Right. I think we can all agree on this, "Talk, yes. Do, no." That is to say, by all means have the hardware engineer communicate with the software developer and vice versa, but don't have the hardware person writing code, and don't have the software person slinging transistors.
That's true, but, if the did go to an ASIC vendor they could have got a contract indemnifying them from taking losses when the chip turned out to be flawed. By doing the chip design themselves, they saved a little bit of costs, but also took on all the risks of having a bad design.
That's what the parent poster is alluding to. A manager with experience in technology would have understood that, while designing your own chip might have been cheaper, it would have also introduced significant downside risk, which ought to have been factored into the equation. Farming the chip design out to a third party, while more expensive in the short term, would have entailed less long-term risk.
"Getting shit done without melodrama..." You mean like shoving the Patriot Act or DMCA down our throats with little debate and even less public comment? No, thank you, I'd rather have a Congress that sits on its collective ass and engages in melodrama, thank you.
If you want "efficient" government, move to a dictatorship.
Sounds like a good idea, but sometimes you need to act faster than 90 days in order to be effective.
Nonsense. The Legislative Branch should not be responding to emergencies. That's the Executive Branch's job.
The quintissential case is a Pearl Harbor style scenario, where America is under attack and we need a declaration of war. I'd argue that, in this day and age, we could have a provision stating that the President is free to deploy the troops for up to 90 days, but, following that grace period, he must get a declaration of war from Congress (not a resolution, or an authorization, but a formal declaration of war), otherwise he has to bring the troops home. This would allow ample time for the president to respond to short term emergencies, while still leaving leeway for the US to respond credibly to unprovoked attacks.
When was the last time you bought a car? I bought my '07 Hyundai Elantra last year, and I can tell you that there were at least as many manual on the lot as there were automatics. I shopped Toyota Corollas and Honda Civics too (not as extensively), and they too had plenty of manuals on the lots.
As for incentive packages, I don't think I've ever seen an incentive package for one of these cars that said "You have to get the automatic version", in the fine print.
did you and each one of your friends purchase a valid license as well?
Indeed we did. Well, not directly, but the University bought licenses to cover its engineering students, and my lab fees contributed to that.
If a large percentage of people were cracking software only because the activation system didn't work on their valid copy, businesses wouldn't be investing all kinds of money into copy-protection systems (there would be no point).
Either that, or they don't care, because their software is "industry standard", and consumers have few other alternatives. Photoshop, Maya, Microsoft Office, MATLAB/Mathematica all fit the bill here.
Well, there are no GM branded cars, per se. Instead, GM makes cars under a number of other brands, including Chevrolet, Pontiac, Saturn, and, yes, Cadillac.
good luck finding a modern car with a stick-shift unless it's a sports car or you custom order it.
You do realize that all the "entry level" cars, such as the Hyundai Elantra, Toyota Corolla, Honda Civic, etc. all come with manual transmissions standard, right? On all these cars, getting an automatic transmission is an option that adds to the cost of the car.
The plural of anecdote is not data. As a university student, I know that I and many of my friends have downloaded cracked versions of software, simply because the software's activation scheme was so god-awfully unreliable, the cracked version was actually more useful than the legitimate version (MATLAB, I'm looking squarely at you). We paid for the software (sometimes directly, but usually through our university tuition), so why shouldn't we be able to use the software?
This might not be the most popular response for our crowd here, but... either find & buy a second-hand copy of the software, or get over it.
That's all well and good until you realize that, increasingly, publishers are effectively banning second hand sales by placing restrictions in the copy protection mechanism or the end-user license agreement.
Taking off again from a gravity well makes it twice as difficult as a one way trip.
That's true, but we've figured that out on our moon missions. Granted, the moon has a much smaller gravity field, but the same principles could be used to design a Mars lander.
Plus there's the fact that a year of living supplies makes for a very large spacecraft, which then needs much more propellant too.
Who says you need a single large craft? Why not send supplies ahead, and then send astronauts only when the supplies have either landed or are prepositioned in Martian orbit?
