Actually no. We nuked Japan because we did not want the USSR to liberate Japan,
While that may have been to some extent an unwritten view, the official one asfaik was to prevent an invasion. Then again, nothing ever does stop conspiracy theories does it?
like they did Germany(they were the first ones in Berlin and who killed all the remaining Nazis while we stayed about 60 miles away cleaning up any insurgents).
They got to Berlin first because Churchill, Stalin and Roosevelt agreed beforehand that the area would belong to the Soviets no matter who took it over. I believe the argument was that it would be a waste of Allied lives to take over Berlin only to have to give it back to the Soviets, may as well have them make the sacrifice.
. In fact many of the leaders in Japan were considering surrendering but would not surrender unconditionally like we wanted, they wanted to be able to keep there emperor who they viewed as God like.
That is true asfaik; I believe the emperor would also retain some powers and his divine status. The US still kept the emperor although with no power and no longer officially divine. Such a conditional surrender may have proved devastating in terms of rebuilding Japan in such a way as to prevent future conflicts.
Many also believe that it was a race thing, many people hated the Japanese which is one of the reasons why we had interment camps for them.
Yes racism is fun, anti-semitism was also rampant everywhere at the time not just Germany. Then again, after what the Japanese did to prisoners of war and those they conquered a certain level of hatred during the end of the war was understandable.
...as does almost every other fuckin weapon and war. Dresden had more deaths than either atomic bomb.
The alternative was an invasion, had that happened you'd be bitching about how we should have used the bomb to save the millions that died due to the invasion.
In Berlin children and the elderly were forced to fight or be shot by their own side. Many died, most were lacking decent weaponry or supplies and simply acted as a last ditch human shield. You think the Japanese would somehow act "better" during an invasion than the Germans did?
Of course, this is not counting the thousands who would die of disease or famine as they resist invasion on their already supply starved island. Then there would have been the inevitable massive non-nuclear bombings so common during WW2, which would probably lead to many more deaths alone than the two atomic bombs did.
In a more philosophical sense, there were few real civilians as they were almost all helping the war effort one way or another (Japanese are efficient that way). The American troops were also civilians till they got dragged into this, so were the Japanese troops for that matter.
They're kids, they're expected to pull of stuff like this and in reality they're learning as a result. Probably more than some classes they're taking. Of course the district has underpaid IT staff and so needs to use the law instead of computer security to enforce its policies. The HS I went to was amazingly lenient in such matters, probably because it didn't want bad PR and partially because it understood that certain activities were inevitable and not too damaging. Potentially the IT staff knew they were overworked and that too many things were half-asses to hold people liable once they find the visible flaws in them. I think the only one who got suspended was for trying to change grades.
Imho, the worst punishment should be a suspension for a few days and a week at worst. Furthermore, the district has now got at least one student who is at least marginally intelligent and creative with computers. In other words, they have someone to double check any new security system for flaws or even to suggest security systems. You know, do things that will actually teach kids something. Sadly, schools don't care about children learning or being creative but only about standardized tests and sports it seems.
Next time learn what you're talking about before insulting others, Javascript != Java and AJAX uses Javascript. The backend AJAX connects to can be fuckin anything, even a room full of monkeys.
Just as difficult as was writing assembly back in the 60s and 70s?
Probably a lot more difficult, CPUs are a lot more complex (to make them faster, just look at the transistor count) and have more instructions/quirks. To get the most speed you'd need to know most of them I assume, since that nice looking instruction which seems to do just what you need may actually be slower than using 5 other instructions.
Problem is that if they don't do it someone else may, and then they may sue them. BAsically, they're screwed either way and whatever bad press this may cause is probably less damaging than a potential lawsuit. The Patent system is a mess and such things are the result of it.
As the other poster said, you're dead wrong about "gifted" children. Let me first say that gifted kids are the top 5% and so on, and I am one of them I think. I never studies much (I cheated on a lot of tests in school) however in three months I learned enough math to pass the Calculus AP exam in 6th grade. The most math I knew before then was some basic algebra, you know one variable equations and so on.
