And adding something to what XxtraLarGe have said - those games are generally quite shitty (apart from FF Anthology, but that's rerelease of old FFs - mostly "hardcore" types were interested, for which owning PSone wasn't an issue)
It greatly helps during initial console launch/soon after, when the library of new games isn't there yet. And I play quite a lot PS1 games still (new ones - for me at least)
Well, it appears that one of the launch titles will be new Tekken. Namco would have never released its flagship title for a console with controller lag problems.
However I should add that the new controller doesn't look good to me. and, to be precize, I don't mean the look of it all, but how useable it will be. PS2 was perfect in this matter: good looking console + controller with design not dictated by look but by useability.
This on the other hand...I don't know, it could be good (have to try it), but somehow I doubt it.
You put valid points, however I'd still argue it's misunderstanding - of the fact that safe methods can be build.
And I'd guess that initial testing (to check if there's no fallout) could be made underground...or in a sarcofag - like container, so no treaties violated (and as a side note: last time I checked the violation of treaty forbidding building defenses against ICBMs didn't result in curt cases; the public support is everything)
The thing is: why they oppose it? If it is because of misunderstanding...why politicians agree with this misunderstanding, even if personally - not necessirily? It isn't exactly about democracy (well...not to mention that US isn't democratic in its nature), will of majority as you see (even if the outcome is precisely the same)...you get the idea what I mean by politics (yes, by definition it includes democracy, socialism, and so on...but dictionary definitions doesn't show niuanses). Probably it's also very local thing, influenced by our And I fully agree with your final conclusion...(however depending on interpretation of your first opinion it isn't exactly the same as what you've said back then)
To clarify, just in case... Blocking development & research isn't democracy. It's purely political agenda. Blocking use can be democracy. But research will far preceed use. Perhaps in the meantime, due to advance, public opionion would change...but they don't have a chance, they can't be presented with real conclusions, etc. That's democracy?
Are you serious? You really confuse making politics with democracy? (I don't know, maybe I should assume that there are slight differences in meanings of first word between our first languages...)
Of course Orion isn't for everything, I haven't stated that. Given some types of missions, Orion is perfect; for others it's better to use something else (but also exagerrete problems a little - precisions is possible; most would think that blowing stuff behind you for propulsion is destabilizing, but it was proved that the effects would tend to cancel out)
And I wasn't the one who insisted on day transit - there are better means to go to the moon than orion.
"I suspect that blowing up a half dozen bombs per mission and convincing the crew that it is just fine to do that and is totally safe will be a bit of an uphill battle." - the crew wouldn't have a problem if enough research and testing went into it. But public always will.
"While 1 trip = 1+ deaths, Orion won't fly, not from Earth's surface anyway."
I agree with conclusion, but not the cause of it. orion could be build to not produce nuclear fallout (read my other answers in the vivinity). The real reason it won't fly is the red light I mentioned that turns on when people hear nuclear...
"This seems like the kind of downside that not only can be avoided but should be avoided."
Od course. And the ones working on eventual future Orion can do that - it's entirely possible to build nuclear explosive that won't rely on fission at all (but it would be completely unpractical to use as a weapon, therefore nobody done it) - so practically no fallout.
We don't even have a mission that would require 1000 tons. Nobody is planning such because of lack of booster. If booster would be present, missions would follow.
Second - tests were conducted (using chemical instead of nuclear expolisves) that proved feasability of the concept and correctness of calculations
Third, yes, unfortunatelly. Not the first time politics interferes with humankind development.
Fourth, if the nukes are designed to produce no nuclear follout (it's possible - read the article at wikipedia for example) I don't see a problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, look! This Z3 is a computer, just like Eniac!
And adding something to what XxtraLarGe have said - those games are generally quite shitty (apart from FF Anthology, but that's rerelease of old FFs - mostly "hardcore" types were interested, for which owning PSone wasn't an issue)
It greatly helps during initial console launch/soon after, when the library of new games isn't there yet. And I play quite a lot PS1 games still (new ones - for me at least)
Show me the place where I can buy new PS1 when my old one will broke in a few years. And believe me, many games are still worth playing/finding them.