Heh. I too played Runescape, and I can say that the one thing that kept me in the game, even when it had been overrun by grade-schoolers, was the finality of PvP death. Hell, I remember when you lost everything you were carrying when you died in PvP. It added risk and adventure to the game, and kept it engaging.
They'd appear to be an overall level of like 60 when they like lvl 90 in just one skill that they used to kick your ass.
So? Them's the breaks. As long as they built up those skills legitimately without cracking the system in some way, I don't see any problems with a strategy like that. It sounds like you're whining because someone found a way to play more effectively than you.
Sure sounds a lot like levels to me, except that your level is associated with time youve spent in game...
Not really. He's saying that an older player is more likely to know his options and the available strategies, and will be able to use that knowledge against the newbie. The same thing applies in all games. In Starcraft for example, figuring out a good build order can help immensely, and the ability to multitask effectively only comes with time. In FPS games, the ability to circle strafe and aim effectively at moving targets also takes time to build up.
Even board games require time and experience. Take chess for example. You really can't argue that a newbie who's sitting down at a chessboard for the first time can beat an experienced player who's been studying openings and endgames for years.
By your logic, all games have level systems, since in almost every game, an experienced player will usually beat the newbie.
Nonsense. If "unwilling" were solely the consumer's problem, then there'd be no pressure on the vendor to make a product that consumers are willing to buy.
We have no experience of long-duration space flight outside Earth's magnetic field. The longest (and only) manned flights outside it have been to the Moon and lasted only a couple days. We are talking about multi-year flight with little protection from cosmic radiation. We need to properly shield the spaceship or they will be cooked before they get there.
That's a fair point, and one that I don't think that people emphasize enough. The difficulty of designing a life-support system for long term spaceflight is not to be underestimated.
It has to be big enough to carry crew, supplies and spare parts for the redundant system. We are talking about something the size of the IIS, with a big engine attached to it. Even if we don't use solar panels and go nuclear (in violation of several annoying treaties), the spaceship required would be quite big.
Why would the spaceship require an especially large engine? In space you don't have nearly the same amount of friction and drag that you do on Earth. Even relatively small rockets can be effective once you're outside the atmosphere.
There is also the question of the Mars landing. We have never landed anything there that's bigger than my desk. We are talking about a powered landing of several habitats, supply-storage facilities and fuel manufacturing facilities and the solar or nuclear power required to power them.
Who says we have to deliver it all in one giant load? It'd be much more effective to launch all of the supplies ahead of the astronauts and make sure that everything had landed properly before sending humans on their way.
As for coming back, we will have to conduct a launch of a reusable, probably single-stage-to-orbit (as we want to cut down complexity as much as we can), vehicle. We never did that, but Mars has a more forgiving gravity than the Earth and we may already have the proper technology for that.
Why does the orbiter have to be "reusable"? I mean, look at the Apollo missions - the lunar lander had a single-use return to Earth module. Shouldn't we use a beefed up variant of that design?
After that, the vehicle I just described must dock with the return vehicle (which may of may not be the same vehicle they arrived in) to return to Earth.
Assuming that you've got the life support requirements worked out (which you've had to do in order to make the trip out to Mars), this procedure is virtually identical to the procedure that the Apollo astronauts had to do in order to return to Earth. The LEM had to dock with the command module for the return trip. This is the same thing, only you're docking with something like the ISS, rather than the Apollo command module.
It's hugely complicated.
That it is, but you're forgetting that a lot of it has already been done
Let's get back to the Moon first, make sure we have the technology to survive there for long periods and then venture on to Mars. A dozen dead astronauts won't help.
How will living on the moon help us with going to Mars, pray tell? The moon is still inside the Earth's magnetic field, so it won't help us with the most pressing issue - designing a craft to carry humans through interplanetary space. And, as for the other problems, they were already all solved during the '60s. Why do we need to solve them again?
Going to the moon was extremely difficult too. Remember, before the creation of NASA, the US had never launched anything into space, nor had we ever attempted to attain escape velocity. To go from zero, as it were, to craft capable of taking humans safely to orbital, and then escape velocity was a huge achievement.
