When did such ever stopped an empire from coming to power? (after which it became "the shining beacon of..."; during too, in fact / have we forgot South America not a long time ago? The Chinese seem to have better approach with this)
Chinese (when understood as Han ethnic group) demonstrated fabulous long term potential / they also started small.
BTW, in the case of one thing you almost mention, how the size of the enemies chosen is the true indication of health of a power/superpower - look with what we're fighting. One of the most backwards countries on the planet, and another one exhausted by a decade of sanctions.
Well, the US is supposedly worst (together with the UK...) in social mobility, among developed nations. Probably not very optimal long term / what happened to "american dream"? (oh, right, just a dream...)
And Chinese might as well have even more influence, but in a different style (like you basically said - realities of this do change). Perhaps better, in a way. Not meddling so much. Just being interested in assuring that the US (or whoever) loses such capability; exercised in the past particularly with South America.
Vision and "inevitable" progress only gets you so far. How would you like to improve the efficiency of, say, ICE 10-100X if they are already around 50%? Or - remind me where are the ships defying Archimedes' principle (hey, it's over 2k years old, it shouldn't be a constraint by now...)
Rail car used as mobile home (it's not like that doesn't already happen) generally doesn't have to be in almost constant readiness, doesn't have to be technically capable of moving at typical speed of rolling stock.
Yeah, no cases of engineers messing things up, with possible consequences on the scale of non-intended collapse of a major skyscraper (sure, the requirements did fit under "crazy idea", but not exactly due to "artsy fartsy folk" / probably not in the way you meant it; it would be fine if not for engineering changes down the line; even better if the top structural engineer kept better oversight and did more calculations)
...and it took just a few missions for the enthusiasm to mostly vanish;/ - I guess "it's epic because the first will only happen once" doesn't have much appeal for nth landing.
I kinda regret how Russians didn't make it (it was not only a case of few setbacks along the way - it was almost like they didn't really want to succeed), how N1 was cancelled just before v2 (with its mostly understood problems possibly resolved) was ready, how the ignorant Soviet generals pushed for a "strategic parity" with (nonexistent) advantage supposedly given by the Shuttle / how they caused immense waste of funds(*) (at least the engineers did it a bit more sensibly: Energia was an example of Ares V-like approach, from the start - but of course it also wasn't really given a chance / at least we got its boosters out of the deal - Zenit seems to be the most cost effective launcher around)
If first on the Moon, I wouldn't be too surprised if they were able to maintain a small lunar base for the past ~3 decades; for less than what Energia-Buran cost them. In such reality US would most likely want to reach for another big mission - so we would possibly have, a bit similar in style to Apollo, Mars landings by now. Much more fun all around.
Having attained such stage of exploration, we would probably also be stuck for a long time - but at least in a place with in-situ resource utilization possible.
As it stands now - while I'm not too far from the age you were during Moon landings, I might very well not live long enough to see Mars ones. I'm not even certain about another lunar ones... (at least upcoming decade might be quite fun, with a few rovers - watching live stream on YT/etc. will be interesting)
(*)Unless that was the point of the Shuttle, to provoke Soviet Union into similar program with all its costs - but in this case, it succeeded 2 decades ago / why, since then, was it allowed to suck also NASA dry?
His DSLR can do 4fps continuous shooting, he didn't need to be very precise (manually synchronized, earlier in the day, quartz watch - while looking at NTP info - would be enough; or mobile phone synchronized earlier in the day, while in range of cell tower)
Surely impressive as a whole, but time synchronization shouldn't be much of a problem with NTP / precise watches / burst mode in such good DSLR. (4fps continuous shooting)
To put it another way, all the processing power recently has been put toward making computers more accessible and engaging to people and feel like actual appliances instead of obscure gadgets. Sign me up!
Don't forget to mention how, if one were to single out a machine which currently best fits such description, it would be probably the iPad. Or, generally, many smartphones. With processing power a decade "behind".
That should be fairly local though - globally, in places where iPhone is available from few carriers, it doesn't impact the viability of other options at all; quite the contrary, typically.
MediaTek - responsible, among other things, for OEM packages used in inexpensive Shanzhai phones - is releasing solution for Android (previously they were supposedly basically blocked from doing so / from joining Android alliance by Qualcomm); now it will really pick up steam. Yes, the products will be "basic" or smth - but it needs to be only good enough (plus there's a third major smartphone OS around, that pundits like to ignore but should remain a top player for foreseeable future)
You mean the factual jailing (et al) of Lenin/Stalin, which largely created them?
What's most ironic: despite the huge number of victims, expected lifespan in the area of Soviet Union increased dramatically during the rule of Stalin - he started with massively underdeveloped, backwards country and ended with superpower; even better: large amount of censorship, but also first largely literate generation...
Also - Archimedes' principle is over 2 thousand years old, surely - thanks to the scientific and technological progress which happened in the meantime - our present ships aren't constrained by it anymore...
