Yeah, they way I look at it they are related. Quite strongly IMHO, "a place which doesn't make healthy lifestyle easy" often means "a place which doesn't make healthy lifestyle affordable".
Not only because Sony made their own PalmOS devices for quite some time, so there would be some continuity.
Sony Ericsson doesn't seem to have much trouble with using quite a lot of platforms at the same time. AFAIK there are "Sagem platform" low-end phones, SE A200 "featurephones" (though it isn't clear why they aren't called smartphones), and on top of that SE doesn't have problems introducing new advanced devices based on Symbian and Android and WinMob. Plus I wouldn't be surpised if they have something based on Symbian MOAP in Japan.
Throwing WebOS into the mix is increasing the mess only slightly, only a small bad decision added to string of serious bad ones in SE.
Preventive care / lifestyle (which, as I suspected above, might also play large role in those infant stats) might be perhaps ad hoc classified also under availability of care, I guess. If place where you live doesn't make certain healthy lifestyle choices easy.
Though that doesn't explain your high (relativelly) infant mortality. The most typical causes don't seem to have much to do with lack of money for treatments (considering that one your neighbour where many treatments simply aren't available...has notably smaller rate)
Seems you're lacking in preventive care ("lifestyle" being large part of it)
I don't think that invalides VW popularising the concept. For another example - Model T is a large part of kickstarting the whole car craze...yet you won't really find similar cars on the road these days. Or VW Beetle, which in a way picked up where Model T left; also not many cars very like it today (even New Beetle is only superficially similar)
Plus, there are compact MPV (Touran) cars which don't really descend from Espace. Well, to be fair they do from Renault Scenic;>
A large contribution to drying of Aral Sea is that water which "should" get to it is used in an incredibly wasteful manner - the irrigation systems are in horrible condition, for example. Plus you know, drying of Aral exposed all the toxic stuff we usually dump into water (and which is relativelly stable and harmless in the bottom mud or dissolved in large quantity of water) to the work of wind; dust storms there are toxic.
Oh well, just an "unintended consequence" of progress, like with global warming. Here, similarly to irrigation systems mentioned, we could be much more effective too; and think about it...look around you - how much stuff in the room you're in comes at least partially from oil (in my room, virtually everything...); oil is an insanely valuable resource. And what we do with most of it? Burn it!
What is the difference? You would take all those cross-sections of "black" and compose 3D model anyway... (this example shows there must be a mode of operation giving perfectly fine outlines)
Anyway, yes, the particular tech is largely irrelavant (here just parent poster reminded me of MRI); point being it would be hard to obtain adequate scan without a good reason (and TBH I would prefer not to have one)
Well duh, that's the thing with Germany (and generally few others highly industrialised nations) - they live from trade; being an industrial powerhouse not only causes the region to rely on them (that's the second major reason why post-WW2 Germany was allowed to succeed BTW), but also makes them dependant on those they trade with ("foreign investment" is too simple)
And with Japan...still, it came through like Japan is incapable of having serious military. They certainly can do it, just weren't allowed to for a long time.
Glass bad. Glass cold. Glass fragile (I'm not even sure how many glass "windows" in doors, one of the idiocies of local socrealism-era architecture, I smashed; no useless glass in my place!;p )
Plus even the cheapest one noticeably more expensive than the top of the line Jerker with shelves (and over two times more than equivalent Jerker)
Keeping it in orbit is just about the best way to preserve it whether the data storage is in our local orbit or on the moon.
If you meant there orbit around the Moon...that's a bad idea, orbits there are highly unstable. But placing most of the data storage under the lunar surface is probably the best place. Kinda like second monolith...
Good, perhaps in the future the elders won't have it so easy to paint their views as more valuable than they really are. Who knows, it might even help them realise a) who funds their well being now b) who covers majority of their medical expenses. Perhaps resulting in decency not to frak things up (say, while voting) many years down the line, when they are long gone.
Trash dumps are one of the most valuable objects for archeologists. They tell quite a lot about people who left the trash, indiscriminately, without really any whitewashing from the culture you want to study.
