Re:Microsoft is in deep shit now!
on
Microsoft CFO Quits
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
They still have more than 80% of the desktop market. Doing poorly is means truckloads of money. I can't see MS going anywhere soon.
Half the problem is stock market expectations. You can't just do well, you must do better than last year. And not just better but the improvement has to be more than the previous year. Its hard to do that when you have pretty much already sold your product to everyone that has a computer.
As a good economist once said, "Humans don't understand exponential curves".
Why would I compare minimum performance of one to the maximum performance of the other? I'm seeking to perform an honest comparison, not to handwave, bullshity, and blow smoke - while simultaneously making myself look even more ignorant with each sentence I type. That's your schtick, and you've got it down cold.
So you are comparing the performance of a robotic mission that cost less than a thousandth of a manned mission. And that being optimistic for the manned mission. Logic is clearly not your strong point.
All we need is a another deluded space nutter troll on the internet.
In some fantasy universe where the main limits on robotic performance is cash and mass, sure.
Then you compare walking speed to rover motion speed. Both things are easily solved with mass and budget. And we are talking about a massive increase in both mass and budget here. In fact half of the this very slow progress is NASA over abundance of caution. Oh and the fact they don't have the energy budget for better computers on board because of mass constraints.
Yes, there's huge assumptions there - like "humans will perform to their usual and proven standard".
What proven record? On earth doesn't count. For mars there is the trip to consider, with both physical and psychological effects. And the suit they are going to need. Also a lot of life support. Since we have not proven to be even able to make a life support system that lasts that long without resupply, so its far from proven.
That's just further evidence of your ignorance, or bias, or both.
For the budget the Apollo program was pitiful. You know it.
I am far from ignorant. We use to chat on usenet back in the day. You were a lot more objective as I recall. And also a bit more clued up on just what mass means for something like a trip to mars.
If the rovers mass budget and cash budget where comparable to a manned mission, they too would have got the job done in five days. Apples and Oranges.
And added bonus, NASA doesn't get shut down for a investigation for years when something goes wrong either. Lets not also forget that there are a huge amount of assumptions in that "a human could have done it 5 days". Like say no need to wear a space suit. We were on the moon for a lot of days. And quite frankly didn't get much done at all.
Because the moving parts alone weights 2000 Tons. And with adaptive optics its already diffraction limited or close to it. The resolution is 10x better than Hubble.
Even worst case we are going to shift the current equilibrium a little. Earth will remain a very hospitable planet well beyond a little AGW and will be so close to life as we know, that well it will be life as we know it. Almost all ecosystem destruction to this day is habitat removal. Not AGW. But that is far cry from ecosystem removal. Since new ecosystems replace the old.
The comet is not expected to create a spectacular meteor shower on Mars or be a threat to the spacecraft in orbit or on the ground. The comet will have to be extremely close to Mars for its debris to pose any real risk. Millimeter-sized grains will be ejected at about 1 m/s (2 mph), and would take more than a year to travel 100,000 km from the comet.[7]
And further down in the same article:
As of April 2013, the odds of a Mars impact are about 1 in 8000.[13] The 8 April 2013 JPL 3-sigma solution is the first solution to show that the minimum approach by the comet will miss Mars.[2]
Also from the same article is estimated size does not put this at a extinction level event anyway. A big event to be sure. But we are going to be a little bit harder to knock of than that.
It is in fact not that complicated and is generally obfuscated with well wishing "science journalism" or other sci fi fan desires. Even perhaps some of the debates Einstein had about it has made it more magical that in is.
Entanglement though not mathematically trivial but is not too hard to explain with an analogy. Consider that i entangle two die (aka photons) in such a way that the sum will always be 8. I cannot, due to the way physics work control what value each die has, only that the sum will always be 8. So i do this and each dice is in a box (ie entangled and unobserved). I keep one here and i take one to the space station. Now if i look at the dice i have, and its a 5 I instantly know that the die on the space station is 3! Note that the space station people don't know this without also looking at their box. Clearly i did not communicate this value 3 in anyway. Some people are happier with the analogy when the die are constantly being rolled till one box is opened. However this changes nothing.
