First, I don't imagine that Malaysia Air is paying that $50,000,000. Malaysia Air is out the cost of a Boeing 777 and probably some death benefits. But I'm sure those things are insured. On the other hand, Malaysia Air would have to pay for this tracking system.
Second, I'd point out that the last big "disappearance" (i.e., nobody immediately knew where it crashed) was in 2009--five years ago. And it's not like it's that common that airplanes crash and are not found within a few days. So you're spending money on the off chance that an airplane of yours crashes somewhere difficult to find. You'll probably spend that money for 50 years before you ever take advantage of the system. So, yeah, it's not really worth it to Malaysia Air.
Third, let's say you add the trackers. You spend the money year in and year out and, eventually, it comes in handy. So what? You can look and say, "Yup! The plane just crashed in the middle of the Indian Ocean!" Now what? You're still out the plane. You're probably not going to have much for survivors on a plane that crashes in the middle of the Indian Ocean. It's not going to make a difference in your insurance premiums. You're adding costs for basically no benefit.
If you target one platform, you target PC's, unless the market for your application is graphic artists, musicians, etc., then you target Macs.
This is the important part. You don't target based on the number of devices sold--the market share--you target based on the platform that your intended audience is using. It is the rare application that will force people to forgo the newest things or switch platforms. There were plenty of DOS developers who eschewed Windows. Where are they now? There were some Mac developers who ignored Mac OS X for as long as they could as well. Eventually, they either updated or disappeared.
Also, as an aside, it can depend on what you're trying to accomplish. Take Bungie, for example, who made a name for themselves on the Mac platform before going to Windows and eventually getting bought up by Microsoft. It was a heck of a lot easier for Bungie to make a name for themselves on the Mac platform than it would have been for them to do it on the Windows platform because there's a lot more competition and it can be tough to shout over the cacophony of other developers. So if I were developing games for Xbox live, for example, I'd be looking at Windows mobile to try to make a name for myself.
I can't buy an android device and get "The Android Experience" - unless you call a balkanized chaos "The Experience".
While I agree, I'd argue that I can get "The Android Experience" from Google's Nexus line of phones. I can get a "Motorola Experience" from Motorola, a "Samsung Experience" from Samsung, etc. This is different from the PC world where everybody has the same "Windows Experience." The problem is that it leads to a commodity environment where all you can really compete on is price in a race to the bottom that nobody wins. Needless to say, Samsung and Motorola don't really want to be in a market like that.
The interesting question is did they need to be sent?
To me, exploration is about seeing what has never been seen. That can easily be done with robotic probes that have cameras and we would see what has never been seen on our screens at home. I've enjoyed the various views of Mars, Venus, Titan, and the Moon. There's not a great reason to send people out there to explore the Solar System.
However, if we want to learn about what we're seeing, I think people are a better choice than probes.
Stick to robotic missions, which are better value for money anyway.
I know that's the common belief, but is it true?
Robotic missions are cheaper. But robotic missions seem to beget more robotic missions to answer questions that the first robotic missions weren't able to answer. And so on and so on and so on.
Did we learn more about the Moon from the 6 Apollo missions that landed than we did from the 18 or so successful Soviet Lunar probes?
Let's say it would take us 20 years to prepare a Mars mission. Would it be better to spend that money and have scientists on Mars who could answer all of these questions once and for all or to spend half that money over the next 20 years shooting probes at Mars and hoping we eventually get some answers?
Robotic missions aren't necessarily better. They are, however, cheaper, and can be done faster. Keeping the national will pointed at Mars for 20 years in order to receive funding would be difficult. The amount of money to spend would be even more difficult to come up with. It is politically easier to get less money to send a probe to Mars for three years. Which is why we do it. We can try for the impossible and fail or we can try for the doable and succeed.
I'm sure there isn't one NASA Geologist who would say that robots are better than he/she is. It's just that robots are all we're willing to afford.
It might also be the race to get the information out.
