Hey, the customer is always right. Even if NASA doesn't get a right to define what 'man rated' means by rule of law they still have the choice to buy or not to buy. SpaceX has to build to NASA's requirements because if they do not someone else will. I suppose the FAA could add to the requirements if they wanted to but if both agencies published requirements then SpaceX would have to meet both, not ignore their customer (NASA). They can't just build what they want to build and then expect NASA to be obligated to buy it from them. I suppose there are other customers out there but not so many they can afford to lose NASA. As for the FAA I don't think they would bother, NASA has been doing this for a while without them already. Plus, I think it's only within their jurisdiction until it reaches a certain height anyway.
If the Senate bill goes through NASA will not be competing with SpaceX or any of the other commercial companies. Instead NASA will be focused on heavy lift rockets and getting beyond low Earth orbit. If they are doing that then dealing with building another orbiter would be a distraction at best. I'm sure those writing the checkes would be happy to just pay SpaceX or whomever else shows up and be done with it. Now... if the House version of the NASA appropriation bill goes through then things will get strange. NASA would be stuck building another orbiter and buying from SpaceX. Heavy lift and exploration beyond low Earth orbit would get sidelined for another generation or two. I hope that bill dies.
I suppose saying that broadband is cheaper now because we get more speed per dollar and we are paying the same number of dollars is one way to look at it. It is certainly the way that the telecom giants want us to see things. I don't think it's necessarily the only way or even the right way to look at it though.
Take computers... they can be had at about 1/10th of the price they cost when the internet was first being commercialized. And computers are now 200 times or more faster than they were then. Just because technology is getting better doesn't mean we shouldn't see a price drop as that which was a niche market becomes a commodity.
I used to work for a major cable provider and they once told us what there then current profit margin was on internet service. It was almost 70%!!! There is certainly room to charge less. It just doesn't happen because there isn't much in the way of competition.
White dot? There was no white dots to show running applications when I worked in an office w/ Macs. That was a few years ago though. Maybe they added it? Or maybe there is a setting? Everything was set to the bosses preferences and locked down tight. If Mac doesn't try to hide the difference between running and not-running programs then I apologize for that remark. I do think that UIs which work that way (I have seen it on cellphones) work that way to insulate the user from needing a basic computer understanding... Thus the 'stupid' remark.
OK, Windows is better than it was. I'll give that. Running an anti-virus program though is a big negative. I'm sorry, I have yet to see a machine that didn't bog down and run like crap whenever an antivirus was installed. Disabling heuristic scans and limiting file types to actual executable helps but doesn't really fix the problem. Windows also has a tendency to acrue garbage if you install and remove programs regularly. No, I'm not talking about applications containing malware. Install a number of well trusted applications and remove them. Windows will run slower.
Sure.. I do see some Unix heritage in the Mac filesystem. That's great when doing something involved from the commandline. I don't think I should need to go there to run an application though. Maybe there is a menu option which was disabled in the machines I used? I didn't see a way to separate the concept of shortcuts to the executable files of applications and just viewing the actual directory structure.
Ignoring all this functionality stuff even just on an aesthetics basis I think it is just fine for me to state the Mac's UI is butt ugly and inferior. Sure, appearances are subjective but these days it seems like it is almost assumed to be a universal opinion that Mac has the prettiest UI. I'm just making the point that there is at least one person still alive who disagrees.
So you are saying that the power supply isn't part of the competition? Seems to me that making the power supply more efficient is as valuable as any other aspect of making the cluster more power efficient.
I think you are looking at it wrong. The power supply IS part of the load.
Collaboration with the NSA is not a virtue. It is aiding those who would make the US more like Iran. If bombing Iran could raise the standard of living for the majority there then why does Iraqi life suck so much? Let's not defend the indefensible on either side of the pond.
Yes, Linux has security bugs. Yes, Windows has security bugs. Yes Mac has them too.
As an internet user if I use for daily surfing without all sorts of virus and adware protection how likely am I to get garbage on it that slows it down and fouls my surfing experience? How about the likelihood of getting something truly malicious which makes things stop working altogether or worse yet steals my data? Is there such a thing as virus and adware protection which does not bog the computer down all by itself? Be honest and ask yourself about this for all three of them.
I've used Linux and Windows quite a bit and I can say for sure that if you use them on the internet the Windows machine is extremely likely to get filled with garbage and need formatting in a few months at best. While bad things could happen in Linux they normally do not. Sorry, I know there is such a thing as a Linux virus but I have never seen one. I've seen plenty on Windows. I don't care that technically a hack is possible or a virus exists somewhere if the probability it will ever reach me is near zero.