At one point, I wondered: "hey why don't more kids do this" then one day I realized "because they can't." I look at math and "get it" quite often, so face it: genetics make us all different and trying to say we're all the same is one reason everything is such crap. There are probably some child development issues (too young and the brain isn't properly developed) however some kids can simply learn much more quickly or "get" certain topics more easily. As such, you can teach the same material to two kids and one will need two years to understand it while another will need a few months.
So yes, education can be sped up however there are limits (still takes some times to learn the basics) and some students will be faster. Those should be helped, instead of shot in the knees (with an RPG round in some cases) as in the current system.
Oh, and if you're wondering I took the AP exam because my magnet middle school (which according to the NYC Board of Education did not exists, and neither do any magnet schools, as told to my father when eh was asking about middle schools) was forcing me to take a mind-numbingly easy math class. Oddly enough, learning Calculus was one of the easier methods of never having to do that again (they need to provide education at my level, and I got a paper saying they can never do that so I never took math in middle/high school again).
Regardless what you believe or don't believe about religion, creation, etc., you ought to recognize that evolution is not a proved fact -- it's theory, taken by different people to apply to different spheres of study (biological evolution, special evolution, micro, macro, etc.).
Gravity is also a theory; all science is by definition a theory. Tomorrow I may suddenly fly right up into the air, breaking the current theories on gravity. They'll simply find a new theory then. Also micro/macro evolution is mostly a term made by Christians in a last ditch attempt to save face since omg bacteria can evolve.
Evolution also doesn't say much about how life began, that is its own field mostly. It says what happened after life began though, becoming more concrete as life starts to look more and more modern (DNA, etc.).
One need not be opposed to evolution to be inspired by the possibility that life as we know it emerged (and continues to emerge) according to the design of a higher intelligence.
It could mean a lot of things, hell the whole go damn planet could have popped out of nothingness by pure chance. So where is this evidence of a higher intelligence, what about evidence of it contributing to evolution, well? You're using a fallacy of argument, you can't dismiss one theory and say "ha, because its not X it must be Y" without actually showing that Y is correct.
Also, even if a higher intelligence made life or hell the universe (which is oddly well suited for our form of life) as you seem to keep saying from this point on why assume it continued to do so? You keep saying how we can't show the origin of life, however that says nothing about most of evolution including natural selection and so on. I once again say: where is your data, where is your continual influence from a higher intelligence?
See, "intelligent design" is a worthless theory as it provides no useful information. "Something helped make life and helped it evolve." Well, what was it? How did it do so? Was there a reason for this? When was this done? What exact effects did it cause? Funny how those can't be answered, nor is there any way to try and answer them so far nor even disprove them. No experiments can be made, none can be proposed and so it is not even a theory as it cannot be disproved.
Until you can show me that life can emerge from a naturally occurring (meaning under present or past conditions), non-living chemical mix, in a repeatable fashion, then it is not unreasonable to assume that life does not simply emerge from nothingness.
So you don't believe in any form of long term astrology, long term geology, long term climate study, etc. Experiments have created precursor molecules however such processes on Earth would have had hundreds of millions of years to happen, last I checked we don't. Its probability, given long enough time frames even every unlikely events will happen and for life you only need them to happen once (ie: life is self-reproducing, once started it just keeps on going).
So what do you consider life? What do you consider non-living? Are nucleotides life? Are nucleotides living? What about some very simple RNA molecules inside a small oil shell surrounded by nucleotide like molecules? What if the RNA is capable of making more RNA from those nucleotides? What if it's a subset of RNA that makes more of its own members? What if they can make the nucleotides? How long does the oil shell need to exists for? Does the shell need to be able to split into two new ones?
Personally I don't see why inorganic molecules forming cells is so hard for people to believe, maybe it's an inability to grasp the long time frames and low probabilities involved. Then again, I see it no differently from genetic mutations leading to new organisms except on a longer time frame.
*shrugs* Insults only work against those who care and I usually don't, nor do I have need to flaunt my e-penis. As for you being a zealot, I mean with statements like this:
"Once again YET ANOTHER feature that has been standard with Apple for sometime is accredited as a "NEW AND REVOLUTIONARY" approach to user interaction."
what else is one to deduce? I mean, you seem to write some semi-coherent rant comparing an interesting new idea to a feature in OS X which as best I gather is only related in general theme (ie: ways to access folders not fully visible). I mean, come on you could have at least thought your rant out. I would have responded to it in more detail however I honestly have no idea what half of it said since as I said before it's barely coherent.
