage because they can use aerodynamic lift to gently accelerate to about Mach 5 using ONLY hydrogen fuel and atmospheric oxygen. That'll require only a fraction of fuel for of a conventional rocket. Additionally, a spaceplane would run its engines in a much MUCH gentler mode than engines on a conventional rocket (remember, much less thrust-to-weight ratio!). So you would be able to actually _reuse_ them without disassembling everything for checkups after each flight.
Additionally, conventional chemical rockets are a dead end. They're basically as good as they can theoretically get (with known fuels). Mass production might be able to lower prices somewhat, but we're still stuck at about $500-$1000 per kg to LEO. Spaceplanes theoretically would be able to lower this to perhaps $50-$100 per kg.
Most of air resistance happens during the later stages, far beyond the ~10km realistic airplane ceiling. I think you'll get more advantage from not having to start from a vertical position.
I actually would LOVE to see real spaceplanes that are SSTO or SSTO+small_booster, maybe Skylon spaceplane would fly one day...
But what are you going to do with 400kg on a LEO? That's barely enough for a spy/imaging satellite and little else. Even communication satellites are not feasible - as they won't work during the night.
You can put stuff into a Molniya orbit fairly easy from LEO, but it'll cut your 400kg budget even further.
The good old R-7 family rockets can get 7tons to LEO for roughly the same price. SpaceX aims for $1100 per kg to LEO and currently achieve around $2000 per kg to LEO. That's more than an order of magnitude cheaper than these skyrockets.
Well, it's still an expensive joyride. Now with a toy rocket attached.
Reality is quite simple - it CAN NOT SCALE. There's simply no sense in strapping a full-scale rocket to an airplane, additional dV from airplane start is less than 300m/s (from the required 8km/s to enter a stable orbit).
Chemicals can't be patented. However, _drugs_ (i.e. specific applications of certain chemicals) can very well certainly be patented.
You can actually take a chemical which is used as a drug and use it in another field (for example, in a semiconductor development) without running afoul of patents. That has actually happened several times.
A patent on how to make the drug cheaper than someone else will get a patent on that and therefore reduce their cost to produce. A patent on the chemical itself increases the cost of the drug.
You don't get it, do you? For most drugs the price of its manufacture is only a minor part. It's _EASY_ to produce most drugs - that's why generic drug companies can quickly flood the market once patent protection expires.
$10M for 225 kg is more than $40000 per kg. That's even more than Shuttle's effective price-to-orbit for its payload. Once they get their price at least 10 times down then they can start thinking about competing with real rockets.
I can show you stacks of internal memos and documentation showing that the major pharmaceutical companies purposefully stall and delay research into cures
Please do. The biggest known case was the use of antibiotics to treat ulcers. But that was about 50 years ago.
Duplicating existing drugs is easy. It's not completely trivial, but usually doable by a small lab in a short amount of time. And most of synthesis steps are so generic that they can't be patented in themselves. Their combination can be patented, but it would be trivial to work around it. Oh, and effective patent protection for a drug is about 10 years if you consider the time for clinical trials and regulatory approval.
The gloves translate dactylology (finger spelling). That's fairly easy, but it's horribly inefficient.
'Real' sign languages (like ASL) are much harder to translate because they are somewhat non-linear. A single gesture can describe several things at once: size, direction, emotional state, etc. There's no way you can translate it without fully understanding the context of the speech. And we all know how good computers are at such tasks...
Expansion in monetary supply is just that - expansion in monetary supply. It can lead to inflation (the general rise in prices) but it's not necessary.
Consider this scenario: US treasury mints 10 platinum coins, each of them worth 1 trillion dollars. Then buries them in a trench in Pacific Ocean. It's definitely a monetary expansion (there's 10 more trillions $ in the economy) but it won't cause inflation since the money is not in the circulation.
Inflation is huge in Japan, inflation is money printing, price change is only a consequence of inflation. Dude.
Let met quote the dictionary definition: "In economics, inflation is a rise in the general level of prices of goods and services in an economy over a period of time."
Now GTFO until you learn at least some basics of economics instead of dumb conspiracy goldbuggery crap.
Zero based on the price of certain manufactured, imported products that the government chooses to measure.
Wrong. Japan has its own analog of the The Billion Prices Project. It shows essentially the same data - zero inflation or deflation for more than 10 years now.
Besides, even the classic economic theory (i.e. Austrian economics) insists that inflation can't stay confined to a single area.