Now, Mac... It's probably about the same as Linux as far as safety goes. Why would I want to pay twice as much for my computer though? And it's GUI, sorry, no matter how many self described artsy fanbois tell me it's sexy I still think it's butt ugly. Easy to use? How so? All the common programs have 'shortcuts' in the dock. I have to navigate something named 'my harddrive' to find the rest? Really? Is that thing the actual hard drive contents or some collection of shortcuts or what anyway? What's inside here, applications, data files, library files I don't want to know about? Please, give me a 'start' button anyday better yet, how about a nice big 'K' menu. And the dock is also the pager? Running, minimized programs and 'shortcuts' pretty much look the same down there! I guess for stupid people who don't know the difference between a program running or just being installed that does make it easy. They don't have to strain their precious heads learning about a computer. I suppose this is ok when all you ever run is your browser. I'd rather know what's running so I can close it if the computer starts to get bogged down thank you. No, I don't like that paradigm in cellphone OSs either. Hmm... I wonder how long before Mac users can only install the programs big brother Jobs approves of like the iPhone? On the bright side I suppose you don't have to worry some cracker is going to own your computer when the company you bought it from already does!
Why would you believe any information obtained through torture? If you are innocent and someone is torturing you won't you eventually confess and even make up false accomplices? And if you are a terrorist who believes in whatever cause wouldn't you still make up false accomplices to make the torture stop while still protecting your buddies so they can continue their causes? I don't see how torture can be useful for anything except maybe to eventually force someone into admitting something you already knew... or... thought you knew.
How do we know there aren't innocent people rotting in Gittmo today b/c someone (maybe a terrorist, maybe not) just didn't want to drown and shouted out their name?
Wow, at first glance I thought you were kidding! You seem to have really meant that though!
Hydrogen - Ever hear of the Hindenburg? Oh the humanity!
Hot-Air - Certainly the most feasible of your suggestions. Hot air balloons can and are used regularly already. Still, how energy efficient is it to heat all that air? I can't imagine a balloon provides that much insulation to keep the heat in either. And I don't think it could because thickening the material would just add weight. You are just trading He use for increased fossil fuel use.
Nitrogen - Why would a balloon full of nitrogen be expected to float? The air surrounding the balloon IS mostly nitrogen. The balloon would have about the same buoyancy once inflated as it had as a pile of nylon or whatever it is made of lying on the floor.
Re:Oh good! The trolls are out in full force!
on
iOS 4 Releases Today
·
· Score: 1
My old Wince phone was far more flexible and updateable than an iAnything. My new Android phone is better yet!
Can but won't. Saying a heavy lifter will be chosen in 2015 is doublespeak for never. If NASA was really meant to send somebody somewhere it would have most likely only meant Ares-I gets canceled and serious Ares-V development begins. A better but less likely alternative would be Constellation gets canceled (with the exception of Orion) and Direct begins. Either way it would be NOW or maybe in 2011 but certainly not 2015! Nothing gets done that isn't supposed to begin until that far out.
People are so f@# ignorant!
Nobody pays any amount of taxes that they would actually notice for the space program. It's was such a small percentage of the money the government took it comes out to nothing when looked at at an individual level. NOTHING! Yes a poor person pays taxes, they pay for endless wars and big executive golden parachutes, not space programs.
Now, on the other hand, how much technology that went into creating the antibiotic your hypothetical person's antibiotic were a result of the space program? Do you think the scientists that developed it used computers? I doubt they were the room sized vacuum tube monsters that existed before 'mostly' the space program funded huge research in that area. Don't care about the microwave oven in your kitchen? How many devices are used for sterilization and diagnosis of diseases that are directly related to that microwave oven?
No, not really. Your wireless signal isn't just sitting inside your home minding it's own business when Google shows up and takes advantage of it. Your wireless signal is leaving your home in all directions at the speed of light. It penetrates your walls, your yard, your neighbors yard and walls, even your neighbors themselves. A more apt analogy is not an innocent rape victim but a girl who lies naked by the road in position calling out come and get me. Then the Google guy goes for it and she cries rape!
If you plug in that router thingy without stopping to understand what it actually is and what it is actually doing and somebody does something with the signal that you don't like the fault is your own. If people insist on using technology they are not willing to learn to comprehend then people deserve whatever they get and should not be surprised by unexpected results. (I'm talking basic user's manual level here, not down to the theoretical physics)
It's sad that this matters. IMHO a successful company is any that bring it's employees a stable income. A good one actually produces a product or service that somehow makes the world a little better in the process. Unfortunately in today's reality companies are measured by investments not earned profit and with so many multi-billion corporations around the investors will naturally flock towards those, not the multi-million dollar companies.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, the customer is always right. Even if NASA doesn't get a right to define what 'man rated' means by rule of law they still have the choice to buy or not to buy. SpaceX has to build to NASA's requirements because if they do not someone else will. I suppose the FAA could add to the requirements if they wanted to but if both agencies published requirements then SpaceX would have to meet both, not ignore their customer (NASA). They can't just build what they want to build and then expect NASA to be obligated to buy it from them. I suppose there are other customers out there but not so many they can afford to lose NASA. As for the FAA I don't think they would bother, NASA has been doing this for a while without them already. Plus, I think it's only within their jurisdiction until it reaches a certain height anyway. If the Senate bill goes through NASA will not be competing with SpaceX or any of the other commercial companies. Instead NASA will be focused on heavy lift rockets and getting beyond low Earth orbit. If they are doing that then dealing with building another orbiter would be a distraction at best. I'm sure those writing the checkes would be happy to just pay SpaceX or whomever else shows up and be done with it. Now... if the House version of the NASA appropriation bill goes through then things will get strange. NASA would be stuck building another orbiter and buying from SpaceX. Heavy lift and exploration beyond low Earth orbit would get sidelined for another generation or two. I hope that bill dies.