I say it again: switch to decaff, you seem to really need it.
You should switch to decaff man, it'd do wonders for you. I honestly can't understand half your post but let's see now:
-Last I checked, OS X doesn't have this feature. It may have something similar but not the paper like windows that they are talking about.
-"After the crap-flood of spyware, malware, viruses and script-kiddie exploits for Windows became so prevailing": Yup, anti-windows zealot right there. I guess I should fill you in: if you have any amount of computer knowledge none of those will get you even without a firewall/antivirus program.
Isn't it possible that the planet got knocked away from its original star and got grabbed by the new one? Now if more such planets are found then its time to look at other theories but one doesn't mean much.
The thing is that its not that hard to see how many teachers are good and how many are bad, as long as we don't use this information extensively. Once we do, problems like the ones listed above would show up since they may wish to raise their "performence ratings" (they do that in NYC, scandals aren't uncommon).
Anyway, from what I've heard good teachers spend a lot more time on their job than the 8 to 3, 180 days you describe. They need to prepare material, grade things, potentially help specific students, potentially meet with parents, etc.
The thing is that teachers in NYC for example get paid $45k or so on average, to work in a not so good system. If they're good they can move an hour away and get paid $65k+, potentially more. Thats the problem in big cities, no matter what they pay the suburbs can pay more. My school lost a very good teacher because the city were beuracratic morons and basically said: "your degree from Romania doesn't matter, ha ha." After many years of trying to get paid what he deserves, and what he basically needs to support his family, he took an easier and better paying job elsewhere.
Yes it would be, if the Shuttle went into space with the covers which it doesn't. Even if they tried I assume they'd fall off somewhere during launch, probably doing some nice damage. So the answer to your question is: Mu.
And how in gods name will you know if the students underperform? Grades? "Everyone gets an A, good job." (had one like this) Standadized tests? "Okay lets spend half the year studying worthless crap simply so you can do better on this worthless test." Parents? "If you don't give my son less homework I'll complain. If my son doesn't pass I'll complain."
Nice solution however the devil is in the details.
XP Home upgrade is only $99 I believe, of course that assumes you have a (not in use) copy of Windows 95 or over (oem and upgrade copies seem to qualify as well).
He does understand that as well, read the actual interview not the butchered blurb, however they're all hobbyists to him. And he is right, they are hobbyists at least those who write the actual software. What is so hard to understand about that? As you yourself said, they're motivations are different and in essence more "fluid" than that of a paid developer. They may get bored when that annoying last 5% of the app has to get done (like fixing those annoying bugs, etc.), other things may come up, and so on.
However, as he says they seem to get pissed off quite often when they realize he is able to make money of it while they can't.
The interview is pretty vague, however it appears to me that he doesn't particularly like the model where you basically sell service or whatever while using hobbyist to make the actual code. As you yourself pointed out hobbyist have different motivations, which he would probably argue aren't the best for keeping such a business model alive. Even in Linux the main developers, asfaik, are basically paid to work on the Kernel.
Seeing as he makes OSS whih generates decent revenue for him and pays for its own development, so I would assume he knows all that much better than you.
If I remember correctly we've already dumped more radiation into the atmosphere than such a deflection would. There were all those nukes (tests mostly), a few space probes (which for some time vented their radiactive fuel in case of problems), and coal power plants (which I belive put out some radiactive material since its in the coal they burn, small for each plant but we burn a shitload of coal). In the end, the Earth is a big place and it probably doesn't really matter.
I forgot to add: You also can't pay Y to get a phone with all features enabled or buy a "better" model because it simply doesn't exist (if you use verizon that is). In other words, Verizon is disabling features so you're forced to use their services and pay more.
You don't understand the situation, Motorola makes a phone with X features. They make one fully working version, you buy such a version through Verizon. Again, fully working hardware wise or at least before Verizon got it. Verizon now disables certain features which are already working to make more money, some quite ridiculously.
I guess an analogy would be getting a discount on a computer if you sign up for some internet access. The computer comes with a cd-rom drive however the internet access provider has a custom bios which disables most of its functions. Only way to get most files onto/off-of it is by using their internet service and paying them for it.