Well, taking into account number of non-crappy games for both current consoles...no, it's not.
Well, it appears that one of the launch titles will be new Tekken. Namco would have never released its flagship title for a console with controller lag problems.
However I should add that the new controller doesn't look good to me. and, to be precize, I don't mean the look of it all, but how useable it will be. PS2 was perfect in this matter: good looking console + controller with design not dictated by look but by useability. This on the other hand...I don't know, it could be good (have to try it), but somehow I doubt it.
I don't think Sony needed to be reminded about that. PS2 is very good looking.
/. stories about MPAA brainwashed me to the point that I thought it's about court case or something...
Apple has in their offer precisely "good hardware combined with good software"
Larger number of smaller nukes is more effective in such desing.
You put valid points, however I'd still argue it's misunderstanding - of the fact that safe methods can be build. And I'd guess that initial testing (to check if there's no fallout) could be made underground...or in a sarcofag - like container, so no treaties violated (and as a side note: last time I checked the violation of treaty forbidding building defenses against ICBMs didn't result in curt cases; the public support is everything)
The thing is: why they oppose it?
If it is because of misunderstanding...why politicians agree with this misunderstanding, even if personally - not necessirily? It isn't exactly about democracy (well...not to mention that US isn't democratic in its nature), will of majority as you see (even if the outcome is precisely the same)...you get the idea what I mean by politics (yes, by definition it includes democracy, socialism, and so on...but dictionary definitions doesn't show niuanses). Probably it's also very local thing, influenced by our
And I fully agree with your final conclusion...(however depending on interpretation of your first opinion it isn't exactly the same as what you've said back then)
To clarify, just in case...
Blocking development & research isn't democracy. It's purely political agenda.
Blocking use can be democracy. But research will far preceed use. Perhaps in the meantime, due to advance, public opionion would change...but they don't have a chance, they can't be presented with real conclusions, etc. That's democracy?
Are you serious? You really confuse making politics with democracy? (I don't know, maybe I should assume that there are slight differences in meanings of first word between our first languages...)
For the record... http://img42.echo.cx/my.php?image=example9lx.png You really want to tell me that it's the way your site is meant to be seen? And that this is standards compliant?
Given the desing of your site (you completely forgot that somebody can use app background in the system other than white) I have no choice...
And all what you've desribed is exactly politics in my book.
Both sides? I dunno, Russians took funding from US before (for ISS)
And anyway I think there should be more than one effort/one vehicle
But you can't travel at lightspeed - only just below it.
Of course Orion isn't for everything, I haven't stated that. Given some types of missions, Orion is perfect; for others it's better to use something else (but also exagerrete problems a little - precisions is possible; most would think that blowing stuff behind you for propulsion is destabilizing, but it was proved that the effects would tend to cancel out) And I wasn't the one who insisted on day transit - there are better means to go to the moon than orion. "I suspect that blowing up a half dozen bombs per mission and convincing the crew that it is just fine to do that and is totally safe will be a bit of an uphill battle." - the crew wouldn't have a problem if enough research and testing went into it. But public always will.
"While 1 trip = 1+ deaths, Orion won't fly, not from Earth's surface anyway." I agree with conclusion, but not the cause of it. orion could be build to not produce nuclear fallout (read my other answers in the vivinity). The real reason it won't fly is the red light I mentioned that turns on when people hear nuclear...
"This seems like the kind of downside that not only can be avoided but should be avoided."
Od course. And the ones working on eventual future Orion can do that - it's entirely possible to build nuclear explosive that won't rely on fission at all (but it would be completely unpractical to use as a weapon, therefore nobody done it) - so practically no fallout.
can't you really imagine that somebody came up with different method (totally impractical for use a sweapon, so nobody build it). RTFA (at wikipedia)
We don't even have a mission that would require 1000 tons. Nobody is planning such because of lack of booster. If booster would be present, missions would follow. Second - tests were conducted (using chemical instead of nuclear expolisves) that proved feasability of the concept and correctness of calculations Third, yes, unfortunatelly. Not the first time politics interferes with humankind development. Fourth, if the nukes are designed to produce no nuclear follout (it's possible - read the article at wikipedia for example) I don't see a problem.