Re: "...evacuating the surrounding 5 kilometres"
...Actually, I suspect that 20+ tons of spilled Marmite rather looked like the surrounding 5 kilometers had ALREADY evacuated...
1543 posts • joined 8 Feb 2007
"...all the music, movies, books, apps all have to be handed back if they ever want to leave that walled garden and move to a different handset/tablet/STB maker...."
Excuse me...? ""Handed back"...?
Even if you uninstall iTunes, the "C:\Documents and Settings\*UserName*\My Documents\My Music\iTunes\iTunes Media\" folder ("/Users/*UserName*/Music/iTunes/iTunes Media/", on OS X) and ALL of its contents is still there on your hard drive, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, unless you're just going for a FUD attack and hoping no one will notice.
"At least with Android, your apps can run on any other Android."
The same, of course, is true of any other platform -- AS LONG AS YOU STAY WITHIN THAT PLATFORM: "At least with Windows, your apps can run on any other Windows.", "At least with CP/M, your apps can run on any other CP/M.", etc. But your claim above is that, if you choose to switch from one platform to another platform, your apps no longer work.
Yes, if you switch platforms from iOS to Android, your apps no longer work. Oddly enough, the same thing happens if you switch from Android to WinPho, or WinPho to BlackBerry, or...
Well, you get the point, I trust; if you stay within any one platform, you keep your apps and if you don't, you don't.
You may not like Apple's products or policies, but taking as your argument something that happens when switching between ANY two platforms and claiming that it's particularly bad because Apple does it really DOESN'T help your argument.
...not about the pump...
Are you getting a stainless steel camping mirror for your test stand...? I imagine that both it and your glass cover will get smudged with exhaust when you set your engine off. so I'm not sure how much visual you'll get, but at least it will mean one less piece of glass to shatter and go flying.
| "TBH I don't know why a giantic magnetic rail gun / catapult
| into space to shoot things up there hasnt been built yet."
To get into (and stay in) LEO, an object needs to be traveling at about 17,500 mph when it reaches its orbital slot.
A rocket gets there by starting off traveling slowly down where the air resistance (and hence friction) is heaviest and accelerates as it rises into less dense/less compressible/less friction-inducing atmosphere.
On the other hand, atmospheric friction and compression is used when decelerating out of orbit. This generates thousands of degrees of heat which needs to be dissipated/shielded against.
Now take your rail gun. Assuming as a starting point that it is long enough -- some number of miles maybe* -- that the acceleration to escape velocity doesn't pancake every structure in your launch vehicle and payload, there is still the issue that being at the bottom of a gravity well requires that your projectile be going at well OVER orbital speed when it leaves the muzzle.** Otherwise,just as with a thrown rock, gravity will start slowing it down as soon as the driving force is off. If it doesn't reach orbital height at orbital velocity -- just like that rock -- back to earth it falls.
So your railgun launcher has to -- slowly enough not to destroy the projectile -- accelerate it to something in the 20,000 mph range... at sea level... in order to still be at orbital velocity when it finally reaches its intended altitude... And once fired into flight, the projectile has to be sufficiently heat-resistant that it isn't instantly immolated by friction/compression-heated atmospheric values above anything that humankind has ever built. (Bear in mind that -- while, granted, its thermal protection had been compromised -- the temperatures and stresses that destroyed the shuttle Columbia happened when it was decelerating from the arbitrary "edge" of the atmosphere at 75 miles above sea level down to final breakup at about 40 miles up.)
...And you want to shoot your payload out of a cannon at HIGHER speeds than the Columbia was traveling, in atmosphere that is DENSER by a couple of orders of magnitude than she was traveling through, and hope to get it to orbit intact...?
Good luck with that.
A long-enough catapult might POSSIBLY be useful for accelerating something akin to a SCRAMjet to operational speed, which could then accelerate through much of the atmosphere before handing off to a rocket engine for orbital insertion, but a catapult to orbit setup without any other motive force...? SO not happening. And I see no way that a catapult/scramjet/rocket combination isn't going to be MORE complex and expensive than what we have now,
No, I'm afraid that (absent any completely new science like antigravity) until we get the first beanstalk built, rockets are pretty much going to be the only way into orbit.