And I can find some guy in an asylumn who finds meaning only in dog shit, does that mean I have to make all my designs out of it?
Get your head out of your ass, wil you? Of course the parent meant: most people and probably a vast majority. If you dispute those claims (which I assume are in the listed bnooks) then please do post these studies of your own, well?
single threaded (do something that takes any time and your desktop is hosed for minutes)
Could someone explain this to me, is Finder the equivalent of Explorer in Windows? Since if it is then I wouldn't WANT it to be multi-threaded. See when Explorer decides to lock up at 100% cpu usage it only takes out one of my cpus, and at least once it took me a while before I realized "hey things are a bit sluggish." Of course, Finder may be different.
Yes and I don't believe the engine (used in the prototype) was reusable although I might be wrong. Now, there was a design with a reusable engine/central stage however that added complications and was in essence a shuttle in itself (it was to glide back down). The Energia engine also uses different propellant and I'm not sure how that impacts engine cost/efficiency.
It did occur to me that one way of reusing the engine may be to use a two-stage central section. This of course adds weight and complexity (more engines and a need for some recovery method), which may in the end not be worth it compared to getting a cheaper engine (shuttles are not launched nearly enough for such "excessive" reusability to be worthwhile). This method would also have the problem of needing to be dropped early enough to not require heat shielding, which may make the use of the shuttle main tank pointless (ie: it sends things up too high on its own to allow this).
Personally, I'd just go with cheaper engines since it works rather well for other rockets (and you'd probably save a lot from simply not having to deal with the shuttle). In end it'd probably still be a lot cheaper than using a shuttle to send things up.
You're missing certain points. That shuttle weight includes the engines, have fun launching things without those. So that wil ltake up some mass as well. In addition the Shuttle engines were designed along the lines of: efficiency and reusability above all else including cost. Yup, they're expensive, efficient and designed to be reused. So those of course can't be used for a non-reusable launch vechicle which means the engines used won't be quite as good. It can stil lsend a lot into LOE but not nearly as much as you're talking about.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually no. We nuked Japan because we did not want the USSR to liberate Japan,
While that may have been to some extent an unwritten view, the official one asfaik was to prevent an invasion. Then again, nothing ever does stop conspiracy theories does it?
like they did Germany(they were the first ones in Berlin and who killed all the remaining Nazis while we stayed about 60 miles away cleaning up any insurgents).
They got to Berlin first because Churchill, Stalin and Roosevelt agreed beforehand that the area would belong to the Soviets no matter who took it over. I believe the argument was that it would be a waste of Allied lives to take over Berlin only to have to give it back to the Soviets, may as well have them make the sacrifice.
. In fact many of the leaders in Japan were considering surrendering but would not surrender unconditionally like we wanted, they wanted to be able to keep there emperor who they viewed as God like.
That is true asfaik; I believe the emperor would also retain some powers and his divine status. The US still kept the emperor although with no power and no longer officially divine. Such a conditional surrender may have proved devastating in terms of rebuilding Japan in such a way as to prevent future conflicts.
Many also believe that it was a race thing, many people hated the Japanese which is one of the reasons why we had interment camps for them.
Yes racism is fun, anti-semitism was also rampant everywhere at the time not just Germany. Then again, after what the Japanese did to prisoners of war and those they conquered a certain level of hatred during the end of the war was understandable.
Now you go get your facts please.
Same to you.
...as does almost every other fuckin weapon and war. Dresden had more deaths than either atomic bomb.
The alternative was an invasion, had that happened you'd be bitching about how we should have used the bomb to save the millions that died due to the invasion.
In Berlin children and the elderly were forced to fight or be shot by their own side. Many died, most were lacking decent weaponry or supplies and simply acted as a last ditch human shield. You think the Japanese would somehow act "better" during an invasion than the Germans did?
Of course, this is not counting the thousands who would die of disease or famine as they resist invasion on their already supply starved island. Then there would have been the inevitable massive non-nuclear bombings so common during WW2, which would probably lead to many more deaths alone than the two atomic bombs did.
In a more philosophical sense, there were few real civilians as they were almost all helping the war effort one way or another (Japanese are efficient that way). The American troops were also civilians till they got dragged into this, so were the Japanese troops for that matter.
