The only reason Obama ran as Democrat is the Republican party is too racist to accept black people into positions of real power.
Instead this scumbag misrepresented and out right lied about his political views. And now we get intellectually incurious, voodoo ecomics conservatard in office again.
Obviously there is no reason to go to the moon, it's not like we need Hellium-3 from there for fusion reasearch.
By the time all the math and prototypes of rockets for returning to the moon would be completed, first fusion reactor prototypes would be finished.
Being able to aim a laser turret at moving object for a few seconds is impresive, but shooting it down another beast altogether.
Protective coating from dense material or ablative coating for missile is pretty easy to make, all you really need is another booster stage to compensate for extra mass. Making missile spin to reflect heat better is also pretty simple. Moore's law makes computational power necessary to spin a missile faster, easyer then makeing a more powerfull laser.
Air borne laser is also infrared, it will not travel far through the atmosphere.
Does anyone have some hard numbers? Or is this another cost understated, ability underated, "Flying Edsel" funded by Republican party, just for sole purpose of being "Strong On Defence" ?
If he can splice some photoelectric properties (generates small amount of electricity from lasers), we can finaly have a brain machine interface.
But regardless this will make reading memory composition easier.
Cyberpunk here we come!
"User centric design is the issue. When MS puts clippy in, I don't know how much of that was some developer of pinhead thinking it would be really cook, and how much of it was actually user centric design"
The point I was trying to make is this, if MS spend money on developing code and it's a epic fail, they dump it into another product to prevent calling it a failure, in order to protect themselves from lawsuit from corporate raiders, then they call it "innovation".
Adding many small features, then removing or altering them, or even being able to turn them off, is much more preferable. That's also my beef with Gnome, (there I don't just pick on MS). Not having a ablity to turn off a new feature, or turn on an old feature, is very annoying
"In the end one has to have a system where best practices win over bloat."
True that, luckily Linux still has smaller footprint then Windows, even with all those innovations.:)
"For instance, i know that egos are tied up in the multiple *nix desktops, and all desktops have a right to exist, but significant progress could be made if the community could select on desktop to develop towards, even if means that the solution is imperfect."
Good ideas will be copied from KDE to Gnome and back again, and will include other desktop evironments. Progress is not something you can always predict, natural selection by users of usefull ideas will do that better then most attempts to guess what people will need.
Witness the old Soviet Unions attempts to guess the needs to it's citizens, vs capitalist society being wastefull with multiple manufactures makeing same product with different features. 8)
Bad features die, good ones remain. The alternative is to shove crap into end users throats.
And when they don't like it continue shoving the way Microsoft did with MS Bob aka Clippy
from MS Office. The big difference here is innovation does not occur without failiure. Open
source can afford to make mistakes. Closed source companies have to add useless and failed
features to their products, otherwise the time spend has been wasted and investors may sue the company.
Slashdot Mirror
The only reason Obama ran as Democrat is the Republican party is too racist to accept black people into positions of real power. Instead this scumbag misrepresented and out right lied about his political views. And now we get intellectually incurious, voodoo ecomics conservatard in office again.
Obviously there is no reason to go to the moon, it's not like we need Hellium-3 from there for fusion reasearch. By the time all the math and prototypes of rockets for returning to the moon would be completed, first fusion reactor prototypes would be finished.
Being able to aim a laser turret at moving object for a few seconds is impresive, but shooting it down another beast altogether. Protective coating from dense material or ablative coating for missile is pretty easy to make, all you really need is another booster stage to compensate for extra mass. Making missile spin to reflect heat better is also pretty simple. Moore's law makes computational power necessary to spin a missile faster, easyer then makeing a more powerfull laser. Air borne laser is also infrared, it will not travel far through the atmosphere. Does anyone have some hard numbers? Or is this another cost understated, ability underated, "Flying Edsel" funded by Republican party, just for sole purpose of being "Strong On Defence" ?
That will only matter if we don't buy more ammo!
Yep, and if we can add our own laser to electricty connectors we can finaly get write access, not just read.
If he can splice some photoelectric properties (generates small amount of electricity from lasers), we can finaly have a brain machine interface. But regardless this will make reading memory composition easier. Cyberpunk here we come!
"User centric design is the issue. When MS puts clippy in, I don't know how much of that was some developer of pinhead thinking it would be really cook, and how much of it was actually user centric design"
:)
The point I was trying to make is this, if MS spend money on developing code and it's a epic fail, they dump it into another product to prevent calling it a failure, in order to protect themselves from lawsuit from corporate raiders, then they call it "innovation". Adding many small features, then removing or altering them, or even being able to turn them off, is much more preferable. That's also my beef with Gnome, (there I don't just pick on MS). Not having a ablity to turn off a new feature, or turn on an old feature, is very annoying
"In the end one has to have a system where best practices win over bloat."
True that, luckily Linux still has smaller footprint then Windows, even with all those innovations.
"For instance, i know that egos are tied up in the multiple *nix desktops, and all desktops have a right to exist, but significant progress could be made if the community could select on desktop to develop towards, even if means that the solution is imperfect."
Good ideas will be copied from KDE to Gnome and back again, and will include other desktop evironments. Progress is not something you can always predict, natural selection by users of usefull ideas will do that better then most attempts to guess what people will need. Witness the old Soviet Unions attempts to guess the needs to it's citizens, vs capitalist society being wastefull with multiple manufactures makeing same product with different features. 8)
Bad features die, good ones remain. The alternative is to shove crap into end users throats.
And when they don't like it continue shoving the way Microsoft did with MS Bob aka Clippy
from MS Office. The big difference here is innovation does not occur without failiure. Open
source can afford to make mistakes. Closed source companies have to add useless and failed
features to their products, otherwise the time spend has been wasted and investors may sue the company.
Can't download films, slashdoted already.
Someone was just looking for a bribe, that's all.
Nigerian economy is in a crapper.