I don't know if USGS is involved in earthquakes off the coast of Chile, but I know that the USGS refines it's numbers over time. So you might hear about a 5.0 which turns into a 5.2 and then down to a 5.1. But in our info-driven got-to-have-the-news-now-and-damn-the-accuracy culture, timeliness is more important than accuracy. We don't like to wait for data.
So instead of saying "Big Earthquake in Chile", they throw the number in. The number doesn't mean squat to most people, other than "7.7? Wow--that's pretty big."
Well, I was attempting to be somewhat humorous, as a, "You kids today are so lazy. We used to have to walk over to the TV, up hill, both ways, just to change the channel!"
But I'll give it a somewhat serious answer, because it's an entertaining point.
Growing up, we had one of those TVs. We also got our TV via an antenna on the roof. This antenna picked up two networks--ABC and CBS. It also picked up a local PBS station. That was it.
So how often did we desire to change the channel? Not often. Back in those days, if you had two 30-minute sitcoms on CBS, say, ABC might counter-program with an hour-long drama. So changing the channel would put you in the middle of something. You might as well sit and watch the other sitcom. So in the evenings, you might change the channel once an hour.
Even when we stayed at Grandma's house--she had a Community Antenna so she could get NBC--the formula was still pretty much the same. You might change it once an hour.
So, if I had to get my lazy ass off the couch to change the channel, I probably wouldn't change it very often.
That was sort of the point. You're right--I don't often desire to change the light level in my room. But part of the reason for that may be that I have to interrupt what I'm doing, get up, walk across the room, adjust the level, walk back to the couch, decide it's still a little too bright, go back over, adjust it a bit more, go back to the couch, etc.
Even the direct On/Off can be a nuisance. My TV sits at one end up of the living room. My computer on the opposite end. There's a ceiling light that sits about three-quarters of the way back from the TV. When I'm watching TV, it's nice to have that light off. When I'm using the computer, it's nice to have that light on. So do I turn the light off and back on again whenever I move from the TV to the computer? Nope. I usually just leave the light on. I've adjusted the brightness of the TV to deal with it.
Now, imagine an automated system that could optimize the lighting in the room based on what I'm doing. If I'm watching TV, it might turn down the surrounding lights so the backlight on the TV doesn't have to be so bright. Saves energy. When I get up to grab a snack, if detects this and flips on more lights. If I walk over to the computer, it will optimize for that. Heck, even forgetting the whole automation thing--just having settings for "TV", "Computer", and "Other" might save some energy right there.
This makes sense--only generate enough force as you need to. The problem is, "How much do you need?"
The Centrifuge Accommodation Module would have helped answer that question as well as questions about exploring Mars and such. Sounds like a handy little device, huh? Pity they cancelled it.
It's not so much that Tesla believes there's a problem but they want to get out in front of this and solve a "problem" that might affect sales.
So you're in the market for a Tesla. You go to the showroom and talk to one of the Tesla people and you mention that you've heard these electric cars can catch fire in accident. The salesperson says, "Well, statistically, there's no more risk of a fire in an accident than there is for a gasoline powered car."
Yeah, right. Salespeople are really trustworthy. "Statistically" means you're lying to me (Lies, damn lines, and statistics).
So you're in the market for a Tesla. You go to the showroom and talk to one of the Tesla people and you mention that you've heard these electric cars can catch fire in accident. The salesperson says, "Well, what we at Tesla have done is added a Titanium shield--the same kind of material the US Government uses on armored vehicles--over the battery pack. Furthermore, we've added an aluminum bar and extrusion so that if the wheels come flying off after you hit a roundabout at 110 MPH the battery pack won't get damaged."
Which answer, as a customer, are you going to feel more comfortable about?
I'd also add that Professional Drivers receive much more training and the tests are much harder. You can't heavy trucks with your basic California Class C license. And police also receive special driving training. Here in California, Taxi drivers don't have special licenses, I believe, but to get hired by a taxi company, you'd better have a spotless driving record and they may have their own training protocols.