Why would they use Dodge Caravan (and call it...'The Spirit of Berlin' O_o ) when there's so many German minivans for the taking? (heck, VW popularised the concept)
Together with the summary (mentioning "coal-miner look") - an interesting throwback to the era of socrealism in my post Soviet Block place; fixed by Moscow also on coal, where every respectable miner should do at least 200% of the norm.
Seems to me an aeasthetic patch covering one eye could work just as well - if not better. Plus it's relativelly less conspicuous (especially for a man)...and you might always need some medical procedure requiring later covering of one eye, right?
Well, an unfortunate effect of popular fiction. But no one thinks about flying boats in the style of Catalina when they hear "aircraft"... (it's a good analogy of what Shuttle is in relation to "spaceship") Nobody thinks about those supposedly ancient Indian aircraft (interestingly very boat-like, too...), which were also a work of fiction before reality set in. But finding inspiration in fiction is not necessarily a good thing in advanced engineering (who knows how much Shuttle suffered because of this...after all, it was approved, financed and designed by a generation raised on "spaceplanes" in fiction - a phenomena which was in itself no doubt fuelled by breathtaking advances in aircraft back then...but which doesn't translate well to space, as our experiences clearly show) Look at this depiction from late XIX century of aircraft from "our" era, looking more like open fishlike submarines (again, boat...). We can build them (take a Harrier, remove wings and canopy); but it's impractical. Spaceplane was a similar dream.
I'm not only technically correct, I'm historically correct - it's just that one (and how many others are there?) spacecraft captured public imagination (easy and attractive - that one specific spacecraft relates to their experiences with air travel...). I suspect future history won't change that much, too (except for very specific vehicles, LEO military ones for example). Check out BCC Space Odyssey: Voyage to the Planets (don't get US version, it's castrated), that's probably closer to how "spaceships" will look like for quite some time.
Soyuz was designed as the Soviet mothership (ok, I'm teasing you now;) ) for Moon mission. Soyuz was the first spacecraft which carried macroscopic Earth creatures (most notably - turtles;> ) beyond LEO. Around the Moon, to be more specific. And brought them back safely.
Yes, Russia now has few dacades of experience with using a spacecraft essentially capable of beyond LEO operation. And the company responsible for, so far, all private spacecraft participant missions says you can have a ride for $100 million
But that activity itself is not valuable, doesn't make much sense; it's still cheaper to build and test satellites more properly before launching or send a replacement.
Besides, if you really want to you don't need Shuttle-like vehicle for that (returning satellites back to Earth, sure...but this also proved not economical; not very useful and insanely risky against adversaries, too). One could as well use a cargo vessel with spare parts and equipment (say, a modified Progress), and once it docked with the satellite (yes, the latter would need to have at least a "dummy", unpressurised docking collar...satellites serviced by the Shuttle also need an equivalent), send the repair crew up in Soyuz (if they would be willing to tolerate more uncomfortable voyage than usual, Progress might be unnecessary, modification to formerly typical orbital module of Soyuz could suffice). That way you would reach more satellites, too... (ISS is currently still on significantly lower than the target orbit so the Shuttle can reach it)
But Russians don't do that (and hey, with their lack of funds it should make sense, right?). Nobody really wants to do that anymore (there is some planning for possible servicing missions of Orion to unmanned spacecraft in Lagrange points...but notice that Orion is a capsule!; there is also some planning to make repair missions itself unmanned...). Heck, probably the most succesfull commercial space launching company, Arianespace (certainly they have more than 50% of GEO launches), doesn't even have a manned spacecraft.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, they way I look at it they are related. Quite strongly IMHO, "a place which doesn't make healthy lifestyle easy" often means "a place which doesn't make healthy lifestyle affordable".
Not only because Sony made their own PalmOS devices for quite some time, so there would be some continuity.
