Re: SpaceX Booster Recovery Saga
SpaceX is profitable, and has been for several years now.
37 posts • joined 27 Sep 2012
SpaceX is profitable, and has been for several years now.
You're actually basing this pseudo-analysis on the "Laughing Curve" (aka the Laffer Curve):
- Which doesn't exist, because it is just a bunch of randomly scattered data points
- Was actually created in 1974 by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and his deputy press secretary Grace-Marie Arnett (reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve)
Let your partners in, but not so much they can destroy the whole foundation.
So, Mr. Helpman, you seem to be happy with the idea of Microsoft abandoning 90% of all Windows enterprise customers?
You may be, but Microsoft cannot afford to be as a corporation.
End of story.
Now, you (either as an individual or an organization) have a clear choice with regard to Microsoft browsers:
- Future-looking standards-compliant (Spartan), or
- Backwards-looking compatible (IE)
Windows 10 will ship with both, and you can make your choice.
Just as the Soviet Union before it collapsed, and for many of the same reasons.
It will not be over in a day, a week, a month, or a year. But it will eventually be over.
But this is an extremely dangerous process, not just for Russians but for all of us.
Er, none of his ideas turning a profit???
How about PayPal, SpaceX, or Tesla?
Most recently, the latest buzzwords.. The Cloud, Big Data, Analytics, and so on.
Maybe they will succeed. Maybe they won't.
But judged by their track record of the last few decades, they won't.
Just my opinion.
Anyone who has ever worked on a detailed document of hundreds of pages knows you don't publish the daily drafts.
"But Morris said that the idea of starting with open source didn't last long in Redmond because Microsoft wanted to control its own code."
He didn't say that at all, not at all. That's just your spin on what he really said, which is the need for speed of delivering an interoperable engine faster, as he said in the very next sentence of your post:
"Given the engineering effort required, we found that we could deliver an interoperability focused engine to customers significantly faster if we started from our own engine (especially if unshackled from legacy compatibility concerns), rather than building up a new browser around an open-source engine.,"
After all, both Intel and Microsoft had to pay Billions of dollars to resolve their anti-trust behaviour with Europe.
What the hey?
But, but, there are MILLIONS of eyes scrutinizing all Open Source software every day, finding vulnerabilities within minutes, and reliable patches are available within a day or so...
In your dreams, buddy.
Yes, the engines were "refurbished".
But, consider that:
- They were designed and built in the 1960's, for the failed lunar mission by the Soviet Union (the only flights of which spectacularly exploded)
- They were refurbished and renamed by a Ukrainian company in the 1990's
- Orbital bought some of the limited supply of them, because they had no engines or rockets of their own.
- Orbital outsourced all other aspects of their efforts. They were at best a systems integrator.
When you put these facts together with Orbital's lack of experience in rockets, you have to wonder why NASA awarded them a contract in the first place.
Choose your morality.
The real reason is not competition.
It is that the US, as a nation, is nowadays far less advanced than most other advanced Western and Asian countries in terms of IT infrastructure.
We can debate why this is so, but you cannot deny the fact.
So, someone encounters a small bug in a word processor (Word) having to do with scrolling, reports it to the producer (Microsoft), producer acknowledges it is a bug and promises to fix it soon, and then the person declares the product to be ”a tyrant of the imagination” and bemoans its use in the publishing world..
Yes, you are indeed missing something.
The "hiatus" in global warming the last decade or so has now been scientifically explained, independently by researchers in Australia and in Canada.
As most of us know by now, the average yearly global temperature is predicted, to about 90+% accuracy, by the level of CO2 in the air. But there are two other factors that moderate this secular trend: Oceanic currents (e.g., El Nino) and major volcanic events. These two last factors have impacts that last anywhere from 2 to 10 or more years, and then die out.
As a result of these factors, every 20 to 50 years, there is a "hiatus" that temporarily halts the upward climb in average global temperatures. The latest one has recently been shown to be completely consistent with this phenomenon.
Of course, it has been seized upon by the oil industry and their cadre of climate change deniers to attempt to discredit science.
Here's a small reference to get you started:
Microsoft doesn't pull data from Wikipedia and feed it into this product. It allows you to pull data from various online sources, and at your option, analyze it.
No, Microsoft's beef about Linux has always been about its GNU license, not about the software, and not about it being open source. That was the basis of Ballmer's famous comment that software distributed under the GNU license, like Linux, was a "cancer".
