I've been from coast to coast in search of a reasonable businessman, but they've all had condition MBA and are suffering for it.
If you can cure that, I'm sure a cure for many other conditions can't be far behind. If you unleash all that monkey power onto all those keyboards, we'll surely have enough employment candidates to spice up all the markets - after all, I can count on one hand the number of MBAs I've met who can read an email, much less respond to it. A cure for that can only be to the benefit of society.
Spoken like someone who's never had to design anything for production.
I, for one, would have been SUPER JAZZED to have something as cool as the RPI compule module in 2008 when I needed an embedded linux system in a small form factor. At the time, the only thing available was the Gumstix Verdex - so I went with that. Built a product around it. Was great at the time. Now, 9 years later: still great for what it was, but I'm still stuck on that platform.
Guess why? (Don't bother to answer, you've already shown that you lack an understanding of how the hardware production pipeline works.)
Point being: the recent explosion in embedded compute modules is nothing to be snarky about. Get back to me when you get off your high hobbyist horse and you've invested in validation, procedures, and training for production-level volume hardware, and we can talk intelligently about product planning, support lifecycles, and lifetime buys. (Also, log in, and get off my lawn.)
have fun with all that cash next time you're at AMS and have to buy a train ticket.
you CAN'T buy one in cash there anymore. You have to stand in a line with all the other confused people trying to buy a ticket in local currency, only to look for a currency slot and not find one. Complete nonsense if you ask me.
MAKE YOUR DATA ACCESSIBLE FOR MORE THAN 10 DAYS IN THE PAST.
I don't even care about the money I spent on your fancy hardware. I'm not using it, because YOU CAN'T ACTUALLY GIVE ME the SAME DATA YOU COLLECT FOR YOURSELF, in a reasonable fashion.
Kindly f*k off, thanks. I'll just be here engineering a home automation ecosystem that understands the principles of how intelligent people do things, thanks.
PS can I get a refund on this thing? Hell, it's nice hardware, at least just take it back so you can repackage it and sell it to some other sucke^H^H^H^H^H customer cause you're not getting any more of my data... well, at least until you give me that data too, you unbelievable wombats.
Look, just... get your shot together, Morty. I don't care what you have to do. Put it in a bag, take it to the shot store. Just get your shot together.
So your mic has a -3db point at 16k? OK, so all that means is your signal is attenuated.
Solution: BPF and amplify. Nothing of interest in that range, so collateral (spectral) damage is unimportant. Add a dash of modern DSP and blizzow!
Please retake Signals & Systems and then try again, thanks.
The only difference is that then, you were explicitly aware of it and consented to carrying around the device.
News flash: carrying around a cellular-connected computer in your pocket, and trusting applications that you can't verify, puts you at risk for THINGS HAPPENING. Discuss.
You are so completely wrong. I have refuted this argument so many times in this comment chain that I'm sick of doing it again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct
http://www.amazon.com/Case-Mars-Plan-Settle-Planet/dp/145160811X
I am interested in your theories; can you provide documentation on either assertion?
Specifically, how is the government trying to kill private space industry? Also, how is the same government spending billions on Putin's space program?
I am marginally sorry to inform you that you are completely ignorant of the facts of space travel.
Please read about delta-V and understand gravity wells. Retake PHYS420 if you have to.
Then, learn how things actually work: If you were smart, you'd know you don't need to pick up extra boosters: you could just launch from A SINGLE VEHICLE and get a COMPLETE MISSION TO MARS. Here are some references to help you along the way:
Please do your research before spouting off about "dozens of big parts", because any rocket scientist knows how mass works - and you clearly don't. Decade long job? No, it's an 18-month job, because there's NO support equipment unless you're an aerospace industry shill. "Having a Moon base would help with construction"? Do you even understand gravity, and the QA process? Do you think it's easier and cheaper to QA while wearing a EVA suit?