Sony Ericsson doesn't seem to have much trouble with using quite a lot of platforms at the same time. AFAIK there are "Sagem platform" low-end phones, SE A200 "featurephones" (though it isn't clear why they aren't called smartphones), and on top of that SE doesn't have problems introducing new advanced devices based on Symbian and Android and WinMob. Plus I wouldn't be surpised if they have something based on Symbian MOAP in Japan.
Throwing WebOS into the mix is increasing the mess only slightly, only a small bad decision added to string of serious bad ones in SE.
Preventive care / lifestyle (which, as I suspected above, might also play large role in those infant stats) might be perhaps ad hoc classified also under availability of care, I guess. If place where you live doesn't make certain healthy lifestyle choices easy.
Morons worshipping things that promise them direct continuation via resurrection or, more generally, eternal life is an old, widespread phenomena.
Though that doesn't explain your high (relativelly) infant mortality. The most typical causes don't seem to have much to do with lack of money for treatments (considering that one your neighbour where many treatments simply aren't available...has notably smaller rate)
Seems you're lacking in preventive care ("lifestyle" being large part of it)
I don't think that invalides VW popularising the concept. For another example - Model T is a large part of kickstarting the whole car craze...yet you won't really find similar cars on the road these days. Or VW Beetle, which in a way picked up where Model T left; also not many cars very like it today (even New Beetle is only superficially similar)
Plus, there are compact MPV (Touran) cars which don't really descend from Espace. Well, to be fair they do from Renault Scenic ;>
A large contribution to drying of Aral Sea is that water which "should" get to it is used in an incredibly wasteful manner - the irrigation systems are in horrible condition, for example. Plus you know, drying of Aral exposed all the toxic stuff we usually dump into water (and which is relativelly stable and harmless in the bottom mud or dissolved in large quantity of water) to the work of wind; dust storms there are toxic.
Oh well, just an "unintended consequence" of progress, like with global warming. Here, similarly to irrigation systems mentioned, we could be much more effective too; and think about it...look around you - how much stuff in the room you're in comes at least partially from oil (in my room, virtually everything...); oil is an insanely valuable resource. And what we do with most of it? Burn it!
What is the difference? You would take all those cross-sections of "black" and compose 3D model anyway... (this example shows there must be a mode of operation giving perfectly fine outlines)
Anyway, yes, the particular tech is largely irrelavant (here just parent poster reminded me of MRI); point being it would be hard to obtain adequate scan without a good reason (and TBH I would prefer not to have one)
Well duh, that's the thing with Germany (and generally few others highly industrialised nations) - they live from trade; being an industrial powerhouse not only causes the region to rely on them (that's the second major reason why post-WW2 Germany was allowed to succeed BTW), but also makes them dependant on those they trade with ("foreign investment" is too simple)
And with Japan...still, it came through like Japan is incapable of having serious military. They certainly can do it, just weren't allowed to for a long time.
That's not good enough to provide for your survival.
I for one love our new robot overlords!
"Actually"?...
Yes, that's what I mean; it tells how much of a VW that (car) is = barely a VW at all.
Chrysler more cars sold, effectively and VW quick entry into a market with a bit local needs?
Glass bad. Glass cold. Glass fragile (I'm not even sure how many glass "windows" in doors, one of the idiocies of local socrealism-era architecture, I smashed; no useless glass in my place! ;p )
Plus even the cheapest one noticeably more expensive than the top of the line Jerker with shelves (and over two times more than equivalent Jerker)
That's not even available outside of North America, which tells best how much of a VW that is.
But there's Touran and Sharan, if limiting ourselfes to VW.
Keeping it in orbit is just about the best way to preserve it whether the data storage is in our local orbit or on the moon.
If you meant there orbit around the Moon...that's a bad idea, orbits there are highly unstable. But placing most of the data storage under the lunar surface is probably the best place. Kinda like second monolith...
Good, perhaps in the future the elders won't have it so easy to paint their views as more valuable than they really are. Who knows, it might even help them realise a) who funds their well being now b) who covers majority of their medical expenses. Perhaps resulting in decency not to frak things up (say, while voting) many years down the line, when they are long gone.
