You might be interested in Spacedev, then. I'm pretty sure that's what they're talking about with the "space resource extraction" bit in their roadmap.
Considering the cost of putting stuff in space, asteroids have the big advantage of not requiring expensive rocket launches to get anything in orbit. If you're patient, you can move your ore back to Earth (or wherever in the solar system) a lot more cheaply than you would if you first had to get out of a planet's gravity well.
Well, Canada does have a strong partnership agreement with ESA, so I wouldn't be surprised. I imagine that we're as frustated as all the other nations (including, most significantly, the States) investing in the ISS with the lack of process on the station to this point.
its not something that does damage as in sets us back. people really overblow this problem
Unfortunately, this isn't necessarily the case. We are extremely dependent on oil, not just for cheap energy, but as a basis for making stuff. Fertilizers, plastics, lubricants and all sorts of things necessary for the current economy are derived from oil. If the price of oil goes through the roof, things just may go down the crapper.
Having said that, I hope it's not the case, that the cost of oil keeps rising, and we figure out a way to maintain our standard of living without the reliance on oil we have.
Users must have maximum flexibility. They want it, they need it, they love it. It is obvious they need reasonable defaults, but they must be free to change them as they like.
I think in this case "they" are you: you must be free to change them as you like, you need maximum flexibility, and so forth. I haven't seen too many people sit in front of a really well designed interface - on a computer or otherwise - and fume about not being able to modify it; they just use it. Some people want to twiddle, but they're the minority.
If Linux continues to be developed with the mindset that everyone wants to have maximum flexibility, then it will continue to appeal to those people - often hobbyists, who get kicks out of tinkering. That's a fine niche to exploit, but it's still a niche. If Linux wants to have broad appeal, then this can't be a priority, and will need to focus on greater usability at the cost of customisability.
I've never been a big fan of the Dock on OS X. It has a lot of problems, famously enumerated by Tog. I'm a big fan of OS X for a number of reasons, but the Dock should go.
If you want the user to be able to determine what Taskbar/Dock type thing they want, you might want to check out DragThing as a third option, which lacks the visual style of the Dock but works a whole heck of a lot better.
I'm not a big fan of highly customizable interfaces, but man I wish I could just turn the Dock off once and for all.
Anyway, it's been nearly 150 years since Darwin proposed his theories - still the debate continues. At least in physics there seems to be less religion messing up with it.
There will be limitations, but so long as Apple doesn't have a special mobo built with some sort of "Apple verifier" that OS X will check, it doesn't look like a problem.
Personally, I can't see Apple not putting in such a verifier - at least in the initial boxes. As everyone says, Apple makes most of their money on hardware. Not to say you won't be able to circumvent it, but I suspect such a thing'll be in there.
I doubt it. Switching compilers is never pleasant; it's a mini-platform switch. So if Apple forced this on developers along with a full-on platform switch at the same time, it would be a big headache. Perhaps they'll offer it as an alternative, but I can't see them forcing developers to switch.
Maybe Capcom'll make a wireless hub for your controller - something you can plug the old thing into, which would talk to the 360. But then I suspect they'd rather sell you a new controller for another $200, which may end up controlling the old games.
Probably the same way they always have: by buying or copying little, innovative companies. The nice thing about being huge in the software biz is that you can let startups and such try out new things, and if the little guys are successful you can either buy them up or copy 'em. See: Netscape.
A bigger bottleneck for the traditional VR approach is the conecpt of the visor itself. Basically, with a visor, you're staring at a screen a few inches from your nose for a protacted period of time. Focusing on that is not fun; put a book in front of your face for an hour and see if you enjoy it. Worse still, to get the stereo effect you're effectively crosseyed the entire time. The eye strain produces headaches after a short while, which definitely isn't something you want every time you play a game.
Having said that, I suspect when things like this become compatable with a better VR technology that doesn't produce the eyestrain, the newer technology will come down in price...
I think that the FPS genre is kind of like Indian movies or science fiction films: just like a Bollywood movie has to have a lot of song and dance numbers no matter what it's about, and sci-fi has to have good special effects before anyone will notice them, FPS games have to have good graphics for people to pay attention. It's not all that they're about, but it's required that they at least have that to be even considered by a lot of gamers.
