Re:STS is great tech - Shuttle is horrible blech
on
Shuttle Fleet Upgraded
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
"or doubling the size of the current ISS (into something useful) in ONE THROW"
Um... no, think about it for a moment. That won't work unless you can collapse all those parts as if they were empty cardboard boxes and then re-assemble in orbit. I doubt many of the big workhorse rocket designs ever lift close to their true capacity - the awkwardness of the payload (in terms of aerodynamics and balance) is not trivial. And then if you get that to work but require human assembly at the destination, you still need to send people up, except now you're sending them on something else at the same time. Now you've got to manage two spacecraft designs, two coordinated launches, and so on.
While I agree with your general idea (learn from the old stuff and do BETTER), spaceflight hasn't gotten any easier, and upgrades to spacecraft aren't as simple as swapping out a video card and loading new drivers...
(Personally, I think we should try to do everything at once - do better rockets AND build the space elevator. They are different enough projects that they wouldn't steal specialist engineers from each other, thus we could work on both at the same time. If either one works, we win, and if the elevator works we really really really win)
"It doesn't sound like it could find a defect in an algorithm implementation or logic. To me, these are where the true defects are, in the logic/reasoning breakdowns."
Indeed, doing so is supposed to be impossible. Testing the outputs of every possible input isn't feasible (and would require you to have a perfect working version of the program with which to test the output against, unless you want to do all the work by hand...).
We even have a term for automated bug checking - "the halting problem". To paraphrase, we can't programatically check for bugs that will make the program crash, because to do so we'd have to run the program, which would make it crash.
Given how long Netscape had to fight for that verdict, we probably won't still have the same government by the time this new case is finished, even if Bush DOES get elected to a second term.
"Too much of the objection over stem cell use is concerned with the origin of some stem cell cultures in aborted fetuses."
Agreed. So much of this is because it's being held down because of a tangential association with abortion and the stigma from bad b-movies about full human cloning.
Isn't it the number of transistors doubling, rather than the size of each transistor halving?
Research into asynchronous chips (meaning less dependancy on a clock signal, meaning less heat generation and power consumption) may allow chips to get a lot bigger, both physically and in terms of transistor count. More layers may also help. The shrinking transistor size will help, but it isn't the only factor. The transition won't happen all at once, and it might not ever unclock the *whole* chip, but they're already moving towards chips that are synchronous as a whole but which have internal sections which are asynchronous.
Beyond that, we may simply go to more chips in the same box, and they'll reword Moore's law yet again to say "the number of transistors in a computer doubles every 18 months" instead of the number on a single chip.
I discovered a few days ago that this very thing has been happening to me for the past year and a half. I'd noticed my cell phone bill slooowly creeping up - however, the creep was entirely under a section named "federal fees".
Turns out that was a lie, and it wasn't taxes going up. I found this out by the surprise letter I got from the lawyers running the class action suit against the phone company.
I cancelled my service the next day (I'd already been about to do it because I never use the phone). They'd pumped me for about $40 extra over that year, and probably every one of their other customers.
I agree with the sentiment, but it wouldn't work out the way you envision. If they're forced by law to give you only the final price, that won't stop them from adding more fees - it'll only stop you from being able to see those fees. Having everything seperate may be a PITA, but at least you have a chance to realize something is wrong.
This is, IMO, the entire point of this thread. Especially for health care, with all those middlemen sneaking in fees because the patient is insulated from that by the insurance company.
That IS ground-breaking, because normal atoms are never made of the kind of particle they discovered. Atoms made of that could have VERY different properties.
"I am an advocate of a law that says the loser in a tort must pay the winner's court costs. That would prevent fishing expiditions like SCO's because they are too expensive."
No, you're not being evil enough and thinking it through to the most abusive conclusions >=)
A loser-pays-all-court costs situation would squash any chance of getting justice if your a small guy who was wronged by a big guy. Use the SCO example again - say I'm a small kernel developer, and I sue them for stealing my code. I can only afford a modestly-priced lawyer, and they have a flock of lawyers. I will probably lose, right? And then they, with their flock of lawyers, will claim enormously huge court costs, just to punish me for daring to question them. Even a lawsuit between near-equals could be perverted this way, simply by drawing the case out.
Faced with such possibilities, the number of lawsuits would drop drastically, but the amount of lawbreaking would skyrocket - because the big fish would know they could get away with anything. In making legal defense possible, you've made legal attack impossible for all but the richest few.