In quantum physics the box where we don't see things is important part of the physics. So looking at my box changes the other box from my perspective, 100 or even thousands of miles way to also be open. Of course unless the person at the other box also takes a measurement (aka opens the box), they can't know its an already opened box for the observer on earth. By confusing these things, one can get the impression that there is an effect on the other particle (dice) despite that this cannot be observed/measured in any way.
We know that quantum physics and entanglement does not permit FLT messages.
We also know that if you can have FLT messages in 2 or more reference frames, you can communicate with your past.
News flash. The Die hard series is suppose to be a action comedy. Not a documentary. And really what movie doesn't get so many things wrong on so many levels? Its probably the very few good docos...Since so many documentaries are equally bad.
Mass is *everything* in space. Its not ever just mass. 1Ton of rover to mars is expensive. 50Tons is dreaming. And all that dead, useless life support system that absolutely cannot fail, could be another 40 odd rovers! And even then the rovers will be much cheaper.
Pound for pound, dollar for dollar humans suck at space exploration. Right now a meatbag on mars or the moon is nothing more that misguided nationalism.
If you can fuse 3He you can fuse D. Some of the ash from DD fusion is...3He. It would be cheaper and make far more sense to just breed 3He in DD fusion reactors that ever mine it from the moon. Its a desperate reason made up because even the biggest "man on the moon" fans can't come up with anything better.
Lets not forget that we can't fuse TD which is only about 60x easier and gives about 65x more power density. That is even if/when we can fuse 3He, that 1GW TD reactor is now a tiny 15MW! Still cost the same to build however.
The thing is that applets should die. I am a java dev. But i don't understand this big deployment on the web push. C/C++ don't have it and do just fine. I have applets/ws disabled long before this list of security issues.
Well it would be nice if there servers stayed up and provided the content for at least a few decades. Fast pipes and stable sites are not free or even almost free. Yes i would like cheaper page charges. But seriously, the 1-2k is nothing compared to just about anything else. Including salary's, computers, lab equipment, travel etc.
Going to vacuum from either He or H gives very little extra lift. Air at STP is just a little over 1.1kg/m3, while H2 is about 100g and He is about 200g. So you get about 1kg of lift per m3. With vacuum you get, well about 1kg per m3.
And how does putting perhaps 1 at most 2 people on mars, or even a dozen people on the moon having anything to do with this goal? Pro tip, Nothing. If you want space for joe average. You don't want NASA to have anything to do with it.
So in this threat model where they can read stuff off/in your desk, but won't say steal your wallet or computer or whatever? Or read your trash? Also a few cleaners is a *lot* less people than the entire connected internet. Also they are not known for their hacker skills.
Consider the threat model. Written down passwords are better for many people. Even BS says so. So it must be true.
And for many people this is more secure. Instead of any script kiddie with a laptop breaking into your email account from anywhere in the world. They have to break into your office first. For 99.99% of us this is not a credible threat.
You know i couldn't read or write in kindergarten. I learnt that from 5 in primary school. I was top in high school and am now a scientist. Seriously what difference does it make to a bloody 5 year old? So you can teach em calculus at 6?
That is seriously the best you can come up with? We have, in all probability (ie the same probability that the said event won't also take out the moon), thousands of years before then. We don't need to rush with every last penny for a tiny handful of NASA pilots to go to the moon and mars now.
Slashdot Mirror
They still have more than 80% of the desktop market. Doing poorly is means truckloads of money. I can't see MS going anywhere soon.
Half the problem is stock market expectations. You can't just do well, you must do better than last year. And not just better but the improvement has to be more than the previous year. Its hard to do that when you have pretty much already sold your product to everyone that has a computer.