Great, get on that. In 50 years, we can chat, and you can tell me how great your new rental property is, while I can tell you how great my new SPACE FRONTIER is.
No, you're missing the point that it's actually cheaper to just burn once to get out of Earth orbit and be done with it, than it is to go to a "gas station" that's in orbit around the thing you're trying to escape the gravity well of, slow down, dock, do stuff, and then burn AGAIN... than it is to just GTFO in the FIRST PLACE like you SHOULD HAVE DONE.. The physics are actually pretty simple, if you're capable of math, and reading.
You're not wrong, but you're just misreading the entire thing.
The point is: cost of mission is built on weight. Weight is built on engineering. Overengineering, therefore, costs more weight -> increase launch costs. Make your structures as lightweight as possible to save on launch capacity, and you can fit more usable *stuff* on the mission. So why overengineer something just to make it survive on the Moon (and make it heavier, etc) when you can make it reasonable to survive on Mars, and spend more propellant on other important stuff?
Almost, but consider: the struggle here is that we can't get funding to do a completely reasonable thing in the first place. Moon is cool and all, but honestly, let's just use the funding to go where we really want to go in the first place. NASA has the same budget now as it did 30 years ago, but it's just being incompetent about the whole "leadership" and "presidential mandate" thing. Backyard? Yeah. We did that. It sucked, had no resources, was full of caustic dust. Also, MOON TICKS.
tl;dr: stop dicking around, let's just do this properly, we are completely capable of it except for this whole idiotic attitude that we have to go to the moon first, which inflates budgets, complexity, and probability of failure by 300%.
Are you aware of He3? Because anyone who knows what it is, knows that it's all over the place on the Moon. But you seem to be unaware of the fact that we have no way to utilize it because the US is nation of nuclear-ignorant morons. (That includes you, by the way, because you have bought into this hype about He-3 without the understanding of what kinds of scientific developments the nation must make to utilize it.)
Please gain awareness of CO2, H2, and what happens when you combine CO2 + 4H2. Once you dismount from your high, yet sadly misinformed horse, you may be able to make more intelligent conversation about this whole process.
You don't have to get fuel to the moon, you can make fuel there. Aluminum & water ice are all you need, and the Moon has plenty of aluminum. Sources of water are more questionable, the dark side of the moon may have some, or we could capture a comet for it, or if necessary truck it up from Earth. It's still better than towing 100% of the fuel from Earth.
As for Mars itself, there's several ways to create rocket fuel there.
Also, the Moon is a balmy hell? The moon is just radiation and straight up vacuum. Mars has dust storms, radiation, freezing ass cold and near vacuum. Anything that can survive on Mars will do just fine on the Moon, and the Moon can be a nice test bed for Martian equipment.
a) Aluminum fine, great. Water ice, great. Ponder this: why bother hauling all of that heavy equipment to mine and process the aluminum, when you can do the same amount (or less work), to get to Mars in a single trip, bring a bit of extra hydrogen with you, and then make a silly amount of methane using easily captured carbon dioxide? It just doesn't make sense.
b) yes, we are in agreement on that, it's easy to make fuel on Mars. Hence my point, why would anyone bother with the Moon? It's just unnecessary and silly.
c) are you sure? read up on atmospheric pressures and temperatures, specifically the extremes on Mars vs. those on the Moon, and the relative radiation levels. Basically you can use a similar design but you have to overengineer the hell out of it to make it feasible on BOTH, because the Moon has no ozone and has ridiculous 28-day cycles with insane temperature extremes.
Point being: going to the Moon is great but it drastically increases mission cost, complexity, and time to complete, when compared to just making things for Mars in the first place. Like I said, read up on Mars Direct and get back to me.
So let's say the Moon is acting as a "gas station". Gas stations are great and all, but the fuel they dispense has to come from somewhere. On Earth this occurs via tanker truck. If you're arguing that "most of the mass involved in a trip to Mars consists of fuel", and therefore it would be cheaper to refuel ships at the Moon, great. You are trying to say that this makes economic sense.