They're kids, they're expected to pull of stuff like this and in reality they're learning as a result. Probably more than some classes they're taking. Of course the district has underpaid IT staff and so needs to use the law instead of computer security to enforce its policies. The HS I went to was amazingly lenient in such matters, probably because it didn't want bad PR and partially because it understood that certain activities were inevitable and not too damaging. Potentially the IT staff knew they were overworked and that too many things were half-asses to hold people liable once they find the visible flaws in them. I think the only one who got suspended was for trying to change grades.
Imho, the worst punishment should be a suspension for a few days and a week at worst. Furthermore, the district has now got at least one student who is at least marginally intelligent and creative with computers. In other words, they have someone to double check any new security system for flaws or even to suggest security systems. You know, do things that will actually teach kids something. Sadly, schools don't care about children learning or being creative but only about standardized tests and sports it seems.
What competition?
Next time learn what you're talking about before insulting others, Javascript != Java and AJAX uses Javascript. The backend AJAX connects to can be fuckin anything, even a room full of monkeys.
Just as difficult as was writing assembly back in the 60s and 70s?
Probably a lot more difficult, CPUs are a lot more complex (to make them faster, just look at the transistor count) and have more instructions/quirks. To get the most speed you'd need to know most of them I assume, since that nice looking instruction which seems to do just what you need may actually be slower than using 5 other instructions.
Problem is that if they don't do it someone else may, and then they may sue them. BAsically, they're screwed either way and whatever bad press this may cause is probably less damaging than a potential lawsuit. The Patent system is a mess and such things are the result of it.
As the other poster said, you're dead wrong about "gifted" children. Let me first say that gifted kids are the top 5% and so on, and I am one of them I think. I never studies much (I cheated on a lot of tests in school) however in three months I learned enough math to pass the Calculus AP exam in 6th grade. The most math I knew before then was some basic algebra, you know one variable equations and so on.
At one point, I wondered: "hey why don't more kids do this" then one day I realized "because they can't." I look at math and "get it" quite often, so face it: genetics make us all different and trying to say we're all the same is one reason everything is such crap. There are probably some child development issues (too young and the brain isn't properly developed) however some kids can simply learn much more quickly or "get" certain topics more easily. As such, you can teach the same material to two kids and one will need two years to understand it while another will need a few months.
So yes, education can be sped up however there are limits (still takes some times to learn the basics) and some students will be faster. Those should be helped, instead of shot in the knees (with an RPG round in some cases) as in the current system.
Oh, and if you're wondering I took the AP exam because my magnet middle school (which according to the NYC Board of Education did not exists, and neither do any magnet schools, as told to my father when eh was asking about middle schools) was forcing me to take a mind-numbingly easy math class. Oddly enough, learning Calculus was one of the easier methods of never having to do that again (they need to provide education at my level, and I got a paper saying they can never do that so I never took math in middle/high school again).
Regardless what you believe or don't believe about religion, creation, etc., you ought to recognize that evolution is not a proved fact -- it's theory, taken by different people to apply to different spheres of study (biological evolution, special evolution, micro, macro, etc.).
Gravity is also a theory; all science is by definition a theory. Tomorrow I may suddenly fly right up into the air, breaking the current theories on gravity. They'll simply find a new theory then. Also micro/macro evolution is mostly a term made by Christians in a last ditch attempt to save face since omg bacteria can evolve.
Evolution also doesn't say much about how life began, that is its own field mostly. It says what happened after life began though, becoming more concrete as life starts to look more and more modern (DNA, etc.).
One need not be opposed to evolution to be inspired by the possibility that life as we know it emerged (and continues to emerge) according to the design of a higher intelligence.
It could mean a lot of things, hell the whole go damn planet could have popped out of nothingness by pure chance. So where is this evidence of a higher intelligence, what about evidence of it contributing to evolution, well? You're using a fallacy of argument, you can't dismiss one theory and say "ha, because its not X it must be Y" without actually showing that Y is correct.
Also, even if a higher intelligence made life or hell the universe (which is oddly well suited for our form of life) as you seem to keep saying from this point on why assume it continued to do so? You keep saying how we can't show the origin of life, however that says nothing about most of evolution including natural selection and so on. I once again say: where is your data, where is your continual influence from a higher intelligence?
