There are lots of culprits. New development projects are often tied up in litigation for a period of time as local communities oppose them for various reasons. Existing buildings can be difficult to demolish because of historic structures. Comprehensive environmental impact reports must be prepared and show no negative impact or else litigation can completely torpedo the project (and honestly, it's pretty damn hard to build anything with absolutely no environmental impact, you're essentially limited to replacing and upgrading existing facilities). On top of that, getting necessary permits takes time, which delays projects and costs money.
Obviously, if you're in the tech sector, you can't afford to wait years to get these legal considerations worked out.
In China, the government gets on board and promotes new projects. They don't care about negative environmental impacts, destroying historic structures, or what kind of impact a development will have on the local community. While their approach is far from perfect, you have to admit that the US approach does a lot to stifle new development.
Making the pixels smaller to compensate is something Apple would never do. It's basically a hack. It detracts from user experience by making everything smaller than the developer intended.
Pretty much everyone has a vocabulary of at least 2000 words. 2^11 = 2048 so there's eleven bits per word.
and if remembering passwords is really that hard, then the user can come with a method to insert symbols and cases in there.
That's what people do, and it makes passwords much weaker, as well as making them harder to remember. None of your criticisms stand up to scrutiny on this one. The current norm would only actually make sense if people cold actually remember "G23m%s#2cH3x" or some such completely random list of characters. Since they can't, it makes no sense.
The point is that people remember words, not characters, so it makes absolutely no sense use a string of random characters as a password. By disregarding the way people actually think, and the passwords that are generated in practice (rather than in theory), security "experts" have managed to build a standard that results in lots of forgotten passwords while still being relatively insecure when applied in the real world.
It's the definition of boneheaded groupthink, and your post is just another example of someone misapplying theory by ignoring all the practical considerations. It's like it actually never occurred to you that people need to be able to remember their passwords.
Apple gives manufacturers billions of dollars up front to build new facilities to manufacture their products. They take all the output, but that's understandable because they paid the up-front cost. Other companies could do the same, if they felt they could afford to bet the farm on a new product the way Apple often does.
Only a small portion of their total profits come from the sales on iTunes/the App Store. But that's because the company makes billions in profits. These stores are still very profitable for them.
He's not talking about engineers with 4 year degrees, he's talking about people with the technical training to operate and maintain factory equipment. You don't get that kind of training in college.
You're advocating essentially a "if you build it they will come" mentality. While it may work, it's not something a lot of people would bebt tens of billions of dollars on. That said, Apple could undertake the effort of training people themselves. I suspect they'd rather get their products made as soon as possible, however.
Also, the US has higher industrial output than germany, by a significant margian. It was only recently overtaken by Cina. The problem is that it's mostly in airplanes and chemicals and cars. Not computers. And there are now significant barriers to entry for building new factories. To the extent that it rarely happens anymore.
I'd suggest that apple should make a 7" tablet so they can compete at the same price point. But maybe it would be better to wait and see what the user experience is like on these. It seems like it would be too small.
This was addressed in the Steve Jobs biography. When asked why he didn't build factories in the US by Obama, he replied that even if he could get all the permits and stuff sorted out, he wouldn't be able to find 30 thousand or so engineers he'd need to keep the thing running.
I have a problem with the "professional opinion" thing, because ultimately someone has to decide who counts as a professional. No one can do that in a fair and unbiased way.
I don't think a website like this has any hope of working. This is a function that is currently performed by the media, and there's no reason to believe things would go differently if it were a government run operation. People just need to learn to check facts and build informed opinions themselves. But most people won't take the time or effort to do so.
Actually, I do have experience with computer modeling. Furthermore, I have not offered any critique of these models. All I have said is that you have no way of knowing how accurate they will be until you can compare them to real world data. It's a simple fact.
Imagine being able to go to one website to see the best arguments for and against every issue, with links to support or refute every factual claim. And imagine that professional arbitrators would score each argument.
Sure, but that doesn't mean it'll be any more accurate. The only way to know that is to wait another decade or two. And, of course, by then they will have newer models as well.
It's understandable, Microsoft has been very successful.
Re:Marine version tripped up the whole program
on
The F-35 Story
·
· Score: 1
Don't they have A-10s for close air support?
Financial Problems at Lockheed
on
The F-35 Story
·
· Score: 1
Actually, Lockheed is under quite a bit of financial pressure these days. And it's a situation that's not going to change anytime soon. Admittedly this is a result of the federal government's financial problems, not their disgraceful performance, but at least it's a start.