How do you account for the cost of getting "tanker trucks" to the Moon? If you want to refuel rockets on the Moon you have to get the fuel there somehow, or create it on-site.
Currently the options for that are:
a) mine lunar helium-3. Cool, but let's get some rockets that can use it first.
b) spend unnecessary money to ship fuel there just so we can put that fuel into another rocket, which needs it because... it spent all the fuel going to the Moon instead of Mars.
c) ???
Anyone who hasn't actually read up on Mars Direct really just needs to stop commenting and do that first, so they can actually understand what the hell they are talking about. The Moon as a waypoint is completely and utterly unnecessary. It has no useful resources for this purpose other than helium-3, which we can't even make proper use of (because we're too scared of anything relating to nuclear energy to launch a damn RTG, let alone finish development on any actual nuclear engine). Doing anything on the Moon requires an absurd amount of machinery, life-support, and docking mechanisms, which are completely overkill for what you're trying to do (i.e, go to Mars, which is a balmy paradise compared to the environmental hell of the Moon.)
Your comment reinforced my conviction that I had to make it over there. Glad I did. Jason is a great fellow and I'm glad I was able to help out, even if only in a minor capacity.
I mean, the cell chip adds a little cost per-unit (but not that much), and agency approval adds a lot more (but that's NRE, and doesn't amount to all that much in the grand scheme). So it really comes down to "we can charge that much more because people will pay it."
Slashdot Mirror
I've been from coast to coast in search of a reasonable businessman, but they've all had condition MBA and are suffering for it.
If you can cure that, I'm sure a cure for many other conditions can't be far behind. If you unleash all that monkey power onto all those keyboards, we'll surely have enough employment candidates to spice up all the markets - after all, I can count on one hand the number of MBAs I've met who can read an email, much less respond to it. A cure for that can only be to the benefit of society.
History lesson, please
The price point is important, yes, but this is the kind of thing that separates hobbyist hardware from production hardware.
Again, to be clear, I do love RPI hardware/foundation/etc but I'm just trying to keep things realistic here.
I, for one, would have been SUPER JAZZED to have something as cool as the RPI compule module in 2008 when I needed an embedded linux system in a small form factor. At the time, the only thing available was the Gumstix Verdex - so I went with that. Built a product around it. Was great at the time. Now, 9 years later: still great for what it was, but I'm still stuck on that platform.
Guess why? (Don't bother to answer, you've already shown that you lack an understanding of how the hardware production pipeline works.)
Point being: the recent explosion in embedded compute modules is nothing to be snarky about. Get back to me when you get off your high hobbyist horse and you've invested in validation, procedures, and training for production-level volume hardware, and we can talk intelligently about product planning, support lifecycles, and lifetime buys. (Also, log in, and get off my lawn.)
have fun with all that cash next time you're at AMS and have to buy a train ticket.
you CAN'T buy one in cash there anymore. You have to stand in a line with all the other confused people trying to buy a ticket in local currency, only to look for a currency slot and not find one. Complete nonsense if you ask me.
MAKE YOUR DATA ACCESSIBLE FOR MORE THAN 10 DAYS IN THE PAST.
I don't even care about the money I spent on your fancy hardware. I'm not using it, because YOU CAN'T ACTUALLY GIVE ME the SAME DATA YOU COLLECT FOR YOURSELF, in a reasonable fashion.
Kindly f*k off, thanks. I'll just be here engineering a home automation ecosystem that understands the principles of how intelligent people do things, thanks.
PS can I get a refund on this thing? Hell, it's nice hardware, at least just take it back so you can repackage it and sell it to some other sucke^H^H^H^H^H customer cause you're not getting any more of my data... well, at least until you give me that data too, you unbelievable wombats.