(but even assuming science fantasies - it would certainly make things much harder for spaceships not equipped with advanced navigational computers)
Obviously now adays that isn't a concern and money, as always, comes first.
If second part of this sentence didn't contradict first, I could almost suspect how you simply display the typical myth of "good old days"... (phobia of present times / longing for one's youth / "the world was better" is an old phenomena - we have written examples of "the moral and intellectual demise of youth, that we're witnessing, will surely doom the civilisation soon" at least since Ancient Greece)
Not only 3D != stereoscopy (covered by others) - you might also find it revealing to realize how our minds in fact evolved to follow specific patterns of growth, a process (fairly predictable one) - in response to real-world stimuli. And certainly not designed...
If you'd also add how parallax works in practice, how we constantly shift between doubled background and (also doubled) translucent objects in front of focus plane - I think that would pretty much cover it all?
Except for "why?" of course - but how there was probably no good stereoscopic image which wouldn't be good as "normal 2D", while there are plenty enough uninspiring stereoscopic images for which "3D" is their only notable characteristic, might be a hint as to the motivations behind them...
In toying a bit with photo/videography, I wonder if stereoscopy has a chance of giving something curious, say, in a forest of dense trees, in first person perspective scene (yes, a typical slasher movie and/or near the style of Doom or Blair Witch;p ). Would be still largely forced of course... (though might be non-horrible if the composition is mostly homogeneous; if the trunks are, as is fairly typical, pretty much the same - but some movement / points of light / searchlight draws the attention of viewer to "proper" plane of focus)
Problem is, it still wouldn't improve such scene all that much... (if at all) I wouldn't mind it being called "a gimmick".
And...that's pretty much it, when it comes to trying to further the narrative (of course, maybe I lack imagination - but from cinema examples I've seen, the big guns don't appear to be doing any better in that particular regard)
...and lack of realistic parallax (2D images at least don't have it at all, like a flat wall; stereoscopic (not "3D"!) images do have it of course, but completely wrong)...and constant false cues to refocus eyes (while they must remain in focus lock on the surface of the screen)
Slashdot Mirror
When did such ever stopped an empire from coming to power? (after which it became "the shining beacon of..."; during too, in fact / have we forgot South America not a long time ago? The Chinese seem to have better approach with this)
Chinese (when understood as Han ethnic group) demonstrated fabulous long term potential / they also started small.
BTW, in the case of one thing you almost mention, how the size of the enemies chosen is the true indication of health of a power/superpower - look with what we're fighting. One of the most backwards countries on the planet, and another one exhausted by a decade of sanctions.
Well, the US is supposedly worst (together with the UK...) in social mobility, among developed nations. Probably not very optimal long term / what happened to "american dream"? (oh, right, just a dream...)
There was one other empire after WW2...
And Chinese might as well have even more influence, but in a different style (like you basically said - realities of this do change). Perhaps better, in a way. Not meddling so much. Just being interested in assuring that the US (or whoever) loses such capability; exercised in the past particularly with South America.
Will be fun with a visit of Chinese carrier and its battlegroup in Venezuela or Cuba, including a small tour of the Gulf of Mexico.
What? US stands for freedom of navigation, they will surely support such stuff...
America doesn't have a god-given right to be 'top country'
You're new around?
(and BTW, circumstances during and after WW2 or few angry remarks by Churchill suggest subjugation, a bit)
Vision and "inevitable" progress only gets you so far. How would you like to improve the efficiency of, say, ICE 10-100X if they are already around 50%? Or - remind me where are the ships defying Archimedes' principle (hey, it's over 2k years old, it shouldn't be a constraint by now...)
Past & rose-colored glasses?
Rail car used as mobile home (it's not like that doesn't already happen) generally doesn't have to be in almost constant readiness, doesn't have to be technically capable of moving at typical speed of rolling stock.
It's not like using inherently mobile structures as housing (horse carts, rail carriages, barges, yurts, shipping containers ) is new, in general...
Yeah, no cases of engineers messing things up, with possible consequences on the scale of non-intended collapse of a major skyscraper (sure, the requirements did fit under "crazy idea", but not exactly due to "artsy fartsy folk" / probably not in the way you meant it; it would be fine if not for engineering changes down the line; even better if the top structural engineer kept better oversight and did more calculations)
At the risk of appearing blunt / insensitive / blablabla - you possibly would miss him much less without reconnection?
...and it took just a few missions for the enthusiasm to mostly vanish ;/ - I guess "it's epic because the first will only happen once" doesn't have much appeal for nth landing.
I kinda regret how Russians didn't make it (it was not only a case of few setbacks along the way - it was almost like they didn't really want to succeed), how N1 was cancelled just before v2 (with its mostly understood problems possibly resolved) was ready, how the ignorant Soviet generals pushed for a "strategic parity" with (nonexistent) advantage supposedly given by the Shuttle / how they caused immense waste of funds(*) (at least the engineers did it a bit more sensibly: Energia was an example of Ares V-like approach, from the start - but of course it also wasn't really given a chance / at least we got its boosters out of the deal - Zenit seems to be the most cost effective launcher around)
If first on the Moon, I wouldn't be too surprised if they were able to maintain a small lunar base for the past ~3 decades; for less than what Energia-Buran cost them. In such reality US would most likely want to reach for another big mission - so we would possibly have, a bit similar in style to Apollo, Mars landings by now. Much more fun all around.
