Apple makes consumer electronics. Why should they be in the business of developing speech recognition and AI? Wouldn't they be spreading themselves thin? Apple likes to focus on doing only a few things. That kind of diversification would be counterproductive. Maybe in a few years when the tech is more established they'd take a crack at developing their own version.
The reason it works for golf-balls and aircraft is it reduces form drag. Obviously, if you are talking about a pipeline, there is no form drag and therefore no benefit. Here is an article that explains the phenomena in good detail.
Likewise, when you're talking about streamlined shapes, boundary layer separation is not the main cause of drag. Rather the main cause of drag is friction (or skin drag). Making the surface more slippery would help reduce friction, though I suspect only if viscosity of the fluid impregnating the surface was less than the viscosity of the fluid (which i assume is the case in the article).
Did you know that liquid fueled rockets were invented in the US? Also submarines. Not to mention Nuclear Weapons. Saying nothing's been invented in the US is the height of ignorance. It's just a silly thing to say, really.
By the way, I am well aware of the downfalls of Cost Plus contracts. I make most of my money working under them. Suits love them because they allow them more control over the work being done, which means more power for them.
That's why I hope that COTS and SpaceX will be able to show that Fixed Firm contracts are better and put an end (hopefully) to the insanity of how government contracting is typically done today. And so far, they're doing pretty well.
only ONE of their cargo has ever made it into orbit
Only one attempt has been made under the COTS program. And and it was a success. Your subject line would have the reader believe that there were 9 unsuccessful attempts. Both flights of the Falcon 9 to date have been successful (the first of which was not even under COTS).
I would suggest that perhaps you meant to include the Falcon 1 (even though no Falcon 1 flights have been part of COTS), but clearly we would then need to increase the total number of successful missions (even though it had 3 failed launch attempts, it had 2 successful launches). Even though that number is not relevant to a discussion of COTS, it would be 4 successful flights (2 Falcon 9 launches and 2 Falcon 1 launches) and 3 failures (all Falcon 1 launches, none under COTS) that's 3/7 or 43% failure rate. And that's completely misleading because it includes test flights which no sane person would count.
(and not the target one)
Thank you for not detailing your claim, but perhaps you were referring to this:
The Dragon vehicle separated at T+9:30 and achieved a near circular orbit, with a perigee of 288 kilometres (179 mi) and an apogee of 301 kilometres (187 mi) and an inclination of 34.53 degrees. These were close to targeted marks of a 300 kilometres (190 mi) circular orbit at an inclination of 34.5 degrees.
Before the launch they noticed some cracks in the second stage engine. Rather than delaying the flight, they trimmed the cracked section from the nozzle and proceeded with the launch. They cleared the change with NASA prior to the flight, and NASA and SpaceX understood that it would interfere with the performance with the vehicle.
Given the nature of the flight, the orbit achieved did not need to precisely match the target in order to meat mission goals. In any case, they did pretty well.
The second stage engine was reignited in orbit after separation from the Dragon capsule. This allowed SpaceX to work on a secondary mission objective of expanding the launch capability envelope by testing in-space engine reignition and ability of the vehicle to achieve a beyond-LEO orbit. Even though the nozzle of the Merlin Vacuum second-stage engine had been substantially trimmed—due to two cracks discovered only a few days before the scheduled launch—the second stage reached an altitude of 11,000 kilometres (6,800 mi).
That's right, even if you wish to contend that the orbital objective wasn't met, you can't honestly say that the Falcon 9 was not capable of making them, because after the mission was over they flew the second stage out to a much higher altitude just to show that they could.
In summary, you numbers way off the mark. You either don't know what you are talking about, or you intend to spread lies. Check you facts before spouting nonsense like this.
I'm not sure if you're serious or not, but here are the facts.
First of all, the Falcon 9 has flown twice. The first time there was a problem when the second stage separated, and the dummy cargoe ended up in a lower than intended orbit. But it made it to orbit. And of course it crash landed because it had no landing systems. It was a mock up of a dragon module. It was only there to give the rocket something to lift.
On the second flight, it lifted a first generation dragon module into the correct orbit. The dragon then re-entered the atmosphere and splashed down. The flight went nominally, it and it's cargoe were recovered. This was the flight NASA paid for, and Space X delivered it.
They had a secondary objective of recovering the first stage of their rocket, but the first stage burned up as it re-entered the atmosphere. That was not something NASA had paid for, it is an experimental program SpaceX is undertaking to try to further reduce the cost of their launch system.
It's not really about commercial vs private, they've framed it that way to simplify the debate for the public. This is about fixed firm contacts versus cost plus contracts. And if the early results are any indication, fixed firm is much better.
The problem is that the legislators wrote laws based on certain assumptions that work in the physical world, but don't really apply to software. As a result of the poor assumptions, the laws they wrote made the problem worse instead of better. Clearly the solution is for the legislature to stop acting out of ignorance.
But yes, if they aren't willing to do that, doing nothing would actually be better.
They're going to make money by levying taxes and spend that money preventing crime?! How is this a problem again? I think we have a similar orginization here in the US.