"Now situation when people post scan of upcoming ads (which was not the case with BestBuy and FatWallet) can probably fall under copyright violation, as only author of that page can lawfully distribute it (short of posting it with design/layout critique and "never use this font in publication" kind of thing:) )"
I believe advertising does (or should) fall under looser copyright rules in that case, since it's ADVERTISING and the copyright owner WANTS it seen by as many people as possible. They've paid money to get people to see it, they can't logically argue that only some people are allowed to see it.
That depends on how you interpret the Big Picture.
1) SCO is after huge settlement and/or buyout
-- OR --
2) SCO is out to kill free software / open source / GNU / Linux (whether on their own or as a pawn of Microsoft)
You sound as if you're sticking with #1. In light of all the other stuff SCO is doing, I'm more inclined to think they're shooting for #2 (though they'll take #1 if they can get it). If so, then it is in their best interests to inflict maximum harm on every part of the free software and open source movements. Time, money, and injunctions, against everyone they can. Linus, RMS, IBM, and Red Hat are prime targets to be dragged through the mud.
If they were only after #1, they'd be fighting a much more narrowly targeted battle.
Er... you seem a bit confused about the definition of "paper trail". You know, physical copies of evidence... like the hundreds of thousands of copies of that issue still in existence, like the one here on my bookshelf. That's the whole point - if there's a paper trail, you *can't* change your mind and erase part of your past statements. Time pulled it from their web page, but it's still out there.
Nah, it means they're being backwards as usual. Treating the symptoms instead of the disease. Hunting down virus writers is nice, but that means the virus has already done its damage. The stronger solution would be to fix the damn security holes (and improve auditing to stop creating new holes).
You seem to be confused here. It's not FUD anymore without Uncertainty; thus, a clear verdict DOES have a huge effect.
And in the case of clear verdict in IBM's favor, that'll have a positive FUD-breaking ripple effect for Linux (just as a verdict in SCO's favor would have a negative FUD-enforcing ripple effect). IBM winning the case would send a very solid message of "Linux is safe - look at what happened when it got challenged". It sure makes future challenges less likely to happen when IBM very visibly crushed the challenger.
Call me a bit jaded here, but how many millions of people end up wiping and reinstalling Windows every year, or tossing their old system when they get a new one? Wouldn't this cause a huge margin of error in an mp3-collecting study?
And then, factor in the spread of cheap CD burners. Mp3s burned to CD as file data or audio aren't going to show up in scans of hard drives anymore. How do you know that kid with only 10 mp3s isn't really a kid with thousands, but whose system self destructed recently, and s/he is just listening to stuff already on CD-R?
Xbox 2 will use x86 because it's the only feasible way to play Xbox 1 games. Seriously, what is going to be able to do software emulation of a 700mhz P3 perfectly enough to handle the variety of Xbox 1 games?
Well, the US *is* doing wireless stuff, but the critical population density that drives wireless adoption is present in very few places here. Averaging it over the entire population for your statistics will make it look as if the US is doing very little for wireless compared to Europe. But both statements are true, depending on how you look at the numbers. We both ARE and AREN'T pushing wireless.
Some other factors: we probably aren't counting private internal corporate office wireless networks in the figures, because they're not open to the public.
More city factors: cities in the US have additional economic differences from European cities. Many of those who *live* in the cities here are lower-class/middle-class and can't afford nifty new laptops with wifi (not true for ALL American cities, but it does really hurt in terms of getting enough computer-using population in close proximity to make wireless worthwhile). As the technology improves (helped along by its early adoption in Europe), the costs will come down. While it'll look like the US is behind, the US will catch up rapidly as the prices come down - people who won't buy a $2500 laptop WILL buy a $200 tablet.
Aw, c'mon... it's a couple paragraphs based on a conversation with someone who seriously lacks communication skills. The conversation boils down to vaguely saying he wants a game that isn't to simple, isn't too hard, isn't too expensive, has people, but doesn't have people. Uh...right.
Actually, that's not entirely true. Microsoft has 40 billion or so in the bank, but a buyout would involve buying *stock*, which is worth a lot less than that (though still worth a lot).
Google would have to buy over half those shares - a single share over half would be enough - to take over the company. This would be extremely expensive, but it is possible. Basically, Google doesn't have to buy Microsoft in the physical property sense of paying the entire value of the item. They just have to buy majority control over Microsoft. For corporations, that's the same thing as buying them outright.