As a good economist once said, "Humans don't understand exponential curves".
Why would I compare minimum performance of one to the maximum performance of the other? I'm seeking to perform an honest comparison, not to handwave, bullshity, and blow smoke - while simultaneously making myself look even more ignorant with each sentence I type. That's your schtick, and you've got it down cold.
So you are comparing the performance of a robotic mission that cost less than a thousandth of a manned mission. And that being optimistic for the manned mission. Logic is clearly not your strong point.
All we need is a another deluded space nutter troll on the internet.
In some fantasy universe where the main limits on robotic performance is cash and mass, sure.
Then you compare walking speed to rover motion speed. Both things are easily solved with mass and budget. And we are talking about a massive increase in both mass and budget here. In fact half of the this very slow progress is NASA over abundance of caution. Oh and the fact they don't have the energy budget for better computers on board because of mass constraints.
Yes, there's huge assumptions there - like "humans will perform to their usual and proven standard".
What proven record? On earth doesn't count. For mars there is the trip to consider, with both physical and psychological effects. And the suit they are going to need. Also a lot of life support. Since we have not proven to be even able to make a life support system that lasts that long without resupply, so its far from proven.
That's just further evidence of your ignorance, or bias, or both.
For the budget the Apollo program was pitiful. You know it.
I am far from ignorant. We use to chat on usenet back in the day. You were a lot more objective as I recall. And also a bit more clued up on just what mass means for something like a trip to mars.
If the rovers mass budget and cash budget where comparable to a manned mission, they too would have got the job done in five days. Apples and Oranges.
And added bonus, NASA doesn't get shut down for a investigation for years when something goes wrong either. Lets not also forget that there are a huge amount of assumptions in that "a human could have done it 5 days". Like say no need to wear a space suit. We were on the moon for a lot of days. And quite frankly didn't get much done at all.
Adaptive optics. They work. Google it. It is expected to have 10x the resolution of Hubble.
Because the moving parts alone weights 2000 Tons. And with adaptive optics its already diffraction limited or close to it. The resolution is 10x better than Hubble.
Way to exaggerate beyond all reason.
Even worst case we are going to shift the current equilibrium a little. Earth will remain a very hospitable planet well beyond a little AGW and will be so close to life as we know, that well it will be life as we know it. Almost all ecosystem destruction to this day is habitat removal. Not AGW. But that is far cry from ecosystem removal. Since new ecosystems replace the old.
The comet is not expected to create a spectacular meteor shower on Mars or be a threat to the spacecraft in orbit or on the ground. The comet will have to be extremely close to Mars for its debris to pose any real risk. Millimeter-sized grains will be ejected at about 1 m/s (2 mph), and would take more than a year to travel 100,000 km from the comet.[7]
And further down in the same article:
As of April 2013, the odds of a Mars impact are about 1 in 8000.[13] The 8 April 2013 JPL 3-sigma solution is the first solution to show that the minimum approach by the comet will miss Mars.[2]
Also from the same article is estimated size does not put this at a extinction level event anyway. A big event to be sure. But we are going to be a little bit harder to knock of than that.
It is in fact not that complicated and is generally obfuscated with well wishing "science journalism" or other sci fi fan desires. Even perhaps some of the debates Einstein had about it has made it more magical that in is.
Entanglement though not mathematically trivial but is not too hard to explain with an analogy. Consider that i entangle two die (aka photons) in such a way that the sum will always be 8. I cannot, due to the way physics work control what value each die has, only that the sum will always be 8. So i do this and each dice is in a box (ie entangled and unobserved). I keep one here and i take one to the space station. Now if i look at the dice i have, and its a 5 I instantly know that the die on the space station is 3! Note that the space station people don't know this without also looking at their box. Clearly i did not communicate this value 3 in anyway. Some people are happier with the analogy when the die are constantly being rolled till one box is opened. However this changes nothing.