By comparison, much of the prototype work for the Mars trip has already been done. We already know how to get to escape velocity, we've worked out the orbital mechanics, and we even know the basics of landing. Hell, the Viking landers figured all that out in the '70s. The big obstacle now is to make a life-support system capable of sustaining human life for the three month voyage. True, its no easy task, but I don't think it's more difficult than building a space program from scratch.
Not really. Eve Online isn't a flight simulator, its an RPG. You don't have the visceral fun of actually dodging around and flying maneuvers in an effort to get the perfect angle on your enemy. Instead (like in many other MMORPGs) you fly in, select your target and your ship does all the work for you.
The real fun in Eve Online is in outfitting and customizing your ship, which is why many people say that Eve Online is fun if your idea of entertainment involves Excel spreadsheets.
Well, they connected to the tracker yes, but the key point of the research is that they were able to frame IPs that were not connected to the tracker (like the network printer and wireless access point). In other words, they were able to pass the blame onto a completely innocent bystander.
And of course, everyone knows "pirates" commonly connect to torrent trackers to do nothing.
And who says you have to be a pirate to connect to a tracker? What if you just want to get a baseline for the amount of bittorrent traffic on the internet? What if you're doing research into the use of bittorrent-like protocols to implement a distributed storage system? There are many legitimate reasons to connect to a tracker and "do nothing", as it were.
Maybe not straight into the kernel tree, but if a person can only contribute 25% of what needs doing and do so, shouldn't inherently prevent a patch from being accepted.
I'm not sure about that. Arguably, if you're not experienced enough to follow good coding procedures and have proper tests and documentation, you have no business to be messing about with the kernel. Same if you don't have knowledge of the concepts behind low level OS code.
As a user of the Linux kernel, I expect it to perform reliably. Having a high code quality standards helps ensure that. In the open source model you only get an opportunity to have your code included, not a right.
But you see, the thing with standards is that the longer they live, the harder they are to kill. At 30 years old, the x86 ISA is damn near invincible now.
No. For the apple to behave as you describe, it'd have to have an initial horizontal velocity large enough to put it in orbit. Even without kinetic energy absorption, the apple would still fall down - it'd just bounce back up to the same height it fell from afterwards. (For the purposes of the discussion, I'm assuming that "down" is towards the center of the Earth)
Slashdot Mirror
Come back and tell me when your kid get hooked on meth FROM READING AN ARTICLE IN WIRED.
Right. I think we can all agree on this, "Talk, yes. Do, no." That is to say, by all means have the hardware engineer communicate with the software developer and vice versa, but don't have the hardware person writing code, and don't have the software person slinging transistors.
That's true, but, if the did go to an ASIC vendor they could have got a contract indemnifying them from taking losses when the chip turned out to be flawed. By doing the chip design themselves, they saved a little bit of costs, but also took on all the risks of having a bad design.
That's what the parent poster is alluding to. A manager with experience in technology would have understood that, while designing your own chip might have been cheaper, it would have also introduced significant downside risk, which ought to have been factored into the equation. Farming the chip design out to a third party, while more expensive in the short term, would have entailed less long-term risk.
"Getting shit done without melodrama..." You mean like shoving the Patriot Act or DMCA down our throats with little debate and even less public comment? No, thank you, I'd rather have a Congress that sits on its collective ass and engages in melodrama, thank you.
If you want "efficient" government, move to a dictatorship.
Nonsense. The Legislative Branch should not be responding to emergencies. That's the Executive Branch's job.
The quintissential case is a Pearl Harbor style scenario, where America is under attack and we need a declaration of war. I'd argue that, in this day and age, we could have a provision stating that the President is free to deploy the troops for up to 90 days, but, following that grace period, he must get a declaration of war from Congress (not a resolution, or an authorization, but a formal declaration of war), otherwise he has to bring the troops home. This would allow ample time for the president to respond to short term emergencies, while still leaving leeway for the US to respond credibly to unprovoked attacks.
When was the last time you bought a car? I bought my '07 Hyundai Elantra last year, and I can tell you that there were at least as many manual on the lot as there were automatics. I shopped Toyota Corollas and Honda Civics too (not as extensively), and they too had plenty of manuals on the lots.