See, "intelligent design" is a worthless theory as it provides no useful information. "Something helped make life and helped it evolve." Well, what was it? How did it do so? Was there a reason for this? When was this done? What exact effects did it cause? Funny how those can't be answered, nor is there any way to try and answer them so far nor even disprove them. No experiments can be made, none can be proposed and so it is not even a theory as it cannot be disproved.
Until you can show me that life can emerge from a naturally occurring (meaning under present or past conditions), non-living chemical mix, in a repeatable fashion, then it is not unreasonable to assume that life does not simply emerge from nothingness.
So you don't believe in any form of long term astrology, long term geology, long term climate study, etc. Experiments have created precursor molecules however such processes on Earth would have had hundreds of millions of years to happen, last I checked we don't. Its probability, given long enough time frames even every unlikely events will happen and for life you only need them to happen once (ie: life is self-reproducing, once started it just keeps on going).
So what do you consider life? What do you consider non-living? Are nucleotides life? Are nucleotides living? What about some very simple RNA molecules inside a small oil shell surrounded by nucleotide like molecules? What if the RNA is capable of making more RNA from those nucleotides? What if it's a subset of RNA that makes more of its own members? What if they can make the nucleotides? How long does the oil shell need to exists for? Does the shell need to be able to split into two new ones?
Personally I don't see why inorganic molecules forming cells is so hard for people to believe, maybe it's an inability to grasp the long time frames and low probabilities involved. Then again, I see it no differently from genetic mutations leading to new organisms except on a longer time frame.
*shrugs* Insults only work against those who care and I usually don't, nor do I have need to flaunt my e-penis. As for you being a zealot, I mean with statements like this:
"Once again YET ANOTHER feature that has been standard with Apple for sometime is accredited as a "NEW AND REVOLUTIONARY" approach to user interaction."
what else is one to deduce? I mean, you seem to write some semi-coherent rant comparing an interesting new idea to a feature in OS X which as best I gather is only related in general theme (ie: ways to access folders not fully visible). I mean, come on you could have at least thought your rant out. I would have responded to it in more detail however I honestly have no idea what half of it said since as I said before it's barely coherent.
I say it again: switch to decaff, you seem to really need it.
You should switch to decaff man, it'd do wonders for you. I honestly can't understand half your post but let's see now:
-Last I checked, OS X doesn't have this feature. It may have something similar but not the paper like windows that they are talking about.
-"After the crap-flood of spyware, malware, viruses and script-kiddie exploits for Windows became so prevailing": Yup, anti-windows zealot right there. I guess I should fill you in: if you have any amount of computer knowledge none of those will get you even without a firewall/antivirus program.
Isn't it possible that the planet got knocked away from its original star and got grabbed by the new one? Now if more such planets are found then its time to look at other theories but one doesn't mean much.
The thing is that its not that hard to see how many teachers are good and how many are bad, as long as we don't use this information extensively. Once we do, problems like the ones listed above would show up since they may wish to raise their "performence ratings" (they do that in NYC, scandals aren't uncommon).
Anyway, from what I've heard good teachers spend a lot more time on their job than the 8 to 3, 180 days you describe. They need to prepare material, grade things, potentially help specific students, potentially meet with parents, etc.
The thing is that teachers in NYC for example get paid $45k or so on average, to work in a not so good system. If they're good they can move an hour away and get paid $65k+, potentially more. Thats the problem in big cities, no matter what they pay the suburbs can pay more. My school lost a very good teacher because the city were beuracratic morons and basically said: "your degree from Romania doesn't matter, ha ha." After many years of trying to get paid what he deserves, and what he basically needs to support his family, he took an easier and better paying job elsewhere.
Yes it would be, if the Shuttle went into space with the covers which it doesn't. Even if they tried I assume they'd fall off somewhere during launch, probably doing some nice damage. So the answer to your question is: Mu.
And how in gods name will you know if the students underperform?
Grades? "Everyone gets an A, good job." (had one like this)
Standadized tests? "Okay lets spend half the year studying worthless crap simply so you can do better on this worthless test."