Trash dumps are one of the most valuable objects for archeologists. They tell quite a lot about people who left the trash, indiscriminately, without really any whitewashing from the culture you want to study.
Yes, the best reasonably priced desks weren't discontinued...they just have a much more boring name now, Fredrik: http://www.ikea.com/us/en/catalog/categories/series/10216/
Hilarious robberies? Wouldn't streaking in Nixon mask be enough for you?
Why would they use Dodge Caravan (and call it...'The Spirit of Berlin' O_o ) when there's so many German minivans for the taking? (heck, VW popularised the concept)
Together with the summary (mentioning "coal-miner look") - an interesting throwback to the era of socrealism in my post Soviet Block place; fixed by Moscow also on coal, where every respectable miner should do at least 200% of the norm.
Hence...no real motivation to improve things too much?
Seems to me an aeasthetic patch covering one eye could work just as well - if not better. Plus it's relativelly less conspicuous (especially for a man)...and you might always need some medical procedure requiring later covering of one eye, right?
PS. Harrrr!
Well, an unfortunate effect of popular fiction. But no one thinks about flying boats in the style of Catalina when they hear "aircraft"... (it's a good analogy of what Shuttle is in relation to "spaceship") Nobody thinks about those supposedly ancient Indian aircraft (interestingly very boat-like, too...), which were also a work of fiction before reality set in.
But finding inspiration in fiction is not necessarily a good thing in advanced engineering (who knows how much Shuttle suffered because of this...after all, it was approved, financed and designed by a generation raised on "spaceplanes" in fiction - a phenomena which was in itself no doubt fuelled by breathtaking advances in aircraft back then...but which doesn't translate well to space, as our experiences clearly show)
Look at this depiction from late XIX century of aircraft from "our" era, looking more like open fishlike submarines (again, boat...). We can build them (take a Harrier, remove wings and canopy); but it's impractical. Spaceplane was a similar dream.
I'm not only technically correct, I'm historically correct - it's just that one (and how many others are there?) spacecraft captured public imagination (easy and attractive - that one specific spacecraft relates to their experiences with air travel...). I suspect future history won't change that much, too (except for very specific vehicles, LEO military ones for example). Check out BCC Space Odyssey: Voyage to the Planets (don't get US version, it's castrated), that's probably closer to how "spaceships" will look like for quite some time.
Soyuz was designed as the Soviet mothership (ok, I'm teasing you now ;) ) for Moon mission. Soyuz was the first spacecraft which carried macroscopic Earth creatures (most notably - turtles ;> ) beyond LEO. Around the Moon, to be more specific. And brought them back safely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zond_5
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_7K-L1
Yes, Russia now has few dacades of experience with using a spacecraft essentially capable of beyond LEO operation. And the company responsible for, so far, all private spacecraft participant missions says you can have a ride for $100 million
But that activity itself is not valuable, doesn't make much sense; it's still cheaper to build and test satellites more properly before launching or send a replacement.
Besides, if you really want to you don't need Shuttle-like vehicle for that (returning satellites back to Earth, sure...but this also proved not economical; not very useful and insanely risky against adversaries, too). One could as well use a cargo vessel with spare parts and equipment (say, a modified Progress), and once it docked with the satellite (yes, the latter would need to have at least a "dummy", unpressurised docking collar...satellites serviced by the Shuttle also need an equivalent), send the repair crew up in Soyuz (if they would be willing to tolerate more uncomfortable voyage than usual, Progress might be unnecessary, modification to formerly typical orbital module of Soyuz could suffice). That way you would reach more satellites, too... (ISS is currently still on significantly lower than the target orbit so the Shuttle can reach it)
But Russians don't do that (and hey, with their lack of funds it should make sense, right?). Nobody really wants to do that anymore (there is some planning for possible servicing missions of Orion to unmanned spacecraft in Lagrange points...but notice that Orion is a capsule!; there is also some planning to make repair missions itself unmanned...). Heck, probably the most succesfull commercial space launching company, Arianespace (certainly they have more than 50% of GEO launches), doesn't even have a manned spacecraft.