Look, just... get your shot together, Morty. I don't care what you have to do. Put it in a bag, take it to the shot store. Just get your shot together.
So your mic has a -3db point at 16k? OK, so all that means is your signal is attenuated.
Solution: BPF and amplify. Nothing of interest in that range, so collateral (spectral) damage is unimportant. Add a dash of modern DSP and blizzow!
Please retake Signals & Systems and then try again, thanks.
The only difference is that then, you were explicitly aware of it and consented to carrying around the device.
News flash: carrying around a cellular-connected computer in your pocket, and trusting applications that you can't verify, puts you at risk for THINGS HAPPENING. Discuss.
All they have to do is nuke Reno the week before Labor Day. Screw up I-80 that week and the Internet is f*k'd for quite a while.
You post as AC and you use THINK about it! in a political argument on Slashdot.
Go the fuck home.
You are so completely wrong. I have refuted this argument so many times in this comment chain that I'm sick of doing it again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct
http://www.amazon.com/Case-Mars-Plan-Settle-Planet/dp/145160811X
"If you feel a burning sensation... that's not the testing. That's the asbestos."
America needs to figure out that spirit again, because history has proven we're sure as hell not getting anywhere without it.
I am interested in your theories; can you provide documentation on either assertion?
Specifically, how is the government trying to kill private space industry? Also, how is the same government spending billions on Putin's space program?
I try to #include <assert.h>
I appreciate if you could do the same.
Although I recognize, and like, your sig - I call your bluff.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct
http://www.amazon.com/Case-Mars-Plan-Settle-Planet/dp/145160811X
Get back to me when you realize what part of your statement is wrong, and we'll talk.
I am marginally sorry to inform you that you are completely ignorant of the facts of space travel.
Please read about delta-V and understand gravity wells. Retake PHYS420 if you have to.
Then, learn how things actually work: If you were smart, you'd know you don't need to pick up extra boosters: you could just launch from A SINGLE VEHICLE and get a COMPLETE MISSION TO MARS. Here are some references to help you along the way:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct
http://www.amazon.com/Case-Mars-Plan-Settle-Planet/dp/145160811X
Please do your research before spouting off about "dozens of big parts", because any rocket scientist knows how mass works - and you clearly don't. Decade long job? No, it's an 18-month job, because there's NO support equipment unless you're an aerospace industry shill. "Having a Moon base would help with construction"? Do you even understand gravity, and the QA process? Do you think it's easier and cheaper to QA while wearing a EVA suit?
Great, get on that. In 50 years, we can chat, and you can tell me how great your new rental property is, while I can tell you how great my new SPACE FRONTIER is.
No, you're missing the point that it's actually cheaper to just burn once to get out of Earth orbit and be done with it, than it is to go to a "gas station" that's in orbit around the thing you're trying to escape the gravity well of, slow down, dock, do stuff, and then burn AGAIN... than it is to just GTFO in the FIRST PLACE like you SHOULD HAVE DONE. . The physics are actually pretty simple, if you're capable of math, and reading.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct
http://www.amazon.com/Case-Mars-Plan-Settle-Planet/dp/145160811X
You're not wrong, but you're just misreading the entire thing.
The point is: cost of mission is built on weight. Weight is built on engineering. Overengineering, therefore, costs more weight -> increase launch costs. Make your structures as lightweight as possible to save on launch capacity, and you can fit more usable *stuff* on the mission. So why overengineer something just to make it survive on the Moon (and make it heavier, etc) when you can make it reasonable to survive on Mars, and spend more propellant on other important stuff?
Almost, but consider: the struggle here is that we can't get funding to do a completely reasonable thing in the first place. Moon is cool and all, but honestly, let's just use the funding to go where we really want to go in the first place. NASA has the same budget now as it did 30 years ago, but it's just being incompetent about the whole "leadership" and "presidential mandate" thing. Backyard? Yeah. We did that. It sucked, had no resources, was full of caustic dust. Also, MOON TICKS.
tl;dr: stop dicking around, let's just do this properly, we are completely capable of it except for this whole idiotic attitude that we have to go to the moon first, which inflates budgets, complexity, and probability of failure by 300%.