Having attained such stage of exploration, we would probably also be stuck for a long time - but at least in a place with in-situ resource utilization possible.
As it stands now - while I'm not too far from the age you were during Moon landings, I might very well not live long enough to see Mars ones. I'm not even certain about another lunar ones... (at least upcoming decade might be quite fun, with a few rovers - watching live stream on YT/etc. will be interesting)
(*)Unless that was the point of the Shuttle, to provoke Soviet Union into similar program with all its costs - but in this case, it succeeded 2 decades ago / why, since then, was it allowed to suck also NASA dry?
His DSLR can do 4fps continuous shooting, he didn't need to be very precise (manually synchronized, earlier in the day, quartz watch - while looking at NTP info - would be enough; or mobile phone synchronized earlier in the day, while in range of cell tower)
Surely impressive as a whole, but time synchronization shouldn't be much of a problem with NTP / precise watches / burst mode in such good DSLR. (4fps continuous shooting)
To put it another way, all the processing power recently has been put toward making computers more accessible and engaging to people and feel like actual appliances instead of obscure gadgets. Sign me up!
Don't forget to mention how, if one were to single out a machine which currently best fits such description, it would be probably the iPad. Or, generally, many smartphones. With processing power a decade "behind".
He is such a whore...
(but, heck, such exposure itself would be worth all the hardships along the way ;p )
That should be fairly local though - globally, in places where iPhone is available from few carriers, it doesn't impact the viability of other options at all; quite the contrary, typically.
MediaTek - responsible, among other things, for OEM packages used in inexpensive Shanzhai phones - is releasing solution for Android (previously they were supposedly basically blocked from doing so / from joining Android alliance by Qualcomm); now it will really pick up steam. Yes, the products will be "basic" or smth - but it needs to be only good enough (plus there's a third major smartphone OS around, that pundits like to ignore but should remain a top player for foreseeable future)
Really, what's wrong with high-school for such book? (what, specifically avoiding most formative years?)
You mean the factual jailing (et al) of Lenin/Stalin, which largely created them?
What's most ironic: despite the huge number of victims, expected lifespan in the area of Soviet Union increased dramatically during the rule of Stalin - he started with massively underdeveloped, backwards country and ended with superpower; even better: large amount of censorship, but also first largely literate generation...
http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm
Also - Archimedes' principle is over 2 thousand years old, surely - thanks to the scientific and technological progress which happened in the meantime - our present ships aren't constrained by it anymore...
(but even assuming science fantasies - it would certainly make things much harder for spaceships not equipped with advanced navigational computers)
Obviously now adays that isn't a concern and money, as always, comes first.
If second part of this sentence didn't contradict first, I could almost suspect how you simply display the typical myth of "good old days"... (phobia of present times / longing for one's youth / "the world was better" is an old phenomena - we have written examples of "the moral and intellectual demise of youth, that we're witnessing, will surely doom the civilisation soon" at least since Ancient Greece)
Not only 3D != stereoscopy (covered by others) - you might also find it revealing to realize how our minds in fact evolved to follow specific patterns of growth, a process (fairly predictable one) - in response to real-world stimuli. And certainly not designed...
If you'd also add how parallax works in practice, how we constantly shift between doubled background and (also doubled) translucent objects in front of focus plane - I think that would pretty much cover it all?
Except for "why?" of course - but how there was probably no good stereoscopic image which wouldn't be good as "normal 2D", while there are plenty enough uninspiring stereoscopic images for which "3D" is their only notable characteristic, might be a hint as to the motivations behind them...
In toying a bit with photo/videography, I wonder if stereoscopy has a chance of giving something curious, say, in a forest of dense trees, in first person perspective scene (yes, a typical slasher movie and/or near the style of Doom or Blair Witch ;p ). Would be still largely forced of course... (though might be non-horrible if the composition is mostly homogeneous; if the trunks are, as is fairly typical, pretty much the same - but some movement / points of light / searchlight draws the attention of viewer to "proper" plane of focus)
Problem is, it still wouldn't improve such scene all that much... (if at all) I wouldn't mind it being called "a gimmick".
And...that's pretty much it, when it comes to trying to further the narrative (of course, maybe I lack imagination - but from cinema examples I've seen, the big guns don't appear to be doing any better in that particular regard)
"3D" is somewhat lacking in (ironically...) stereoscopy and perspective, too. While parallax is nonexistent in 2D, "3D" does it very wrong.
...and lack of realistic parallax (2D images at least don't have it at all, like a flat wall; stereoscopic (not "3D"!) images do have it of course, but completely wrong) ...and constant false cues to refocus eyes (while they must remain in focus lock on the surface of the screen)