* The difficulty of building a miles-long, precision-engineered railgun in an utterly straight line tangent to your starting point on the surface of the earth (You can't just put a ski-jump at the end if you're launching something at Mach 27 or so) is left as an exercise for the reader.
** Ditto the effects of a Mach 27 sonic boom on surrounding organisms and structures (including your miles-long, precision-engineered etc. etc.).
... But does the law say anything about not requiring anyone who does so to sit in a special, segregated section of the church? Preferably, one with a wall of three-inch Plexiglas between them and the saner members of the congregation...?
...only PART of the cloud of bits hits the earth while the other part skims on by, instead of the whole mass hitting in central impact...
...or the moon happens to be in position to block part of the debris cloud (Sure, it's unllkely -- but so is a comet colliding with the Earth!)...
...or if the smaller bits have time to vaporize in atmosphere before impact...
...or... or... or...
...and pack them into a snowball. This is your average comet.
The tail of a comet is mainly snow and water vapor that is boiled off as your dirty snowball passes near the sun. When the comet leaves the inner solar system and heads back into the up-and-out, it re-freezes.
Eventually two things can happen -- either there is not enough snow and ice left to hold everything together as it passes the sun and things start scattering due to light pressure and gravitational perturbations, or a particularly large and juicy pocket of ice in the center of the mass boils off more quickly than the resulting vapor can escape and blows the thing apart.
NB: IANAA, but the above is my understanding of the processes.
They are... The problem is that they are potentially TOO fast.
You don't simply aim your launch for where the target will be when the rocket gets there. If you're off by a scooch one way or another, or if there is a ,malfunction, you could have two large bodies trying to occupy the same space at the same time with widely differing relative velocities.
Much safer is to put your launch into an ALMOST identical orbit with an initial insertion point well away from your target and wait for the slightly different orbital speeds to bring the two objects together.
Think of it as a relay race: The baton carrier is already "in orbit" when the next runner starts running ahead and a bit slower, allowing the carrier to catch up at a relatively modest speed differential and make the hand-off.
...or was that intended as a joke...? I'm never good at telling these things...
"The best thing to do, then, is not read your Kindle on the train, as the conveyance's velocity will only make it even heavier. And thicker."
...but wouldn't the Lorentz contraction make your Kindle appear THINNER on the train...? (Assuming, of course, that the Kindle is held vertically with the height and width perpendicular to the direction of motion.)
The only way that it would appear THICKER would be if it was held with one of the LONGER axes pointing in the direction of travel, and even then the thickness would only APPEAR greater in proportion to the contraction of the affected axis, it wouldn't actually GET thicker.
That's the way that I remember it, at least.
Actually, I suspect that, if asked, M. Cluly might point out that at least in the case of the legally-constituted authorities there are SOME forms of checks and balances in place if they get out of hand and/or attack the wrong person. These checks are not perfect, but at least they DO exist in some form.
Should Anonymous get anything wrong, the unjustly targeted really HAVE no recourses. After all, if the Scientology cultists with all of their resources haven't been able to shut them down, what chance does the average person have?
Your next-to-last paragraph could, with minor changes, be applied to Anonymous as well:
"The sad truth is that [Anonymous] are not a different breed of humans; they have the same fortes and foibles as we mere mundanes do, but when they screw up they have the power of [anonymity and lack of accountability] at their disposal and [no] liability for the damage they may do. We mundanes, on the other hand, have no such virtually unlimited power and are completely vulnerable [to] undeserved damage [by] others."
Just to be totally clear: I am not excusing either child-pornographers nor Government. Throwing support behind a secretive group that eschews accountability simply because it is not "The Man", however, strikes me as being precisely as foolish as trusting "The Man" unreservedly.
...and ccasionally still use it as a portable hard drive. With the exception of the earphone jack starting to get a bit wobbly towards the end, the thing was rock solid.