Are you aware of He3? Because anyone who knows what it is, knows that it's all over the place on the Moon. But you seem to be unaware of the fact that we have no way to utilize it because the US is nation of nuclear-ignorant morons. (That includes you, by the way, because you have bought into this hype about He-3 without the understanding of what kinds of scientific developments the nation must make to utilize it.)
Please gain awareness of CO2, H2, and what happens when you combine CO2 + 4H2. Once you dismount from your high, yet sadly misinformed horse, you may be able to make more intelligent conversation about this whole process.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct
My point exactly. This "gas station" crap again, when we can go to Mars today and make enough methane to get a crew back, for a fraction of the cost.
You don't have to get fuel to the moon, you can make fuel there. Aluminum & water ice are all you need, and the Moon has plenty of aluminum. Sources of water are more questionable, the dark side of the moon may have some, or we could capture a comet for it, or if necessary truck it up from Earth. It's still better than towing 100% of the fuel from Earth.
As for Mars itself, there's several ways to create rocket fuel there.
Also, the Moon is a balmy hell? The moon is just radiation and straight up vacuum. Mars has dust storms, radiation, freezing ass cold and near vacuum. Anything that can survive on Mars will do just fine on the Moon, and the Moon can be a nice test bed for Martian equipment.
a) Aluminum fine, great. Water ice, great. Ponder this: why bother hauling all of that heavy equipment to mine and process the aluminum, when you can do the same amount (or less work), to get to Mars in a single trip, bring a bit of extra hydrogen with you, and then make a silly amount of methane using easily captured carbon dioxide? It just doesn't make sense.
b) yes, we are in agreement on that, it's easy to make fuel on Mars. Hence my point, why would anyone bother with the Moon? It's just unnecessary and silly.
c) are you sure? read up on atmospheric pressures and temperatures, specifically the extremes on Mars vs. those on the Moon, and the relative radiation levels. Basically you can use a similar design but you have to overengineer the hell out of it to make it feasible on BOTH, because the Moon has no ozone and has ridiculous 28-day cycles with insane temperature extremes.
Point being: going to the Moon is great but it drastically increases mission cost, complexity, and time to complete, when compared to just making things for Mars in the first place. Like I said, read up on Mars Direct and get back to me.
How do you account for the cost of getting "tanker trucks" to the Moon? If you want to refuel rockets on the Moon you have to get the fuel there somehow, or create it on-site.
Currently the options for that are:
a) mine lunar helium-3. Cool, but let's get some rockets that can use it first.
b) spend unnecessary money to ship fuel there just so we can put that fuel into another rocket, which needs it because... it spent all the fuel going to the Moon instead of Mars.
c) ???
Anyone who hasn't actually read up on Mars Direct really just needs to stop commenting and do that first, so they can actually understand what the hell they are talking about. The Moon as a waypoint is completely and utterly unnecessary. It has no useful resources for this purpose other than helium-3, which we can't even make proper use of (because we're too scared of anything relating to nuclear energy to launch a damn RTG, let alone finish development on any actual nuclear engine). Doing anything on the Moon requires an absurd amount of machinery, life-support, and docking mechanisms, which are completely overkill for what you're trying to do (i.e, go to Mars, which is a balmy paradise compared to the environmental hell of the Moon.)
Your comment reinforced my conviction that I had to make it over there. Glad I did. Jason is a great fellow and I'm glad I was able to help out, even if only in a minor capacity.
(b) see (a)
I mean, the cell chip adds a little cost per-unit (but not that much), and agency approval adds a lot more (but that's NRE, and doesn't amount to all that much in the grand scheme). So it really comes down to "we can charge that much more because people will pay it."