I suspect that may be a long time. Apple seems to be pretty clear on that one - they won't get them out till they're ready. And that'll be a while.
Me, I'm waiting till they upgrade the iMac line. If the new iMacs offer better graphics, I'll be getting one. If not, I'll be getting a PowerMac.
At the start of the year, I didn't want a new computer. Then the mini came out, and I thought I should get one 'cause they're neat. And then I thought I should get an iMac, because I'd have to get all the peripherals since I currently have a PowerBook, and besides, the mini wouldn't be much faster than what I have now. Now, I'm considering a PowerMac.
I hate Apple more than Microsoft. Microsoft's a big evil corporation, but I don't want to buy anything they make because it's all crap. Apple's a big evil corporation, but they make really cool stuff and turn me into a consumer whore. That's really evil.
Personally, I'd rather not have to pay for the privilege of improving the editing on this site. I mean, if anything, if you're paying you should have to put up with this stuff even less - rather than be expected to let the editors know when they aren't doing their jobs.
Weta used Maya for LOTR quite a bit actually - read all about it here if you want.
You may be thinking of Massive, which was written by devlopers at Weta to drive the crowd behaviour in Maya, and has since been spun off to its own product.
Cocoa(R) Programming for Mac(R) OS X by Aaron Hillegass is fantastic. Apple's tutorials don't go nearly far enough in getting you to grok Cocoa. Hillegass' book is a fantastic starting point.
If you have access to OS X, check out Cocoa. It's a really nice API that's been around a long time, thanks largely to its being built on Objective C (You gotta try Interface Builder to get the full effect, mind you).
Objective C is a really nice object oriented C variant, although it's still a C variant so you have to manage memory, have C-style for loops, and so forth. It's not Python, but as object oriented C languages go, Obj-C beats the pants off of C++.
It's not telling you how to think, but rather what to think. It's more like saying, "Think of different." Also, adding that swine bit at the end pobably wouldn't be good PR.
I think The Tick said it best: "Science in those days worked in broad strokes! They got right to the point! Nowadays it's always molecule, molecule, molecule... "
But you have to admit, that dude morphing into the other dude is pretty cool. I mean, we haven't seen morphing of that callibre since, like, 1992. And to think you'll be able to do stuff like that when you finish your degree.
That we have equipment sensitive enough to track a probe's position to within *1* km all the way out on Titan.
when you think of how many millions of miles away it is, I think it's pretty remarkable.
There we go again, mixing imperial and metric. When will we ever learn?
Re:It is not about how much rocket costs..
on
Hondas in Space
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Keep in mind that with the SpaceX approach, a lot of the parts they're using aren't custom desgined - unlike what you might find in a traditional rocket. So they have proven reliability. Well, proven reliability on Earth without all that space radiation stuff, but proven relaibility nonetheless.
Besides, the world's only mass-produced rocket had some reliability issues, from what I understand. So mass production doesn't guarentee it'll be good.
Slashdot Mirror
Considering the cost of putting stuff in space, asteroids have the big advantage of not requiring expensive rocket launches to get anything in orbit. If you're patient, you can move your ore back to Earth (or wherever in the solar system) a lot more cheaply than you would if you first had to get out of a planet's gravity well.
Well, Canada does have a strong partnership agreement with ESA, so I wouldn't be surprised. I imagine that we're as frustated as all the other nations (including, most significantly, the States) investing in the ISS with the lack of process on the station to this point.
Indeed. It's kinda like the remake of Ocean's Eleven: They tooks something that should've been good, and made it actually good.
Unfortunately, this isn't necessarily the case. We are extremely dependent on oil, not just for cheap energy, but as a basis for making stuff. Fertilizers, plastics, lubricants and all sorts of things necessary for the current economy are derived from oil. If the price of oil goes through the roof, things just may go down the crapper.
Having said that, I hope it's not the case, that the cost of oil keeps rising, and we figure out a way to maintain our standard of living without the reliance on oil we have.
I think in this case "they" are you: you must be free to change them as you like, you need maximum flexibility, and so forth. I haven't seen too many people sit in front of a really well designed interface - on a computer or otherwise - and fume about not being able to modify it; they just use it. Some people want to twiddle, but they're the minority.