In quantum physics the box where we don't see things is important part of the physics. So looking at my box changes the other box from my perspective, 100 or even thousands of miles way to also be open. Of course unless the person at the other box also takes a measurement (aka opens the box), they can't know its an already opened box for the observer on earth. By confusing these things, one can get the impression that there is an effect on the other particle (dice) despite that this cannot be observed/measured in any way.
We know that quantum physics and entanglement does not permit FLT messages.
We also know that if you can have FLT messages in 2 or more reference frames, you can communicate with your past.
News flash. The Die hard series is suppose to be a action comedy. Not a documentary. And really what movie doesn't get so many things wrong on so many levels? Its probably the very few good docos...Since so many documentaries are equally bad.
So then, they have solved the laser cooling problem have they?
..They're just mass in the end.
Mass is *everything* in space. Its not ever just mass. 1Ton of rover to mars is expensive. 50Tons is dreaming. And all that dead, useless life support system that absolutely cannot fail, could be another 40 odd rovers! And even then the rovers will be much cheaper.
Pound for pound, dollar for dollar humans suck at space exploration. Right now a meatbag on mars or the moon is nothing more that misguided nationalism.
If you can fuse 3He you can fuse D. Some of the ash from DD fusion is...3He. It would be cheaper and make far more sense to just breed 3He in DD fusion reactors that ever mine it from the moon. Its a desperate reason made up because even the biggest "man on the moon" fans can't come up with anything better.
Lets not forget that we can't fuse TD which is only about 60x easier and gives about 65x more power density. That is even if/when we can fuse 3He, that 1GW TD reactor is now a tiny 15MW! Still cost the same to build however.
The thing is that applets should die. I am a java dev. But i don't understand this big deployment on the web push. C/C++ don't have it and do just fine. I have applets/ws disabled long before this list of security issues.
Well it would be nice if there servers stayed up and provided the content for at least a few decades. Fast pipes and stable sites are not free or even almost free. Yes i would like cheaper page charges. But seriously, the 1-2k is nothing compared to just about anything else. Including salary's, computers, lab equipment, travel etc.
1) Cranks and trolls are not a problem in academic publishing, it never was a problem, and it isn't expected to be a problem in the future.
There are plenty of them. There will always be plenty of them. Clearly you have not done much reviewing. Some even gets through sometimes.
Going to vacuum from either He or H gives very little extra lift. Air at STP is just a little over 1.1kg/m3, while H2 is about 100g and He is about 200g. So you get about 1kg of lift per m3. With vacuum you get, well about 1kg per m3.
How about i will put what i want in my posts and if you don't like it you can just read/go somewhere else.
And how does putting perhaps 1 at most 2 people on mars, or even a dozen people on the moon having anything to do with this goal? Pro tip, Nothing. If you want space for joe average. You don't want NASA to have anything to do with it.
So in this threat model where they can read stuff off/in your desk, but won't say steal your wallet or computer or whatever? Or read your trash? Also a few cleaners is a *lot* less people than the entire connected internet. Also they are not known for their hacker skills.
Consider the threat model. Written down passwords are better for many people. Even BS says so. So it must be true.
And for many people this is more secure. Instead of any script kiddie with a laptop breaking into your email account from anywhere in the world. They have to break into your office first. For 99.99% of us this is not a credible threat.
Don't worry, these things will be fixed with driverless cars.
You know i couldn't read or write in kindergarten. I learnt that from 5 in primary school. I was top in high school and am now a scientist. Seriously what difference does it make to a bloody 5 year old? So you can teach em calculus at 6?
That is seriously the best you can come up with? We have, in all probability (ie the same probability that the said event won't also take out the moon), thousands of years before then. We don't need to rush with every last penny for a tiny handful of NASA pilots to go to the moon and mars now.
good point. Totally forgot about the gravity thing. In fact you could probably do some insane architecte on the moon.