Of course, Linux or open software fanbois would have you believe otherwise.
Sometime in the next several decades or a bit more - on a probabilistic basis - there is going to be a ginormous solar flare aimed at the Earth. It is expected to fry all electrical systems (including all computers and all of the Internet) for one to two years.
What will the world do then?
There are a number of misunderstandings in your comments on Microsoft word's math capabilities. I'll just correct one, and give you a few links for the rest.
You obviously like entering your equations in linear format. In Word, just type Alt+=, and then type in a representation of your math in a linear form. It is somewhat Tex-like, but with the following differences: (1) It is more concise (and thus faster to type); (2) It is easier to learn; and (3) It is a lot more readable.
The linear format is defined in "Unicode Technical note 28". It's author, Murray Sargent III, has a blog on the Math capabilities of Office at http://blogs.msdn.com/murrays/rss.xml.
So, tell me.
Did the General Authority of Islamic Affairs and Endowment issue a fatwa many years ago, telling Muslims that they should not be suicide bombers, because it was against the Koran to kill yourself?
I don't get it.
Both Microsoft and Intel had to cough up billions in fines for PAST indiscretions in Europe, in addition to changing their business practices. But Google gets to only change it business practices, with no multi-billion fine for its past behavior?
Your assertion in this post that the recent conflict between Rockstar and Google has anything to do with Android is totally, absolutely, 100% false. You think you would have the integrity to check the facts before publishing this post, instead of re-echoing what the echo chamber says.
The patents involved all have to do with search, not Android.
Here's a reference:
Stallman is a total Luddite.
He doesn't use a PC anything less than a decade old (because it might compromise his "open software" philosophy), and he doesn't use the Internet at all (he asks his friends to surf on his behalf, and then send him the results via email).
Why should anyone pay any attention whatsoever to his pronouncements?
This is the only thing wrong with your otherwise good post.
It was only 2-3 years after XP came on line that it really began to take off. That was about the time of SP2.
And, let us not forget, Windows XP SP2 (with its total reworking on the security infrastructure of Windows) was in fact a quite new version of Windows, not at all a service pack. Microsoft merely called it a free service pack so that everyone would upgrade to the new, more secure, version of Windows.
There are many reasons to criticize the current patent system in advanced economies.
The knee-jerk reaction is to simply get rid of patents, or, to get rid of them in certain specific areas of innovation (most typically, software).
Regardless of whether or not you agree with Microsoft's latest suggestions, I think that the worst thing that could be done is to eliminate patents altogether, or to eliminate them for certain broad types of innovation.
I suspect the best analogy for what Microsoft is doing is Intel's "Tick-Tock" approach.
They release a new version of Windows (and all other software, like Office) in the Fall. Then, a year later, they significantly update it. It's a free "Feature Pack" (as opposed to a "Service Pack" that just fixes bugs).
Then. the next year, two years after the release, they come out with a new release (which, of course, you have to pay to upgrade to).
Simple, and far more oriented to the consumer market than the enterprise market.
It is designed as an archetype of a major company that uses Microsoft technologies, a hypothetical example. Everyone who knows anything about IT knows this.
To suggest that it is a fictitious company that Microsoft refers to, like the other companies that are referred to in this article, can only be an attempt to slur Microsoft. Readers of this article should understand the motivations (or ignorance) of the author.
Somebody needs to say it first.
Surface RT costs $100 less than the comparable 32 GB Ipad, and offers a lot more for the money (like Office).
Get your facts straight.
Those are done for copyright reasons.
Makers of maps almost always include fake items like side roads, etc., so that they can check to see if someone is literally copying their intellectual property.
Supporters of FOSS say patents are evil, but copyrights are fine. The truth is that all things, including all forms of intellectual property, are susceptible to abuse.
Get used to it.
True, absolutely true.
A politician's reluctant recognition of reality has little if anything to do with their response to it. They are only concerned with political (social/class) power issues, nothing else.
(Speaking as a Canadian!)
Carbon plans are overall neutral, by design.
Would you be willing to accept the demise of Homo Sapiens, your own species, simply because in your particular case the carbon balance was slighty against you?
Say what you will about the document formats (IS29500) that Microsoft adopted starting in Office 2007, there is no doubt that 90+% of all existing documents are in the older (binary) formats). These are the formats that Google no longer supports!
Ask yourself: Why???