If Linux continues to be developed with the mindset that everyone wants to have maximum flexibility, then it will continue to appeal to those people - often hobbyists, who get kicks out of tinkering. That's a fine niche to exploit, but it's still a niche. If Linux wants to have broad appeal, then this can't be a priority, and will need to focus on greater usability at the cost of customisability.
If you want the user to be able to determine what Taskbar/Dock type thing they want, you might want to check out DragThing as a third option, which lacks the visual style of the Dock but works a whole heck of a lot better.
I'm not a big fan of highly customizable interfaces, but man I wish I could just turn the Dock off once and for all.
Alas, that isn't the case.
Personally, I can't see Apple not putting in such a verifier - at least in the initial boxes. As everyone says, Apple makes most of their money on hardware. Not to say you won't be able to circumvent it, but I suspect such a thing'll be in there.
I doubt it. Switching compilers is never pleasant; it's a mini-platform switch. So if Apple forced this on developers along with a full-on platform switch at the same time, it would be a big headache. Perhaps they'll offer it as an alternative, but I can't see them forcing developers to switch.
Maybe Capcom'll make a wireless hub for your controller - something you can plug the old thing into, which would talk to the 360. But then I suspect they'd rather sell you a new controller for another $200, which may end up controlling the old games.
Probably the same way they always have: by buying or copying little, innovative companies. The nice thing about being huge in the software biz is that you can let startups and such try out new things, and if the little guys are successful you can either buy them up or copy 'em. See: Netscape.
Having said that, I suspect when things like this become compatable with a better VR technology that doesn't produce the eyestrain, the newer technology will come down in price...
I think that the FPS genre is kind of like Indian movies or science fiction films: just like a Bollywood movie has to have a lot of song and dance numbers no matter what it's about, and sci-fi has to have good special effects before anyone will notice them, FPS games have to have good graphics for people to pay attention. It's not all that they're about, but it's required that they at least have that to be even considered by a lot of gamers.
Me, I'm waiting till they upgrade the iMac line. If the new iMacs offer better graphics, I'll be getting one. If not, I'll be getting a PowerMac.
At the start of the year, I didn't want a new computer. Then the mini came out, and I thought I should get one 'cause they're neat. And then I thought I should get an iMac, because I'd have to get all the peripherals since I currently have a PowerBook, and besides, the mini wouldn't be much faster than what I have now. Now, I'm considering a PowerMac.
I hate Apple more than Microsoft. Microsoft's a big evil corporation, but I don't want to buy anything they make because it's all crap. Apple's a big evil corporation, but they make really cool stuff and turn me into a consumer whore. That's really evil.
Personally, I'd rather not have to pay for the privilege of improving the editing on this site. I mean, if anything, if you're paying you should have to put up with this stuff even less - rather than be expected to let the editors know when they aren't doing their jobs.
You may be thinking of Massive, which was written by devlopers at Weta to drive the crowd behaviour in Maya, and has since been spun off to its own product.
Cocoa(R) Programming for Mac(R) OS X by Aaron Hillegass is fantastic. Apple's tutorials don't go nearly far enough in getting you to grok Cocoa. Hillegass' book is a fantastic starting point.
Objective C is a really nice object oriented C variant, although it's still a C variant so you have to manage memory, have C-style for loops, and so forth. It's not Python, but as object oriented C languages go, Obj-C beats the pants off of C++.
No kidding. I mean check this thing out - it's ancient. It totally predates the iMac, so I can't see how Apple gets all the credit for such a design.
It's not telling you how to think, but rather what to think. It's more like saying, "Think of different." Also, adding that swine bit at the end pobably wouldn't be good PR.
I think The Tick said it best: "Science in those days worked in broad strokes! They got right to the point! Nowadays it's always molecule, molecule, molecule... "
Uh... they'll get progressively crappier?
But you have to admit, that dude morphing into the other dude is pretty cool. I mean, we haven't seen morphing of that callibre since, like, 1992. And to think you'll be able to do stuff like that when you finish your degree.
There we go again, mixing imperial and metric. When will we ever learn?
Besides, the world's only mass-produced rocket had some reliability issues, from what I understand. So mass production doesn't guarentee it'll be good.