Slashdot Mirror
There are lots of culprits. New development projects are often tied up in litigation for a period of time as local communities oppose them for various reasons. Existing buildings can be difficult to demolish because of historic structures. Comprehensive environmental impact reports must be prepared and show no negative impact or else litigation can completely torpedo the project (and honestly, it's pretty damn hard to build anything with absolutely no environmental impact, you're essentially limited to replacing and upgrading existing facilities). On top of that, getting necessary permits takes time, which delays projects and costs money.
Obviously, if you're in the tech sector, you can't afford to wait years to get these legal considerations worked out.
In China, the government gets on board and promotes new projects. They don't care about negative environmental impacts, destroying historic structures, or what kind of impact a development will have on the local community. While their approach is far from perfect, you have to admit that the US approach does a lot to stifle new development.
Making the pixels smaller to compensate is something Apple would never do. It's basically a hack. It detracts from user experience by making everything smaller than the developer intended.
Pretty much everyone has a vocabulary of at least 2000 words. 2^11 = 2048 so there's eleven bits per word.
That's what people do, and it makes passwords much weaker, as well as making them harder to remember. None of your criticisms stand up to scrutiny on this one. The current norm would only actually make sense if people cold actually remember "G23m%s#2cH3x" or some such completely random list of characters. Since they can't, it makes no sense.
The point is that people remember words, not characters, so it makes absolutely no sense use a string of random characters as a password. By disregarding the way people actually think, and the passwords that are generated in practice (rather than in theory), security "experts" have managed to build a standard that results in lots of forgotten passwords while still being relatively insecure when applied in the real world.
It's the definition of boneheaded groupthink, and your post is just another example of someone misapplying theory by ignoring all the practical considerations. It's like it actually never occurred to you that people need to be able to remember their passwords.
Apple gives manufacturers billions of dollars up front to build new facilities to manufacture their products. They take all the output, but that's understandable because they paid the up-front cost. Other companies could do the same, if they felt they could afford to bet the farm on a new product the way Apple often does.
Only a small portion of their total profits come from the sales on iTunes/the App Store. But that's because the company makes billions in profits. These stores are still very profitable for them.
Here's the XKCD on password strength.
He's not talking about engineers with 4 year degrees, he's talking about people with the technical training to operate and maintain factory equipment. You don't get that kind of training in college.
You're advocating essentially a "if you build it they will come" mentality. While it may work, it's not something a lot of people would bebt tens of billions of dollars on. That said, Apple could undertake the effort of training people themselves. I suspect they'd rather get their products made as soon as possible, however.
Also, the US has higher industrial output than germany, by a significant margian. It was only recently overtaken by Cina. The problem is that it's mostly in airplanes and chemicals and cars. Not computers. And there are now significant barriers to entry for building new factories. To the extent that it rarely happens anymore.
I'd suggest that apple should make a 7" tablet so they can compete at the same price point. But maybe it would be better to wait and see what the user experience is like on these. It seems like it would be too small.
This was addressed in the Steve Jobs biography. When asked why he didn't build factories in the US by Obama, he replied that even if he could get all the permits and stuff sorted out, he wouldn't be able to find 30 thousand or so engineers he'd need to keep the thing running.
Oh, now that you mention it, that's a pretty good idea. It would help with the insanity plea too.
That's nothing like what I said.
Also, I'm pretty sure the libertarian approach is to let the farmer keep what he grows.
Perhaps the problem is that with more funding available, people don't bother looking for inventive, enexpensive ways to carry out the same tests.
I wanted to mod you up because you used at word, but I decided it would be unfair.
I have a problem with the "professional opinion" thing, because ultimately someone has to decide who counts as a professional. No one can do that in a fair and unbiased way.
I don't think a website like this has any hope of working. This is a function that is currently performed by the media, and there's no reason to believe things would go differently if it were a government run operation. People just need to learn to check facts and build informed opinions themselves. But most people won't take the time or effort to do so.
I was referring to this site.
Actually, I do have experience with computer modeling. Furthermore, I have not offered any critique of these models. All I have said is that you have no way of knowing how accurate they will be until you can compare them to real world data. It's a simple fact.
I think I've seen something like this already...
They can be different, but that doesn't necessarily make them more accurate. That depends on the model. That's all I'm saying.
Seems like the A-10 does a better job at close air support though.
Sure, but that doesn't mean it'll be any more accurate. The only way to know that is to wait another decade or two. And, of course, by then they will have newer models as well.
Well, you wouldn't expect temperatures from current models to disagree with the temperature today, would you?
It's understandable, Microsoft has been very successful.
Don't they have A-10s for close air support?
Actually, Lockheed is under quite a bit of financial pressure these days. And it's a situation that's not going to change anytime soon. Admittedly this is a result of the federal government's financial problems, not their disgraceful performance, but at least it's a start.