Attack a rail? Kind of sounds like a modernization of Don Quixote.
I suppose saying that broadband is cheaper now because we get more speed per dollar and we are paying the same number of dollars is one way to look at it. It is certainly the way that the telecom giants want us to see things. I don't think it's necessarily the only way or even the right way to look at it though.
Take computers... they can be had at about 1/10th of the price they cost when the internet was first being commercialized. And computers are now 200 times or more faster than they were then. Just because technology is getting better doesn't mean we shouldn't see a price drop as that which was a niche market becomes a commodity.
I used to work for a major cable provider and they once told us what there then current profit margin was on internet service. It was almost 70%!!! There is certainly room to charge less. It just doesn't happen because there isn't much in the way of competition.
White dot? There was no white dots to show running applications when I worked in an office w/ Macs. That was a few years ago though. Maybe they added it? Or maybe there is a setting? Everything was set to the bosses preferences and locked down tight. If Mac doesn't try to hide the difference between running and not-running programs then I apologize for that remark. I do think that UIs which work that way (I have seen it on cellphones) work that way to insulate the user from needing a basic computer understanding... Thus the 'stupid' remark.
OK, Windows is better than it was. I'll give that. Running an anti-virus program though is a big negative. I'm sorry, I have yet to see a machine that didn't bog down and run like crap whenever an antivirus was installed. Disabling heuristic scans and limiting file types to actual executable helps but doesn't really fix the problem. Windows also has a tendency to acrue garbage if you install and remove programs regularly. No, I'm not talking about applications containing malware. Install a number of well trusted applications and remove them. Windows will run slower.
Sure.. I do see some Unix heritage in the Mac filesystem. That's great when doing something involved from the commandline. I don't think I should need to go there to run an application though. Maybe there is a menu option which was disabled in the machines I used? I didn't see a way to separate the concept of shortcuts to the executable files of applications and just viewing the actual directory structure.
Ignoring all this functionality stuff even just on an aesthetics basis I think it is just fine for me to state the Mac's UI is butt ugly and inferior. Sure, appearances are subjective but these days it seems like it is almost assumed to be a universal opinion that Mac has the prettiest UI. I'm just making the point that there is at least one person still alive who disagrees.
Think of the children!!!
So you are saying that the power supply isn't part of the competition? Seems to me that making the power supply more efficient is as valuable as any other aspect of making the cluster more power efficient.
I think you are looking at it wrong. The power supply IS part of the load.
-Oh come on, you cannot just throw that word around like that. Why not? The politicians do!
Collaboration with the NSA is not a virtue. It is aiding those who would make the US more like Iran. If bombing Iran could raise the standard of living for the majority there then why does Iraqi life suck so much? Let's not defend the indefensible on either side of the pond.
If you kill him I'm pretty sure he won't be pushing any beliefs on you. Unless maybe if reincarnation is real...
Yes, Linux has security bugs. Yes, Windows has security bugs. Yes Mac has them too.
As an internet user if I use for daily surfing without all sorts of virus and adware protection how likely am I to get garbage on it that slows it down and fouls my surfing experience? How about the likelihood of getting something truly malicious which makes things stop working altogether or worse yet steals my data? Is there such a thing as virus and adware protection which does not bog the computer down all by itself? Be honest and ask yourself about this for all three of them.
I've used Linux and Windows quite a bit and I can say for sure that if you use them on the internet the Windows machine is extremely likely to get filled with garbage and need formatting in a few months at best. While bad things could happen in Linux they normally do not. Sorry, I know there is such a thing as a Linux virus but I have never seen one. I've seen plenty on Windows. I don't care that technically a hack is possible or a virus exists somewhere if the probability it will ever reach me is near zero.