Also, one accident with you at fault will get you fired. And even if it isn't your fault, you usually get stuck for several hours dealing with the police, which is time that you're not hauling something and making money. My roommate had somebody run into her in Colorado. No damage to the trailer or truck but their car was totaled and the driver ended up pretty badly injured. She ended up stuck for two days while everything got sorted out.
Yeah, you can hear truckers on their CBs yackin' away. But those guys are on the open highway late at night. You don't hear them so much when there's traffic around.
No they don't. They can remove Samsung's version of Android and put their own version of Android on it. Just because the tablet says Samsung doesn't mean that it must be running Samsung's version of Android.
None of Google's non-OS apps, including the Play Store, are open source. The words "open source" are not a complete explanation of this situation.
How about the fact that the devices are "specially protected devices that can be used to work with confidential information," as stated in the summary?
The "paranoia" about the iPad probably comes from (a) it's American which means that the NSA has it's hooks in it and (b) the device is closed off so that you can't see anything that anything is doing. That's fine for my Mom...
Vertical windows are poorly oriented for capturing power.
While true, I believe the concept is more for skyscrapers/tall building where there is far more surface area down the sides on the building than on the top. So even if it is less efficient, you've got the space and it might as well be used for generating electricity.
No, I'm not going to take the solar panels off of my roof and just get fancy solar-energy generating windows. But if I was building a 20-story skyscraper, I might consider doing this. Assuming, of course, that your other valid concerns are addressed...
Slashdot Mirror
First, I don't imagine that Malaysia Air is paying that $50,000,000. Malaysia Air is out the cost of a Boeing 777 and probably some death benefits. But I'm sure those things are insured. On the other hand, Malaysia Air would have to pay for this tracking system.
Second, I'd point out that the last big "disappearance" (i.e., nobody immediately knew where it crashed) was in 2009--five years ago. And it's not like it's that common that airplanes crash and are not found within a few days. So you're spending money on the off chance that an airplane of yours crashes somewhere difficult to find. You'll probably spend that money for 50 years before you ever take advantage of the system. So, yeah, it's not really worth it to Malaysia Air.
Third, let's say you add the trackers. You spend the money year in and year out and, eventually, it comes in handy. So what? You can look and say, "Yup! The plane just crashed in the middle of the Indian Ocean!" Now what? You're still out the plane. You're probably not going to have much for survivors on a plane that crashes in the middle of the Indian Ocean. It's not going to make a difference in your insurance premiums. You're adding costs for basically no benefit.
You pick a platform based on market size.
It's not quite so simple, as you point out.
If you target one platform, you target PC's, unless the market for your application is graphic artists, musicians, etc., then you target Macs.
This is the important part. You don't target based on the number of devices sold--the market share--you target based on the platform that your intended audience is using. It is the rare application that will force people to forgo the newest things or switch platforms. There were plenty of DOS developers who eschewed Windows. Where are they now? There were some Mac developers who ignored Mac OS X for as long as they could as well. Eventually, they either updated or disappeared.
Also, as an aside, it can depend on what you're trying to accomplish. Take Bungie, for example, who made a name for themselves on the Mac platform before going to Windows and eventually getting bought up by Microsoft. It was a heck of a lot easier for Bungie to make a name for themselves on the Mac platform than it would have been for them to do it on the Windows platform because there's a lot more competition and it can be tough to shout over the cacophony of other developers. So if I were developing games for Xbox live, for example, I'd be looking at Windows mobile to try to make a name for myself.
I can't buy an android device and get "The Android Experience" - unless you call a balkanized chaos "The Experience".
While I agree, I'd argue that I can get "The Android Experience" from Google's Nexus line of phones. I can get a "Motorola Experience" from Motorola, a "Samsung Experience" from Samsung, etc. This is different from the PC world where everybody has the same "Windows Experience." The problem is that it leads to a commodity environment where all you can really compete on is price in a race to the bottom that nobody wins. Needless to say, Samsung and Motorola don't really want to be in a market like that.
True. But if you, say, double the number of satellites you're tracking, you have a better shot of being in the line-of-sight of three of them...
The interesting question is did they need to be sent?