Oddly enough, it sounds like you might be able to hand some (but not all) console gaming system, especially the older ones. My best friend was born with a birth defect - his right hand is a lump with little nubs for fingers. However, with most console controllers, the fine control is done with the left hand (either d-pad or analog stick), and the right hand presses a single button at a time. If you have enough control over your right side for that, you should be all set. If you can't do it with your thumb as normal, you can put the controller on your lap and use the base of your thumb (like my friend does) or whatever else works without pushing other unintended buttons.
The exceptions - some games for the newer systems required you to hit shoulder buttons on the right side. For some games/systems, you can remap the buttons. For some, you don't need to react so fast, so you have time to change grip to do that.
On a Dreamcast, you can actually get away with playing with the controller on your lap, and pull the right trigger by pushing the controller into your leg at the proper angle - not a great fix, but adequate if it's a game where you don't need that button very often. I think you could get away with the same trick on an SNES, but probably not a PS2/Xbox/Gamecube. You might also be able to do it on a Gameboy Advance or GBA SP, but you may have trouble holding the system because it's so small.
You'll have lots of trouble with fighting games, but RPGs should be a piece of cake - generally they don't use the right shoulder buttons for anything critical, and almost none of the RPGs have things so time-critical that you can't change grip if you have to use one of those buttons.
I've come across exceptionally few games that use the right analog stick. Only Hunter: The Reckoning comes to mind.
Episodic content has its own pitfalls. Will gamers be satisfied by short games with no conclusive ending? Will game companies be satisfied making less money per game? (They'd better not try to charge full price for 1/4-sized games!) Will there be frustrating problems of buying the wrong chapter of a game (because it looks just like the others) and then finding out you can't play it without having (or having beaten) the immediate preceding chapter?
And the obvious question - will this reduce the number of unfinished games piling up in front of the TVs and computers of gamers? I'm not so sure. Making shorter games means you can make MORE games. Making less expensive games means you HAVE to make more games to profit.
Slashdot Mirror
"or doubling the size of the current ISS (into something useful) in ONE THROW"
Um... no, think about it for a moment. That won't work unless you can collapse all those parts as if they were empty cardboard boxes and then re-assemble in orbit. I doubt many of the big workhorse rocket designs ever lift close to their true capacity - the awkwardness of the payload (in terms of aerodynamics and balance) is not trivial. And then if you get that to work but require human assembly at the destination, you still need to send people up, except now you're sending them on something else at the same time. Now you've got to manage two spacecraft designs, two coordinated launches, and so on.
While I agree with your general idea (learn from the old stuff and do BETTER), spaceflight hasn't gotten any easier, and upgrades to spacecraft aren't as simple as swapping out a video card and loading new drivers...
(Personally, I think we should try to do everything at once - do better rockets AND build the space elevator. They are different enough projects that they wouldn't steal specialist engineers from each other, thus we could work on both at the same time. If either one works, we win, and if the elevator works we really really really win)
"It doesn't sound like it could find a defect in an algorithm implementation or logic. To me, these are where the true defects are, in the logic/reasoning breakdowns."
Indeed, doing so is supposed to be impossible. Testing the outputs of every possible input isn't feasible (and would require you to have a perfect working version of the program with which to test the output against, unless you want to do all the work by hand...).
We even have a term for automated bug checking - "the halting problem". To paraphrase, we can't programatically check for bugs that will make the program crash, because to do so we'd have to run the program, which would make it crash.
"Why hasn't he said, 'Put the infringing source code in a brief and hand it over tomorrow, or I'm tossing this'? "
The judge DID say that, though he gave them 30 days instead of one day.
Given how long Netscape had to fight for that verdict, we probably won't still have the same government by the time this new case is finished, even if Bush DOES get elected to a second term.
"Too much of the objection over stem cell use is concerned with the origin of some stem cell cultures in aborted fetuses."
Agreed. So much of this is because it's being held down because of a tangential association with abortion and the stigma from bad b-movies about full human cloning.
Isn't it the number of transistors doubling, rather than the size of each transistor halving?
Research into asynchronous chips (meaning less dependancy on a clock signal, meaning less heat generation and power consumption) may allow chips to get a lot bigger, both physically and in terms of transistor count. More layers may also help. The shrinking transistor size will help, but it isn't the only factor. The transition won't happen all at once, and it might not ever unclock the *whole* chip, but they're already moving towards chips that are synchronous as a whole but which have internal sections which are asynchronous.