Now, Mac... It's probably about the same as Linux as far as safety goes. Why would I want to pay twice as much for my computer though? And it's GUI, sorry, no matter how many self described artsy fanbois tell me it's sexy I still think it's butt ugly. Easy to use? How so? All the common programs have 'shortcuts' in the dock. I have to navigate something named 'my harddrive' to find the rest? Really? Is that thing the actual hard drive contents or some collection of shortcuts or what anyway? What's inside here, applications, data files, library files I don't want to know about? Please, give me a 'start' button anyday better yet, how about a nice big 'K' menu. And the dock is also the pager? Running, minimized programs and 'shortcuts' pretty much look the same down there! I guess for stupid people who don't know the difference between a program running or just being installed that does make it easy. They don't have to strain their precious heads learning about a computer. I suppose this is ok when all you ever run is your browser. I'd rather know what's running so I can close it if the computer starts to get bogged down thank you. No, I don't like that paradigm in cellphone OSs either. Hmm... I wonder how long before Mac users can only install the programs big brother Jobs approves of like the iPhone? On the bright side I suppose you don't have to worry some cracker is going to own your computer when the company you bought it from already does!
Slashdot is a news site?
Maybe losing the ability leads to marriage?
Why would you believe any information obtained through torture? If you are innocent and someone is torturing you won't you eventually confess and even make up false accomplices? And if you are a terrorist who believes in whatever cause wouldn't you still make up false accomplices to make the torture stop while still protecting your buddies so they can continue their causes? I don't see how torture can be useful for anything except maybe to eventually force someone into admitting something you already knew... or... thought you knew. How do we know there aren't innocent people rotting in Gittmo today b/c someone (maybe a terrorist, maybe not) just didn't want to drown and shouted out their name?
Your argument makes sense except that I would have said the same thing about MySpace at one point in time but look at them now.
Not really. Cyanide is no guarantee that your body won't get stuffed and put on display in a museum for generations to look at.
I think it would be the wrong kind of yeast for that. I certainly hope so anyway...
Which makes glossy a better sell in your nice well lighted Best Buy store.
That's what I thought about Bush and look how that turned out.
Wow, at first glance I thought you were kidding! You seem to have really meant that though! Hydrogen - Ever hear of the Hindenburg? Oh the humanity! Hot-Air - Certainly the most feasible of your suggestions. Hot air balloons can and are used regularly already. Still, how energy efficient is it to heat all that air? I can't imagine a balloon provides that much insulation to keep the heat in either. And I don't think it could because thickening the material would just add weight. You are just trading He use for increased fossil fuel use. Nitrogen - Why would a balloon full of nitrogen be expected to float? The air surrounding the balloon IS mostly nitrogen. The balloon would have about the same buoyancy once inflated as it had as a pile of nylon or whatever it is made of lying on the floor.
My old Wince phone was far more flexible and updateable than an iAnything. My new Android phone is better yet!
Of course! The two go hand in hand. Bury enough nuclear waste there and you just get more geothermal energy!
Can but won't. Saying a heavy lifter will be chosen in 2015 is doublespeak for never. If NASA was really meant to send somebody somewhere it would have most likely only meant Ares-I gets canceled and serious Ares-V development begins. A better but less likely alternative would be Constellation gets canceled (with the exception of Orion) and Direct begins. Either way it would be NOW or maybe in 2011 but certainly not 2015! Nothing gets done that isn't supposed to begin until that far out.
People are so f@# ignorant! Nobody pays any amount of taxes that they would actually notice for the space program. It's was such a small percentage of the money the government took it comes out to nothing when looked at at an individual level. NOTHING! Yes a poor person pays taxes, they pay for endless wars and big executive golden parachutes, not space programs. Now, on the other hand, how much technology that went into creating the antibiotic your hypothetical person's antibiotic were a result of the space program? Do you think the scientists that developed it used computers? I doubt they were the room sized vacuum tube monsters that existed before 'mostly' the space program funded huge research in that area. Don't care about the microwave oven in your kitchen? How many devices are used for sterilization and diagnosis of diseases that are directly related to that microwave oven?
No, not really. Your wireless signal isn't just sitting inside your home minding it's own business when Google shows up and takes advantage of it. Your wireless signal is leaving your home in all directions at the speed of light. It penetrates your walls, your yard, your neighbors yard and walls, even your neighbors themselves. A more apt analogy is not an innocent rape victim but a girl who lies naked by the road in position calling out come and get me. Then the Google guy goes for it and she cries rape!
If you plug in that router thingy without stopping to understand what it actually is and what it is actually doing and somebody does something with the signal that you don't like the fault is your own. If people insist on using technology they are not willing to learn to comprehend then people deserve whatever they get and should not be surprised by unexpected results. (I'm talking basic user's manual level here, not down to the theoretical physics)
It's sad that this matters. IMHO a successful company is any that bring it's employees a stable income. A good one actually produces a product or service that somehow makes the world a little better in the process. Unfortunately in today's reality companies are measured by investments not earned profit and with so many multi-billion corporations around the investors will naturally flock towards those, not the multi-million dollar companies.