But printing more money doesn't necessarily raise all prices even while it's destroying people's standard of living.
How? Really, do you actually have any model that rationally explains how it is "destroying people's standard of living"? Can your model give predictions?
Oh, and by the way, the economic stagnation that the Japanese government is literally pushing upon the people by high level of government created inflatio
Why? Small Roman farmers were slowly outcompeted by large landowners. That prepared the Roman Empire for the coming feudal ages.
The Roman coinage inflated from 4.5 grams of silver per denarium during the Republic era to 3.8 grams during the Nero's reign. That's about 0.0005% of yearly inflation. I.e. essentially nothing. The natural influx of precious metals from mining was several magnitudes bigger. And by the time of Nero the collapse of independent farmers was well under way.
Slashdot Mirror
3D TV is another question - there's simply not enough 3D material to justify their price. Besides, wearing 3D glasses at home is just tiring. Can you provide the numbers on 3D movie sales?
Are they? Can you provide numbers?
Well, I have anecdotal data - here in Russia 3D movie theaters are almost always booked on the first days while 2D theaters are quite often free.
http://boxofficequant.com/ has 3D statistics, the 3D revenue is growing and is about the same as for 2D films, even though 3D theaters are only a fraction of 2D theaters. The move to 3D is actually one of the smartest investments for film studios, it's hardly a 'continued struggle'.
Most 3D movies are now filmed with a camera focused at infinity (except when director wants you to focus on some part of the scene) so you can focus on small details just fine.
We'll evolve past you, don't you worry. There were quite similar reactions in a lot of people for the first 2D movies. Maybe it takes some time to get used to 3D or maybe you need to start viewing 3D movies as a kid.
Well, most so called 'live action' films are so CGI-laden these days that very soon they might replace actors with CGI (that's why I actually prefer pure CGI films). And I agree that the impact of 3D in live action movies is much less, but it's still more interesting than plain old 2D movies.
Besides, it looks like 3D forces directors to pay attention to small details - a scratch on a wall has to have depth and you won't get away by simply painting it.
So basically we have a groupthink "3D is uncool because I'm too cool to like it!" here.
In reality, 3D movies are getting better and better. Some of the effects are much more pronounced in 3D and directors are starting to use them correctly. And in fact most people actually prefer 3D over 2D movies.
Yes, you can. Prior art in another field doesn't count since you're not patenting a chemical but its application. I.e. you can get a patent for "the use of sodium cyanide to cure cancer" and I can get a patent for "the use of sodium cyanide to extract valuable minerals from depleted iron ore".
You can actually take a drug for a certain disease and patent its application as a cure for ANOTHER disease. Though that is very rare (there's only a handful of cases) because you have to show the lack of prior art and sufficient non-obviousness.
The first stage, where you need all your high thrust-to-mass, dont care about ISP stuff, tends to need quite heavy structure, as that's where you're biggest fuel weight and highest stresses tned to be - why carry a bunch of extra fuel in later stages to haul al that deadweight around? And why pile even more weight on that to heat-shield the first stage for reentry?
You're thinking wrong. Spaceplanes do NOT need a high thrust-to-mass first stage because they can use aerodynamic lift to gently accelerate to about Mach 5 using ONLY hydrogen fuel and atmospheric oxygen. That'll require only a fraction of fuel for of a conventional rocket. Additionally, a spaceplane would run its engines in a much MUCH gentler mode than engines on a conventional rocket (remember, much less thrust-to-weight ratio!). So you would be able to actually _reuse_ them without disassembling everything for checkups after each flight.
Additionally, conventional chemical rockets are a dead end. They're basically as good as they can theoretically get (with known fuels). Mass production might be able to lower prices somewhat, but we're still stuck at about $500-$1000 per kg to LEO. Spaceplanes theoretically would be able to lower this to perhaps $50-$100 per kg.
Most of air resistance happens during the later stages, far beyond the ~10km realistic airplane ceiling. I think you'll get more advantage from not having to start from a vertical position.
I actually would LOVE to see real spaceplanes that are SSTO or SSTO+small_booster, maybe Skylon spaceplane would fly one day...
But what are you going to do with 400kg on a LEO? That's barely enough for a spy/imaging satellite and little else. Even communication satellites are not feasible - as they won't work during the night.
You can put stuff into a Molniya orbit fairly easy from LEO, but it'll cut your 400kg budget even further.
Erm. That's just 400kg to LEO for $10M.