Beyond that, we may simply go to more chips in the same box, and they'll reword Moore's law yet again to say "the number of transistors in a computer doubles every 18 months" instead of the number on a single chip.
I discovered a few days ago that this very thing has been happening to me for the past year and a half. I'd noticed my cell phone bill slooowly creeping up - however, the creep was entirely under a section named "federal fees".
Turns out that was a lie, and it wasn't taxes going up. I found this out by the surprise letter I got from the lawyers running the class action suit against the phone company.
I cancelled my service the next day (I'd already been about to do it because I never use the phone). They'd pumped me for about $40 extra over that year, and probably every one of their other customers.
I agree with the sentiment, but it wouldn't work out the way you envision. If they're forced by law to give you only the final price, that won't stop them from adding more fees - it'll only stop you from being able to see those fees. Having everything seperate may be a PITA, but at least you have a chance to realize something is wrong.
This is, IMO, the entire point of this thread. Especially for health care, with all those middlemen sneaking in fees because the patient is insulated from that by the insurance company.
The tax is to cover the cost of federal counter-ninja defense squads, so that the ninjas don't flip out and kick you in the head.
That IS ground-breaking, because normal atoms are never made of the kind of particle they discovered. Atoms made of that could have VERY different properties.
"I am an advocate of a law that says the loser in a tort must pay the winner's court costs. That would prevent fishing expiditions like SCO's because they are too expensive."
No, you're not being evil enough and thinking it through to the most abusive conclusions >=)
A loser-pays-all-court costs situation would squash any chance of getting justice if your a small guy who was wronged by a big guy. Use the SCO example again - say I'm a small kernel developer, and I sue them for stealing my code. I can only afford a modestly-priced lawyer, and they have a flock of lawyers. I will probably lose, right? And then they, with their flock of lawyers, will claim enormously huge court costs, just to punish me for daring to question them. Even a lawsuit between near-equals could be perverted this way, simply by drawing the case out.
Faced with such possibilities, the number of lawsuits would drop drastically, but the amount of lawbreaking would skyrocket - because the big fish would know they could get away with anything. In making legal defense possible, you've made legal attack impossible for all but the richest few.
"Now situation when people post scan of upcoming ads (which was not the case with BestBuy and FatWallet) can probably fall under copyright violation, as only author of that page can lawfully distribute it (short of posting it with design/layout critique and "never use this font in publication" kind of thing :) )"
I believe advertising does (or should) fall under looser copyright rules in that case, since it's ADVERTISING and the copyright owner WANTS it seen by as many people as possible. They've paid money to get people to see it, they can't logically argue that only some people are allowed to see it.
That depends on how you interpret the Big Picture.
1) SCO is after huge settlement and/or buyout
-- OR --
2) SCO is out to kill free software / open source / GNU / Linux (whether on their own or as a pawn of Microsoft)
You sound as if you're sticking with #1. In light of all the other stuff SCO is doing, I'm more inclined to think they're shooting for #2 (though they'll take #1 if they can get it). If so, then it is in their best interests to inflict maximum harm on every part of the free software and open source movements. Time, money, and injunctions, against everyone they can. Linus, RMS, IBM, and Red Hat are prime targets to be dragged through the mud.
If they were only after #1, they'd be fighting a much more narrowly targeted battle.
Er... you seem a bit confused about the definition of "paper trail". You know, physical copies of evidence... like the hundreds of thousands of copies of that issue still in existence, like the one here on my bookshelf. That's the whole point - if there's a paper trail, you *can't* change your mind and erase part of your past statements. Time pulled it from their web page, but it's still out there.
"which is more important, tourist dollars or the truth?"
There's money involved. Go for the truth. To do less while continuing to rake in tourist dollars is fraud and false advertising.
Nah, it means they're being backwards as usual. Treating the symptoms instead of the disease. Hunting down virus writers is nice, but that means the virus has already done its damage. The stronger solution would be to fix the damn security holes (and improve auditing to stop creating new holes).
Those companies selling wheelchairs and motorized wheelchairs and stairlifts disagree.
You seem to be confused here. It's not FUD anymore without Uncertainty; thus, a clear verdict DOES have a huge effect.
