Ok, that I'd grant is an argument for redesigning it from scratch, but I'll put my faith in their engineers. I'm sure more's gone behind the scenes than we'll ever know.
These guys can stick round pegs in square holes when lives are on the line. I wager they can get the numbers right.
And when you get down to needing +/-0.0021mm of tolerance, it really doesn't matter how nice the base units interact because the numbers you actually end up dealing with aren't human friendly in the first place.
The right machine can cut to within 0.00008268 inches just as easily as 0.0021mm.
The SRBs are damn awesome, actually. Reliable, reusable, it's no wonder they'd want to integrate them into the new designs. Why reinvent the rocket when you've got perfectly good, well documented, extensively tested model right there?
This is rocket science we're talking about. I don't see a need to reinvent the wheel.
We can't get rid of the damn useless penny that costs almost twice as much to make as it's worth. What makes you think we can get rid of Imperial measurements?
Yes...stored in electronic form. That's right. Wait, remind me again, what file format did Autocad use in the 1960s? 1970s? 1980s? Was it DWG back then?
Plus we're not building another shuttle. We're going back to the days of Apollo, with a capsule^Wspacecraft on top of a rocket. Apparently, though, they found that they can utilize the SRB design for part of the new project. (The big white rockets that get reused after launches.) The SRBs date from the start of the Shuttle era which...erm, yeah. 1970s.
So here we have a rocket booster already designed that works like a champion. The blueprints are all done. They work. They're reusable. They've been fieldtested over 100 times.
And you want to redesign them essentially from scratch? As many coders here want to say to their bosses when upper eschelon wants to recode an application in the new flavor of the month language: if it is not broken, do not fix it.
You make it sound so simple...when, in fact, this is quite literally rocket science here.
One of the common stories here is people needing to rewrite an entire project because of a new language fad. The old project worked. Rewriting it first means you have to replicate the old project and then deal with new bugs while the old project had all the bugs mostly ironed out.
Why do we insist NASA to reinvent the wheel when we're so against it in our own profession?
The media pundits were going on about how small a role the US government was taking in Iran and how the state should be doing more to help out over there, because it's our duty to meddle apparently.
Basically, we need to take a hands off approach to this as far as the State goes. US bashing is too easy for dictators to use. See also: Castro, Fidel and Chavez, Hugo.
A finder of property acquires no rights in mislaid property, is entitled to possession of lost property against everyone except the true owner, and is entitled to keep abandoned property
This is likely a clear cut case of mislaid property.
There's an angle that hasn't popped up: impossible to remove batteries = additional theft deterrant.
(No, it's not perfect, you can just turn the stupid thing off, but it's just one extra thing to keep track of, and most criminals don't remember to cover all the bases, especially people who snag lost phones)
They consistantly brewed their coffee at 180F. Industry standard is 140F or so. There were multiple complains their coffee was too hot, dating back years. They were warned repeatedly about this. There was a paper trail. There were prior cases of 3rd degree burns.
Furthermore, the victim wasn't driving at the time. In the car, yes, but not driving. In fact, she was a passenger and the car was in park.
So when this case ended, McDonald's was slapped not only for this incident, but for their apathy for ignoring the problem for so long (which is what punitive damages are for: to finally get you to stop ignoring the complains and industry regulations.)
And sometimes lawsuits are the only ways to get companies to straighten up. Simple calls to Customer Service does nothing. If you want nutritional (heh) info on that chocolate shake, you'll likely have to sue them to actually get the attention of a corporation. Course, that's slightly different than suing them because apparently the fast food place tied you to a chair and force fed you burgers and fries a la the gluttony victim in Se7en......Not touching the cat one.
The courts are really the only route individuals have to get a company to pay attention about an issue. Furthermore, one of the GOOD things about our system is anyone CAN sue anyone else. It's just you've got the burden of actually having to prove your case when it goes to trial.
How much are they spending the lawyers on this case? The experts? How much time is this taking? Note they had to re-try the case, so this is round two on the same stuff. What about appeals?
Sure, they might win the battle in the courtroom and get their $222,000, but will Thomas-Harris actually be able to pay that? How much will the RIAA actually get out of this case? What's going to be the delta between RIAA costs and returns? Will they get compared to King Pyrrhus?
Just sue every poor bastard on the planet who has ever downloaded a song off the internet and they'll be the richest organization alive.
You can't get blood from a stone, no matter how hard you squeeze.
Even if Thomas-Harris loses this case, I don't think they're going to get their $222,000. I'd even be willing to bet what the RIAA gets won't even get them to break even. It's just pity every case can't go to trial with sympathetic, pro bono lawyers. THAT would ruin the RIAA. Even if they win every case, I find it hard to believe their awards would outweigh the costs by a significant enough margin to continue pursuing this business method.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes...scripts...on blueprints...dating from the 1970s...
Did Autocad still use DWG back then?
So... 47.53m should be 4dam 7m 5dm 3cm?
That's just 'The Doctor.'
Ok, that I'd grant is an argument for redesigning it from scratch, but I'll put my faith in their engineers. I'm sure more's gone behind the scenes than we'll ever know.
These guys can stick round pegs in square holes when lives are on the line. I wager they can get the numbers right.
And how many new flaws would be introduced with new SRB designs?
It may be a cold way of looking at it, but that's one less thing we know would go wrong with the current SRBs.
And when you get down to needing +/-0.0021mm of tolerance, it really doesn't matter how nice the base units interact because the numbers you actually end up dealing with aren't human friendly in the first place.
The right machine can cut to within 0.00008268 inches just as easily as 0.0021mm.
Exactly. And that's a flaw that's been fixed.
How many flaws will be introduced if they have to be redesigned from scratch?