The author is not saying anything about correlation. What the article says is that because the law shut down the conventional methods of file-sharing, it caused people to turn to producing many varieties of free file sharing software to get around the potential litigation. The ultimate result was a great increase in the ease and availability of file-sharing software. The exact opposite of what the people writing the law intended. This happened because of a variety of physical world assumptions legislators made that don't apply in the world of software.
The end result? The mismatch between the law's physical world assumptions and the realities of the software world meant that the law created to respond to the challenges of P2P file sharing led to the opposite of the desired result: a massive increase in the availability of P2P file sharing software. The failure of the law to recognise the unique characteristics of software and software development meant the abandonment of the litigation campaign against P2P providers was only a matter of time.
Where are they going to get their money? Not all crime pays enough to fund organized crime on that scale. There are a couple other places they could turn, prostitution and sex trafficking, gambling, things like that. But the amount of money in those things does not come close. And you could take the bottom out of them by legalizing them too. ..so, where's the beef? How are these thugs going to pay to keep the lights on?
Other forms of crime like kidnapping and robbery don't pay enough to support a large orginization, and can be done by much smaller groups. Crime for crimes sake is fun, but these people still need to eat and get by and provide for their families, and if the syndicate can't pay the bills they're going to need to get another job. And that will throw a wrench into a crime syndicate's ability to operate.
You can't just wave your hands and say, they won't stop. They need money to operate like any business.
Do they really think they can scare everyone into not talking about their reprehensible activities online? This is a fools errand. At the very most, it will cause people to talk about it anonymously, and probably not even that. And what is the aim of this kind of intimidation? Do they think people would have a good impression of them, if only they weren't vilified in the press?! The absurdity of this endeavor is amusing to me. They clearly have too much money and too much time on their hands if they are worried about what bloggers are saying about them.
You are not going to be able to get rid of these groups unless you legalize drugs. It's just too profitable.
That said, you can't sustain an operation like this without a good source of income. Legalization would surely spell the end of them. It's too expensive to operate an organized crime syndicate by things like robberies and kidnapping and prostitution because it's too easy for people to undercut you by operating on a small scale.
Legalization would spell the end of these organizations. It wouldn't happen overnight, because it's hard for people to get out of it, but they would certainly begin atrophy and die.
You're listing exports, I'm talking about actual production.
The industrial sector in the US produces 3.2 trillion dollars worth of goods, while in china it's 2.8 (China comes out ahead 4.7 - 3.2 when you're measuring by Purchasing Power Parity rather than a straight currency conversion). Germany does not even produce 1 trillion (your numbers include "re-exports").
Perhaps the US could overcome this if there were some alternative protocol businesses could use to avoid litigation as long as certain standards for environmental/community impact were met and independently reviewed by a government body in a timely fashion. But I don't see that happening anytime soon.
Slashdot Mirror
Should I be thinking twice about filing my taxes? It seems like there's a pretty big risk for identity theft.
Apple makes consumer electronics. Why should they be in the business of developing speech recognition and AI? Wouldn't they be spreading themselves thin? Apple likes to focus on doing only a few things. That kind of diversification would be counterproductive. Maybe in a few years when the tech is more established they'd take a crack at developing their own version.
Well, they send your Siri requests. And, of course, almost everything you do on you cellphone is sent somewhere it can be tracked and recorded.
That's what she said.
It depends how zoomed in you are.
The reason it works for golf-balls and aircraft is it reduces form drag. Obviously, if you are talking about a pipeline, there is no form drag and therefore no benefit. Here is an article that explains the phenomena in good detail.
Likewise, when you're talking about streamlined shapes, boundary layer separation is not the main cause of drag. Rather the main cause of drag is friction (or skin drag). Making the surface more slippery would help reduce friction, though I suspect only if viscosity of the fluid impregnating the surface was less than the viscosity of the fluid (which i assume is the case in the article).
Couldn't you use something like this to improve the efficiency of submarines, or perhaps aircraft?
Did you know that liquid fueled rockets were invented in the US? Also submarines. Not to mention Nuclear Weapons. Saying nothing's been invented in the US is the height of ignorance. It's just a silly thing to say, really.
If innovation in the US depends on the Federal Government, we're hosed.
By the way, I am well aware of the downfalls of Cost Plus contracts. I make most of my money working under them. Suits love them because they allow them more control over the work being done, which means more power for them.
That's why I hope that COTS and SpaceX will be able to show that Fixed Firm contracts are better and put an end (hopefully) to the insanity of how government contracting is typically done today. And so far, they're doing pretty well.
Only one attempt has been made under the COTS program. And and it was a success. Your subject line would have the reader believe that there were 9 unsuccessful attempts. Both flights of the Falcon 9 to date have been successful (the first of which was not even under COTS).
I would suggest that perhaps you meant to include the Falcon 1 (even though no Falcon 1 flights have been part of COTS), but clearly we would then need to increase the total number of successful missions (even though it had 3 failed launch attempts, it had 2 successful launches). Even though that number is not relevant to a discussion of COTS, it would be 4 successful flights (2 Falcon 9 launches and 2 Falcon 1 launches) and 3 failures (all Falcon 1 launches, none under COTS) that's 3/7 or 43% failure rate. And that's completely misleading because it includes test flights which no sane person would count.