As for incentive packages, I don't think I've ever seen an incentive package for one of these cars that said "You have to get the automatic version", in the fine print.
And a mention of acceleration in a discussion about stopping ability is germane how?
Indeed we did. Well, not directly, but the University bought licenses to cover its engineering students, and my lab fees contributed to that.
If a large percentage of people were cracking software only because the activation system didn't work on their valid copy, businesses wouldn't be investing all kinds of money into copy-protection systems (there would be no point).Either that, or they don't care, because their software is "industry standard", and consumers have few other alternatives. Photoshop, Maya, Microsoft Office, MATLAB/Mathematica all fit the bill here.
Assuming you're riding a "big kids" bike with proper handlebar brakes, you don't have to use your legs to stop.
Well, there are no GM branded cars, per se. Instead, GM makes cars under a number of other brands, including Chevrolet, Pontiac, Saturn, and, yes, Cadillac.
You do realize that all the "entry level" cars, such as the Hyundai Elantra, Toyota Corolla, Honda Civic, etc. all come with manual transmissions standard, right? On all these cars, getting an automatic transmission is an option that adds to the cost of the car.
Not really. You'd still run into problems when trying to go up hills of any sort of appreciable steepness.
The plural of anecdote is not data. As a university student, I know that I and many of my friends have downloaded cracked versions of software, simply because the software's activation scheme was so god-awfully unreliable, the cracked version was actually more useful than the legitimate version (MATLAB, I'm looking squarely at you). We paid for the software (sometimes directly, but usually through our university tuition), so why shouldn't we be able to use the software?
That's all well and good until you realize that, increasingly, publishers are effectively banning second hand sales by placing restrictions in the copy protection mechanism or the end-user license agreement.
That's true, but we've figured that out on our moon missions. Granted, the moon has a much smaller gravity field, but the same principles could be used to design a Mars lander.
Plus there's the fact that a year of living supplies makes for a very large spacecraft, which then needs much more propellant too.Who says you need a single large craft? Why not send supplies ahead, and then send astronauts only when the supplies have either landed or are prepositioned in Martian orbit?
Heh. I too played Runescape, and I can say that the one thing that kept me in the game, even when it had been overrun by grade-schoolers, was the finality of PvP death. Hell, I remember when you lost everything you were carrying when you died in PvP. It added risk and adventure to the game, and kept it engaging.
They'd appear to be an overall level of like 60 when they like lvl 90 in just one skill that they used to kick your ass.So? Them's the breaks. As long as they built up those skills legitimately without cracking the system in some way, I don't see any problems with a strategy like that. It sounds like you're whining because someone found a way to play more effectively than you.
Not really. He's saying that an older player is more likely to know his options and the available strategies, and will be able to use that knowledge against the newbie. The same thing applies in all games. In Starcraft for example, figuring out a good build order can help immensely, and the ability to multitask effectively only comes with time. In FPS games, the ability to circle strafe and aim effectively at moving targets also takes time to build up.
Even board games require time and experience. Take chess for example. You really can't argue that a newbie who's sitting down at a chessboard for the first time can beat an experienced player who's been studying openings and endgames for years.
By your logic, all games have level systems, since in almost every game, an experienced player will usually beat the newbie.
Nonsense. If "unwilling" were solely the consumer's problem, then there'd be no pressure on the vendor to make a product that consumers are willing to buy.
That's a fair point, and one that I don't think that people emphasize enough. The difficulty of designing a life-support system for long term spaceflight is not to be underestimated.
It has to be big enough to carry crew, supplies and spare parts for the redundant system. We are talking about something the size of the IIS, with a big engine attached to it. Even if we don't use solar panels and go nuclear (in violation of several annoying treaties), the spaceship required would be quite big.Why would the spaceship require an especially large engine? In space you don't have nearly the same amount of friction and drag that you do on Earth. Even relatively small rockets can be effective once you're outside the atmosphere.