The good old R-7 family rockets can get 7tons to LEO for roughly the same price. SpaceX aims for $1100 per kg to LEO and currently achieve around $2000 per kg to LEO. That's more than an order of magnitude cheaper than these skyrockets.
Well, it's still an expensive joyride. Now with a toy rocket attached.
Reality is quite simple - it CAN NOT SCALE. There's simply no sense in strapping a full-scale rocket to an airplane, additional dV from airplane start is less than 300m/s (from the required 8km/s to enter a stable orbit).
You can actually take a chemical which is used as a drug and use it in another field (for example, in a semiconductor development) without running afoul of patents. That has actually happened several times.
A patent on how to make the drug cheaper than someone else will get a patent on that and therefore reduce their cost to produce. A patent on the chemical itself increases the cost of the drug.
You don't get it, do you? For most drugs the price of its manufacture is only a minor part. It's _EASY_ to produce most drugs - that's why generic drug companies can quickly flood the market once patent protection expires.
$10M for 225 kg is more than $40000 per kg. That's even more than Shuttle's effective price-to-orbit for its payload. Once they get their price at least 10 times down then they can start thinking about competing with real rockets.
I can show you stacks of internal memos and documentation showing that the major pharmaceutical companies purposefully stall and delay research into cures
Please do. The biggest known case was the use of antibiotics to treat ulcers. But that was about 50 years ago.
Wrong!
Duplicating existing drugs is easy. It's not completely trivial, but usually doable by a small lab in a short amount of time. And most of synthesis steps are so generic that they can't be patented in themselves. Their combination can be patented, but it would be trivial to work around it. Oh, and effective patent protection for a drug is about 10 years if you consider the time for clinical trials and regulatory approval.
The gloves translate dactylology (finger spelling). That's fairly easy, but it's horribly inefficient.
'Real' sign languages (like ASL) are much harder to translate because they are somewhat non-linear. A single gesture can describe several things at once: size, direction, emotional state, etc. There's no way you can translate it without fully understanding the context of the speech. And we all know how good computers are at such tasks...
No it's not. GTFO.
Expansion in monetary supply is just that - expansion in monetary supply. It can lead to inflation (the general rise in prices) but it's not necessary.
Consider this scenario: US treasury mints 10 platinum coins, each of them worth 1 trillion dollars. Then buries them in a trench in Pacific Ocean. It's definitely a monetary expansion (there's 10 more trillions $ in the economy) but it won't cause inflation since the money is not in the circulation.
Inflation is huge in Japan, inflation is money printing, price change is only a consequence of inflation. Dude.
Let met quote the dictionary definition: "In economics, inflation is a rise in the general level of prices of goods and services in an economy over a period of time."
Now GTFO until you learn at least some basics of economics instead of dumb conspiracy goldbuggery crap.
Dude. You're simply delusional. Inflation is LESS THAN ZERO in Japan.
That means that prices ARE ACTUALLY FALLING. I repeat, prices are actually falling.
Zero based on the price of certain manufactured, imported products that the government chooses to measure.
Wrong. Japan has its own analog of the The Billion Prices Project. It shows essentially the same data - zero inflation or deflation for more than 10 years now.
Besides, even the classic economic theory (i.e. Austrian economics) insists that inflation can't stay confined to a single area.
But printing more money doesn't necessarily raise all prices even while it's destroying people's standard of living.
How? Really, do you actually have any model that rationally explains how it is "destroying people's standard of living"? Can your model give predictions?
Oh, and by the way, the economic stagnation that the Japanese government is literally pushing upon the people by high level of government created inflatio
WTF are you smoking? http://www.indexmundi.com/japan/inflation_rate_(consumer_prices).html - Japanese inflation has been ZERO OR NEGATIVE for the 9 years of the last 12 years. Current inflation is ZERO.
Right now 75% of new drugs come from pharma companies.
And yes, if we look at TOTALLY new drugs (not just tweaks of old drugs) the situation remains exactly the same.
Why? Small Roman farmers were slowly outcompeted by large landowners. That prepared the Roman Empire for the coming feudal ages.
The Roman coinage inflated from 4.5 grams of silver per denarium during the Republic era to 3.8 grams during the Nero's reign. That's about 0.0005% of yearly inflation. I.e. essentially nothing. The natural influx of precious metals from mining was several magnitudes bigger. And by the time of Nero the collapse of independent farmers was well under way.