To me, exploration is about seeing what has never been seen. That can easily be done with robotic probes that have cameras and we would see what has never been seen on our screens at home. I've enjoyed the various views of Mars, Venus, Titan, and the Moon. There's not a great reason to send people out there to explore the Solar System.
However, if we want to learn about what we're seeing, I think people are a better choice than probes.
Stick to robotic missions, which are better value for money anyway.
I know that's the common belief, but is it true?
Robotic missions are cheaper. But robotic missions seem to beget more robotic missions to answer questions that the first robotic missions weren't able to answer. And so on and so on and so on.
Did we learn more about the Moon from the 6 Apollo missions that landed than we did from the 18 or so successful Soviet Lunar probes?
Let's say it would take us 20 years to prepare a Mars mission. Would it be better to spend that money and have scientists on Mars who could answer all of these questions once and for all or to spend half that money over the next 20 years shooting probes at Mars and hoping we eventually get some answers?
Robotic missions aren't necessarily better. They are, however, cheaper, and can be done faster. Keeping the national will pointed at Mars for 20 years in order to receive funding would be difficult. The amount of money to spend would be even more difficult to come up with. It is politically easier to get less money to send a probe to Mars for three years. Which is why we do it. We can try for the impossible and fail or we can try for the doable and succeed.
I'm sure there isn't one NASA Geologist who would say that robots are better than he/she is. It's just that robots are all we're willing to afford.
It might also be the race to get the information out.
I don't know if USGS is involved in earthquakes off the coast of Chile, but I know that the USGS refines it's numbers over time. So you might hear about a 5.0 which turns into a 5.2 and then down to a 5.1. But in our info-driven got-to-have-the-news-now-and-damn-the-accuracy culture, timeliness is more important than accuracy. We don't like to wait for data.
So instead of saying "Big Earthquake in Chile", they throw the number in. The number doesn't mean squat to most people, other than "7.7? Wow--that's pretty big."
Well, I was attempting to be somewhat humorous, as a, "You kids today are so lazy. We used to have to walk over to the TV, up hill, both ways, just to change the channel!"
But I'll give it a somewhat serious answer, because it's an entertaining point.
Growing up, we had one of those TVs. We also got our TV via an antenna on the roof. This antenna picked up two networks--ABC and CBS. It also picked up a local PBS station. That was it.
So how often did we desire to change the channel? Not often. Back in those days, if you had two 30-minute sitcoms on CBS, say, ABC might counter-program with an hour-long drama. So changing the channel would put you in the middle of something. You might as well sit and watch the other sitcom. So in the evenings, you might change the channel once an hour.
Even when we stayed at Grandma's house--she had a Community Antenna so she could get NBC--the formula was still pretty much the same. You might change it once an hour.
So, if I had to get my lazy ass off the couch to change the channel, I probably wouldn't change it very often.
That was sort of the point. You're right--I don't often desire to change the light level in my room. But part of the reason for that may be that I have to interrupt what I'm doing, get up, walk across the room, adjust the level, walk back to the couch, decide it's still a little too bright, go back over, adjust it a bit more, go back to the couch, etc.
Even the direct On/Off can be a nuisance. My TV sits at one end up of the living room. My computer on the opposite end. There's a ceiling light that sits about three-quarters of the way back from the TV. When I'm watching TV, it's nice to have that light off. When I'm using the computer, it's nice to have that light on. So do I turn the light off and back on again whenever I move from the TV to the computer? Nope. I usually just leave the light on. I've adjusted the brightness of the TV to deal with it.
Now, imagine an automated system that could optimize the lighting in the room based on what I'm doing. If I'm watching TV, it might turn down the surrounding lights so the backlight on the TV doesn't have to be so bright. Saves energy. When I get up to grab a snack, if detects this and flips on more lights. If I walk over to the computer, it will optimize for that. Heck, even forgetting the whole automation thing--just having settings for "TV", "Computer", and "Other" might save some energy right there.
True. But what if the building is built already? Say, a building from 20 years ago.
I can hit a switch as I enter or leave a room.