There is also the question of the Mars landing. We have never landed anything there that's bigger than my desk. We are talking about a powered landing of several habitats, supply-storage facilities and fuel manufacturing facilities and the solar or nuclear power required to power them.Who says we have to deliver it all in one giant load? It'd be much more effective to launch all of the supplies ahead of the astronauts and make sure that everything had landed properly before sending humans on their way.
As for coming back, we will have to conduct a launch of a reusable, probably single-stage-to-orbit (as we want to cut down complexity as much as we can), vehicle. We never did that, but Mars has a more forgiving gravity than the Earth and we may already have the proper technology for that.Why does the orbiter have to be "reusable"? I mean, look at the Apollo missions - the lunar lander had a single-use return to Earth module. Shouldn't we use a beefed up variant of that design?
After that, the vehicle I just described must dock with the return vehicle (which may of may not be the same vehicle they arrived in) to return to Earth.Assuming that you've got the life support requirements worked out (which you've had to do in order to make the trip out to Mars), this procedure is virtually identical to the procedure that the Apollo astronauts had to do in order to return to Earth. The LEM had to dock with the command module for the return trip. This is the same thing, only you're docking with something like the ISS, rather than the Apollo command module.
It's hugely complicated.That it is, but you're forgetting that a lot of it has already been done
Let's get back to the Moon first, make sure we have the technology to survive there for long periods and then venture on to Mars. A dozen dead astronauts won't help.How will living on the moon help us with going to Mars, pray tell? The moon is still inside the Earth's magnetic field, so it won't help us with the most pressing issue - designing a craft to carry humans through interplanetary space. And, as for the other problems, they were already all solved during the '60s. Why do we need to solve them again?
Going to the moon was extremely difficult too. Remember, before the creation of NASA, the US had never launched anything into space, nor had we ever attempted to attain escape velocity. To go from zero, as it were, to craft capable of taking humans safely to orbital, and then escape velocity was a huge achievement.
By comparison, much of the prototype work for the Mars trip has already been done. We already know how to get to escape velocity, we've worked out the orbital mechanics, and we even know the basics of landing. Hell, the Viking landers figured all that out in the '70s. The big obstacle now is to make a life-support system capable of sustaining human life for the three month voyage. True, its no easy task, but I don't think it's more difficult than building a space program from scratch.
Not really. Eve Online isn't a flight simulator, its an RPG. You don't have the visceral fun of actually dodging around and flying maneuvers in an effort to get the perfect angle on your enemy. Instead (like in many other MMORPGs) you fly in, select your target and your ship does all the work for you.
The real fun in Eve Online is in outfitting and customizing your ship, which is why many people say that Eve Online is fun if your idea of entertainment involves Excel spreadsheets.
No, they were just connecting to the tracker.
Well, they connected to the tracker yes, but the key point of the research is that they were able to frame IPs that were not connected to the tracker (like the network printer and wireless access point). In other words, they were able to pass the blame onto a completely innocent bystander.
And of course, everyone knows "pirates" commonly connect to torrent trackers to do nothing.
And who says you have to be a pirate to connect to a tracker? What if you just want to get a baseline for the amount of bittorrent traffic on the internet? What if you're doing research into the use of bittorrent-like protocols to implement a distributed storage system? There are many legitimate reasons to connect to a tracker and "do nothing", as it were.
I'm not sure about that. Arguably, if you're not experienced enough to follow good coding procedures and have proper tests and documentation, you have no business to be messing about with the kernel. Same if you don't have knowledge of the concepts behind low level OS code.
As a user of the Linux kernel, I expect it to perform reliably. Having a high code quality standards helps ensure that. In the open source model you only get an opportunity to have your code included, not a right.
But you see, the thing with standards is that the longer they live, the harder they are to kill. At 30 years old, the x86 ISA is damn near invincible now.
No. For the apple to behave as you describe, it'd have to have an initial horizontal velocity large enough to put it in orbit. Even without kinetic energy absorption, the apple would still fall down - it'd just bounce back up to the same height it fell from afterwards. (For the purposes of the discussion, I'm assuming that "down" is towards the center of the Earth)