Thank you for not detailing your claim, but perhaps you were referring to this:
Before the launch they noticed some cracks in the second stage engine. Rather than delaying the flight, they trimmed the cracked section from the nozzle and proceeded with the launch. They cleared the change with NASA prior to the flight, and NASA and SpaceX understood that it would interfere with the performance with the vehicle.
Given the nature of the flight, the orbit achieved did not need to precisely match the target in order to meat mission goals. In any case, they did pretty well.
That's right, even if you wish to contend that the orbital objective wasn't met, you can't honestly say that the Falcon 9 was not capable of making them, because after the mission was over they flew the second stage out to a much higher altitude just to show that they could.
In summary, you numbers way off the mark. You either don't know what you are talking about, or you intend to spread lies. Check you facts before spouting nonsense like this.
I'm not sure if you're serious or not, but here are the facts.
First of all, the Falcon 9 has flown twice. The first time there was a problem when the second stage separated, and the dummy cargoe ended up in a lower than intended orbit. But it made it to orbit. And of course it crash landed because it had no landing systems. It was a mock up of a dragon module. It was only there to give the rocket something to lift.
On the second flight, it lifted a first generation dragon module into the correct orbit. The dragon then re-entered the atmosphere and splashed down. The flight went nominally, it and it's cargoe were recovered. This was the flight NASA paid for, and Space X delivered it.
They had a secondary objective of recovering the first stage of their rocket, but the first stage burned up as it re-entered the atmosphere. That was not something NASA had paid for, it is an experimental program SpaceX is undertaking to try to further reduce the cost of their launch system.
It's not really about commercial vs private, they've framed it that way to simplify the debate for the public. This is about fixed firm contacts versus cost plus contracts. And if the early results are any indication, fixed firm is much better.
The rocket they delivered worked. End of story.
There are plans to make the entire launcher reusable. Huge improvement.
The problem is that the legislators wrote laws based on certain assumptions that work in the physical world, but don't really apply to software. As a result of the poor assumptions, the laws they wrote made the problem worse instead of better. Clearly the solution is for the legislature to stop acting out of ignorance.
But yes, if they aren't willing to do that, doing nothing would actually be better.
They're going to make money by levying taxes and spend that money preventing crime?! How is this a problem again? I think we have a similar orginization here in the US.
Well, is it nancies or sissies? Make up your mind. We Americans also have little tolerance for flip-floppers such as yourself.
The author is not saying anything about correlation. What the article says is that because the law shut down the conventional methods of file-sharing, it caused people to turn to producing many varieties of free file sharing software to get around the potential litigation. The ultimate result was a great increase in the ease and availability of file-sharing software. The exact opposite of what the people writing the law intended. This happened because of a variety of physical world assumptions legislators made that don't apply in the world of software.
Where are they going to get their money? Not all crime pays enough to fund organized crime on that scale. There are a couple other places they could turn, prostitution and sex trafficking, gambling, things like that. But the amount of money in those things does not come close. And you could take the bottom out of them by legalizing them too. . .so, where's the beef? How are these thugs going to pay to keep the lights on?
Other forms of crime like kidnapping and robbery don't pay enough to support a large orginization, and can be done by much smaller groups. Crime for crimes sake is fun, but these people still need to eat and get by and provide for their families, and if the syndicate can't pay the bills they're going to need to get another job. And that will throw a wrench into a crime syndicate's ability to operate.
You can't just wave your hands and say, they won't stop. They need money to operate like any business.
That's like saying a potted plant won't die when you stop watering it. You don't know anything.
Do they really think they can scare everyone into not talking about their reprehensible activities online? This is a fools errand. At the very most, it will cause people to talk about it anonymously, and probably not even that. And what is the aim of this kind of intimidation? Do they think people would have a good impression of them, if only they weren't vilified in the press?! The absurdity of this endeavor is amusing to me. They clearly have too much money and too much time on their hands if they are worried about what bloggers are saying about them.
You are not going to be able to get rid of these groups unless you legalize drugs. It's just too profitable.
That said, you can't sustain an operation like this without a good source of income. Legalization would surely spell the end of them. It's too expensive to operate an organized crime syndicate by things like robberies and kidnapping and prostitution because it's too easy for people to undercut you by operating on a small scale.
Legalization would spell the end of these organizations. It wouldn't happen overnight, because it's hard for people to get out of it, but they would certainly begin atrophy and die.
You're listing exports, I'm talking about actual production.
The industrial sector in the US produces 3.2 trillion dollars worth of goods, while in china it's 2.8 (China comes out ahead 4.7 - 3.2 when you're measuring by Purchasing Power Parity rather than a straight currency conversion). Germany does not even produce 1 trillion (your numbers include "re-exports").
Perhaps the US could overcome this if there were some alternative protocol businesses could use to avoid litigation as long as certain standards for environmental/community impact were met and independently reviewed by a government body in a timely fashion. But I don't see that happening anytime soon.