And I'll also bet you're not so lazy that you can't get up off the couch to change the channel, either.
This makes sense--only generate enough force as you need to. The problem is, "How much do you need?"
The Centrifuge Accommodation Module would have helped answer that question as well as questions about exploring Mars and such. Sounds like a handy little device, huh? Pity they cancelled it.
Actually, I believe he's using it correctly: "Centripetal: moving or tending to move toward a center."
Of course, what he probably wanted was "Centrifugal."
"This is not the candidate you're looking for..."
Does the whole Jedi Mind Trick thing work through the TV?
Maybe it was Disney...
Screw that. I'm calling for Charlton Heston!
What? He's dead? We're boned...
Damn Kids. It's Reagan's Fault!
It's not so much that Tesla believes there's a problem but they want to get out in front of this and solve a "problem" that might affect sales.
So you're in the market for a Tesla. You go to the showroom and talk to one of the Tesla people and you mention that you've heard these electric cars can catch fire in accident. The salesperson says, "Well, statistically, there's no more risk of a fire in an accident than there is for a gasoline powered car."
Yeah, right. Salespeople are really trustworthy. "Statistically" means you're lying to me (Lies, damn lines, and statistics).
So you're in the market for a Tesla. You go to the showroom and talk to one of the Tesla people and you mention that you've heard these electric cars can catch fire in accident. The salesperson says, "Well, what we at Tesla have done is added a Titanium shield--the same kind of material the US Government uses on armored vehicles--over the battery pack. Furthermore, we've added an aluminum bar and extrusion so that if the wheels come flying off after you hit a roundabout at 110 MPH the battery pack won't get damaged."
Which answer, as a customer, are you going to feel more comfortable about?
I'd also add that Professional Drivers receive much more training and the tests are much harder. You can't heavy trucks with your basic California Class C license. And police also receive special driving training. Here in California, Taxi drivers don't have special licenses, I believe, but to get hired by a taxi company, you'd better have a spotless driving record and they may have their own training protocols.
Also, one accident with you at fault will get you fired. And even if it isn't your fault, you usually get stuck for several hours dealing with the police, which is time that you're not hauling something and making money. My roommate had somebody run into her in Colorado. No damage to the trailer or truck but their car was totaled and the driver ended up pretty badly injured. She ended up stuck for two days while everything got sorted out.
Yeah, you can hear truckers on their CBs yackin' away. But those guys are on the open highway late at night. You don't hear them so much when there's traffic around.
It appears Ericsson made one several years ago...
No they don't. They can remove Samsung's version of Android and put their own version of Android on it. Just because the tablet says Samsung doesn't mean that it must be running Samsung's version of Android.
None of Google's non-OS apps, including the Play Store, are open source. The words "open source" are not a complete explanation of this situation.
How about the fact that the devices are "specially protected devices that can be used to work with confidential information," as stated in the summary?
The "paranoia" about the iPad probably comes from (a) it's American which means that the NSA has it's hooks in it and (b) the device is closed off so that you can't see anything that anything is doing. That's fine for my Mom...
People who claim to be "too comfortable" to be creative really get on my nerves.
Dude, you're a barista.
Vertical windows are poorly oriented for capturing power.
While true, I believe the concept is more for skyscrapers/tall building where there is far more surface area down the sides on the building than on the top. So even if it is less efficient, you've got the space and it might as well be used for generating electricity.
No, I'm not going to take the solar panels off of my roof and just get fancy solar-energy generating windows. But if I was building a 20-story skyscraper, I might consider doing this. Assuming, of course, that your other valid concerns are addressed...
Arguably 1GB of cat pictures don't need to be delivered immediate, whereas 1GB of video does.
If each cat picture takes an extra half-second to load, it's annoying. If each video frame takes an extra half-second to load, it's unwatchable.
While I agree with the sentiment, I'd point out that NASA's will, in theory, be able to lift 70 or 130 tons. So it is a bit better.
My biggest objection to Glass is that there is no way for anyone else to know when it is on.
Except for the light that comes on when you speak a command or record video, there's absolutely no way to know.