And in the case of clear verdict in IBM's favor, that'll have a positive FUD-breaking ripple effect for Linux (just as a verdict in SCO's favor would have a negative FUD-enforcing ripple effect). IBM winning the case would send a very solid message of "Linux is safe - look at what happened when it got challenged". It sure makes future challenges less likely to happen when IBM very visibly crushed the challenger.
Call me a bit jaded here, but how many millions of people end up wiping and reinstalling Windows every year, or tossing their old system when they get a new one? Wouldn't this cause a huge margin of error in an mp3-collecting study?
And then, factor in the spread of cheap CD burners. Mp3s burned to CD as file data or audio aren't going to show up in scans of hard drives anymore. How do you know that kid with only 10 mp3s isn't really a kid with thousands, but whose system self destructed recently, and s/he is just listening to stuff already on CD-R?
Xbox 2 will use x86 because it's the only feasible way to play Xbox 1 games. Seriously, what is going to be able to do software emulation of a 700mhz P3 perfectly enough to handle the variety of Xbox 1 games?
Well, the US *is* doing wireless stuff, but the critical population density that drives wireless adoption is present in very few places here. Averaging it over the entire population for your statistics will make it look as if the US is doing very little for wireless compared to Europe. But both statements are true, depending on how you look at the numbers. We both ARE and AREN'T pushing wireless.
Some other factors: we probably aren't counting private internal corporate office wireless networks in the figures, because they're not open to the public.
More city factors: cities in the US have additional economic differences from European cities. Many of those who *live* in the cities here are lower-class/middle-class and can't afford nifty new laptops with wifi (not true for ALL American cities, but it does really hurt in terms of getting enough computer-using population in close proximity to make wireless worthwhile). As the technology improves (helped along by its early adoption in Europe), the costs will come down. While it'll look like the US is behind, the US will catch up rapidly as the prices come down - people who won't buy a $2500 laptop WILL buy a $200 tablet.
Aw, c'mon... it's a couple paragraphs based on a conversation with someone who seriously lacks communication skills. The conversation boils down to vaguely saying he wants a game that isn't to simple, isn't too hard, isn't too expensive, has people, but doesn't have people. Uh...right.
Actually, that's not entirely true. Microsoft has 40 billion or so in the bank, but a buyout would involve buying *stock*, which is worth a lot less than that (though still worth a lot).
Google would have to buy over half those shares - a single share over half would be enough - to take over the company. This would be extremely expensive, but it is possible. Basically, Google doesn't have to buy Microsoft in the physical property sense of paying the entire value of the item. They just have to buy majority control over Microsoft. For corporations, that's the same thing as buying them outright.
Oddly enough, it sounds like you might be able to hand some (but not all) console gaming system, especially the older ones. My best friend was born with a birth defect - his right hand is a lump with little nubs for fingers. However, with most console controllers, the fine control is done with the left hand (either d-pad or analog stick), and the right hand presses a single button at a time. If you have enough control over your right side for that, you should be all set. If you can't do it with your thumb as normal, you can put the controller on your lap and use the base of your thumb (like my friend does) or whatever else works without pushing other unintended buttons.
The exceptions - some games for the newer systems required you to hit shoulder buttons on the right side. For some games/systems, you can remap the buttons. For some, you don't need to react so fast, so you have time to change grip to do that.
On a Dreamcast, you can actually get away with playing with the controller on your lap, and pull the right trigger by pushing the controller into your leg at the proper angle - not a great fix, but adequate if it's a game where you don't need that button very often. I think you could get away with the same trick on an SNES, but probably not a PS2/Xbox/Gamecube. You might also be able to do it on a Gameboy Advance or GBA SP, but you may have trouble holding the system because it's so small.
You'll have lots of trouble with fighting games, but RPGs should be a piece of cake - generally they don't use the right shoulder buttons for anything critical, and almost none of the RPGs have things so time-critical that you can't change grip if you have to use one of those buttons.
I've come across exceptionally few games that use the right analog stick. Only Hunter: The Reckoning comes to mind.
Episodic content has its own pitfalls. Will gamers be satisfied by short games with no conclusive ending? Will game companies be satisfied making less money per game? (They'd better not try to charge full price for 1/4-sized games!) Will there be frustrating problems of buying the wrong chapter of a game (because it looks just like the others) and then finding out you can't play it without having (or having beaten) the immediate preceding chapter?
And the obvious question - will this reduce the number of unfinished games piling up in front of the TVs and computers of gamers? I'm not so sure. Making shorter games means you can make MORE games. Making less expensive games means you HAVE to make more games to profit.