The SRBs are damn awesome, actually. Reliable, reusable, it's no wonder they'd want to integrate them into the new designs. Why reinvent the rocket when you've got perfectly good, well documented, extensively tested model right there?
This is rocket science we're talking about. I don't see a need to reinvent the wheel.
We can't get rid of the damn useless penny that costs almost twice as much to make as it's worth. What makes you think we can get rid of Imperial measurements?
Yes...stored in electronic form. That's right. Wait, remind me again, what file format did Autocad use in the 1960s? 1970s? 1980s? Was it DWG back then?
Plus we're not building another shuttle. We're going back to the days of Apollo, with a capsule^Wspacecraft on top of a rocket. Apparently, though, they found that they can utilize the SRB design for part of the new project. (The big white rockets that get reused after launches.) The SRBs date from the start of the Shuttle era which...erm, yeah. 1970s.
So here we have a rocket booster already designed that works like a champion. The blueprints are all done. They work. They're reusable. They've been fieldtested over 100 times.
And you want to redesign them essentially from scratch? As many coders here want to say to their bosses when upper eschelon wants to recode an application in the new flavor of the month language: if it is not broken, do not fix it.
You make it sound so simple...when, in fact, this is quite literally rocket science here.
One of the common stories here is people needing to rewrite an entire project because of a new language fad. The old project worked. Rewriting it first means you have to replicate the old project and then deal with new bugs while the old project had all the bugs mostly ironed out.
Why do we insist NASA to reinvent the wheel when we're so against it in our own profession?
And tax on the interest on top of that.
The media pundits were going on about how small a role the US government was taking in Iran and how the state should be doing more to help out over there, because it's our duty to meddle apparently.
If you see the clip (which I think should be at http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=230709&title=Crisis-in-Iran ) and actually see the context in which the punchline was delivered, it'll make more sense.
Basically, we need to take a hands off approach to this as far as the State goes. US bashing is too easy for dictators to use. See also: Castro, Fidel and Chavez, Hugo.
Except if the city's residents vote overwhelmingly to build their own fiber network, well, at some point democracy needs to kick in.
(What was the number again? 75%? We can't get politicians elected by that wide a margin unless they're unopposed...)
And they set precidence in the rest of Minnesota for other cities unhappy with their TDS service to proceed with their own networks.
Win, win!
Lifting from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost,_mislaid,_and_abandoned_property , which is quoting Michael v. First Chicago Corp., 139 Ill. App. 3d 374, 382, 487 N.E.2d 403, 409 (1985):
A finder of property acquires no rights in mislaid property, is entitled to possession of lost property against everyone except the true owner, and is entitled to keep abandoned property
This is likely a clear cut case of mislaid property.
Why not? What's wrong with a little self-depreciating humour now and again?
There's an angle that hasn't popped up: impossible to remove batteries = additional theft deterrant.
(No, it's not perfect, you can just turn the stupid thing off, but it's just one extra thing to keep track of, and most criminals don't remember to cover all the bases, especially people who snag lost phones)
Yeah, read the McDonald's case.
They consistantly brewed their coffee at 180F. Industry standard is 140F or so. There were multiple complains their coffee was too hot, dating back years. They were warned repeatedly about this. There was a paper trail. There were prior cases of 3rd degree burns.
Furthermore, the victim wasn't driving at the time. In the car, yes, but not driving. In fact, she was a passenger and the car was in park.
So when this case ended, McDonald's was slapped not only for this incident, but for their apathy for ignoring the problem for so long (which is what punitive damages are for: to finally get you to stop ignoring the complains and industry regulations.)
And sometimes lawsuits are the only ways to get companies to straighten up. Simple calls to Customer Service does nothing. If you want nutritional (heh) info on that chocolate shake, you'll likely have to sue them to actually get the attention of a corporation. Course, that's slightly different than suing them because apparently the fast food place tied you to a chair and force fed you burgers and fries a la the gluttony victim in Se7en... ...Not touching the cat one.
The courts are really the only route individuals have to get a company to pay attention about an issue. Furthermore, one of the GOOD things about our system is anyone CAN sue anyone else. It's just you've got the burden of actually having to prove your case when it goes to trial.
Well, while we're rooting for Thomas-Harris, it's hard to argue against the point that the RIAA is actually doing this RIGHT for a change.
A trial, evidence, witnesses, discovery.
It's a far, far, FAR cry from their boilerplate $3k extortion letter.
How much are they spending the lawyers on this case? The experts? How much time is this taking? Note they had to re-try the case, so this is round two on the same stuff. What about appeals?
Sure, they might win the battle in the courtroom and get their $222,000, but will Thomas-Harris actually be able to pay that? How much will the RIAA actually get out of this case? What's going to be the delta between RIAA costs and returns? Will they get compared to King Pyrrhus?
Just sue every poor bastard on the planet who has ever downloaded a song off the internet and they'll be the richest organization alive.
You can't get blood from a stone, no matter how hard you squeeze.
Even if Thomas-Harris loses this case, I don't think they're going to get their $222,000. I'd even be willing to bet what the RIAA gets won't even get them to break even. It's just pity every case can't go to trial with sympathetic, pro bono lawyers. THAT would ruin the RIAA. Even if they win every case, I find it hard to believe their awards would outweigh the costs by a significant enough margin to continue pursuing this business method.
You're given a barren field with pennies scattered in it. You get to take 10 random samples and prove there's a penny in the field.
Better pick your samples wisely.
Yeah, they're called doctors.
Wait a minute...
95 shipped with a user's guide. It was, coincidentally, 95 pages long.
The Win 3.1 manual was a freakin tome. Ginormous even.
It took Q four suitcases to fit a gyrocopter in...although I suppose without the anti-air defenses we could shrink that to three...