Parents? "If you don't give my son less homework I'll complain. If my son doesn't pass I'll complain."
Nice solution however the devil is in the details.
XP Home upgrade is only $99 I believe, of course that assumes you have a (not in use) copy of Windows 95 or over (oem and upgrade copies seem to qualify as well).
He does understand that as well, read the actual interview not the butchered blurb, however they're all hobbyists to him. And he is right, they are hobbyists at least those who write the actual software. What is so hard to understand about that? As you yourself said, they're motivations are different and in essence more "fluid" than that of a paid developer. They may get bored when that annoying last 5% of the app has to get done (like fixing those annoying bugs, etc.), other things may come up, and so on.
However, as he says they seem to get pissed off quite often when they realize he is able to make money of it while they can't.
The interview is pretty vague, however it appears to me that he doesn't particularly like the model where you basically sell service or whatever while using hobbyist to make the actual code. As you yourself pointed out hobbyist have different motivations, which he would probably argue aren't the best for keeping such a business model alive. Even in Linux the main developers, asfaik, are basically paid to work on the Kernel.
Seeing as he makes OSS whih generates decent revenue for him and pays for its own development, so I would assume he knows all that much better than you.
If I remember correctly we've already dumped more radiation into the atmosphere than such a deflection would. There were all those nukes (tests mostly), a few space probes (which for some time vented their radiactive fuel in case of problems), and coal power plants (which I belive put out some radiactive material since its in the coal they burn, small for each plant but we burn a shitload of coal). In the end, the Earth is a big place and it probably doesn't really matter.
I forgot to add: You also can't pay Y to get a phone with all features enabled or buy a "better" model because it simply doesn't exist (if you use verizon that is). In other words, Verizon is disabling features so you're forced to use their services and pay more.
You don't understand the situation, Motorola makes a phone with X features. They make one fully working version, you buy such a version through Verizon. Again, fully working hardware wise or at least before Verizon got it. Verizon now disables certain features which are already working to make more money, some quite ridiculously.
I guess an analogy would be getting a discount on a computer if you sign up for some internet access. The computer comes with a cd-rom drive however the internet access provider has a custom bios which disables most of its functions. Only way to get most files onto/off-of it is by using their internet service and paying them for it.
And I can find some guy in an asylumn who finds meaning only in dog shit, does that mean I have to make all my designs out of it?
Get your head out of your ass, wil you? Of course the parent meant: most people and probably a vast majority. If you dispute those claims (which I assume are in the listed bnooks) then please do post these studies of your own, well?
single threaded (do something that takes any time and your desktop is hosed for minutes)
Could someone explain this to me, is Finder the equivalent of Explorer in Windows? Since if it is then I wouldn't WANT it to be multi-threaded. See when Explorer decides to lock up at 100% cpu usage it only takes out one of my cpus, and at least once it took me a while before I realized "hey things are a bit sluggish." Of course, Finder may be different.
Yes and I don't believe the engine (used in the prototype) was reusable although I might be wrong. Now, there was a design with a reusable engine/central stage however that added complications and was in essence a shuttle in itself (it was to glide back down). The Energia engine also uses different propellant and I'm not sure how that impacts engine cost/efficiency.
It did occur to me that one way of reusing the engine may be to use a two-stage central section. This of course adds weight and complexity (more engines and a need for some recovery method), which may in the end not be worth it compared to getting a cheaper engine (shuttles are not launched nearly enough for such "excessive" reusability to be worthwhile). This method would also have the problem of needing to be dropped early enough to not require heat shielding, which may make the use of the shuttle main tank pointless (ie: it sends things up too high on its own to allow this).
Personally, I'd just go with cheaper engines since it works rather well for other rockets (and you'd probably save a lot from simply not having to deal with the shuttle). In end it'd probably still be a lot cheaper than using a shuttle to send things up.
You're missing certain points. That shuttle weight includes the engines, have fun launching things without those. So that wil ltake up some mass as well. In addition the Shuttle engines were designed along the lines of: efficiency and reusability above all else including cost. Yup, they're expensive, efficient and designed to be reused. So those of course can't be used for a non-reusable launch vechicle which means the engines used won't be quite as good. It can stil lsend a lot into LOE but not nearly as much as you're talking about.