I have a Touch now, which works fine and I use it almost continuously, but the old model had one advantage that I miss: with the wheel, you could adjust the volume and change songs without having to remove it from your shirt pocket and look at it. I'm actually giving thought to buying a Classic just to get this feature back (Well... okay... AND to quadruple the capacity, too...).
Actually, the comparison to Edison, at least, is fairly apt. Thomas Edison was a competent and relentless tinkerer, but much of his most enduring work was the result of fiddling with existing devices that others hadn't been able to make into commercial successes. Some 20 different inventors, for example, had made incandescent electric bulbs before Edison -- he just made one that was a LITTLE bit better, and presented it as part of what we now would call an ecosystem of power generation, distribution, delivery, and use. Edison Electric and the Edison light bulb were the iTunes/iPod of their day.
Also, remember that Edison was a tireless self-promoter and that the bulk of "Edison's" patents were the result of the engineers and researchers that he kept at Menlo Park -- he just signed his name to the papers, as the head of the company.
We also, nowadays, forget the times that he was flat-out WRONG -- cast concrete houses and furniture, anyone...? -- and the lengths to which he would go to sabotage his competitors. In order to promote his dream of Edison Electric's direct current power transmission (admittedly safer than high-voltage AC, except for the environmental effects of having power generating stations every couple of square miles due to inefficiencies in transmitting DC) he took every opportunity to try to re-brand in the public mind execution by electric chair as "Westinghousing", after George Westinghouse/Nikola Tesla's competing alternating current power generation and transmission system.
He was also not averse to suing competitors whose products interfered with his profits -- Edison Manufacturing sued competitors of Edison's motion picture production company, claiming that their cameras infringed his patents -- weakening the industry against European imports. (OTOH, this was also one of the reasons for the rise of Hollywood as movie capital of the U.S: besides having more sunny days available for filming than Edison's New Jersey and New York studios -- and at this time, even indoor scenes were shot outdoors, since electric lights weren't yet bright enough to expose the movie film -- but, being so far away from Edison's headquarters, it was more expensive for him to track down and prosecute possible infringers and the circuit court of appeals for California was known for frequently denying patent claims.)
Tirelessly promoting himself and his company, incrementally improving existing technologies to make them public objects of desire, vertically integrating product and delivery service to maximize profits and squeeze out competitors, aggressively defending his company's intellectual property... No -- Love them or hate them, Thomas Edison and Steve Jobs weren't ACTUALLY all that different.
Really...? In Europe, the police and courts aren't part of the government...? What do you use... private security forces and courts...?
Oh... Wait... You mean that the courts and such aren't part of the legislative or administrative arms of the government, but are a separate judicial branch...
...Just like in the U.S.
"Imagine that you had a patent on a new process to make better beer. You wouldn't be happy for all the breweries to *USE* that process in order to make better beer without paying you, even though they weren't selling the process or things containing it."
Except that, in this case, the manufacturer is suing the pub that SELLS the beer made with the infringing process, because the brewers have more money with which to pay lawyers to defend themselves.
"A tablet is a couch-computer, nothing more."
It may be, at this moment, but there is absolutely no reason why it need be. (Let's assume that the traditional and tiresome "It's not a real working tool if it doesn't have a physical keyboard," trope has been brought out and disposed of -- SOME jobs may require a physical keyboard; mine does not.)
Tablets are really at the Ford Model A stage of development. The idea that the automobile -- as it existed in 1903 -- would evolve to replace the horse wagon for local freight delivery and bring the railroads to their knees (albeit, the airplane -- another "'...toy' that would never be of any use," helped with the latter) was considered laughable.
One of the ways to make sure that the tablet STAYS "a couch-computer, nothing more" for most people will be to limit the functionality and usability of the OS. If Microsoft can put a usable version of Windows on a tablet, more power to them. Personally, I would rather s Apple porting OS X to a "Pro" version of a tablet and leave iOS as a "consumer" line, but maybe that's just me.
The point is that assuming that a tablet-format computer IS and MUST ALWATS BE a "a couch-computer, nothing more" is just as foolishly short-sighted as the bank president who advised "The horse is here to stay, but the auto is only a novelty -- a fad," when asked about investing in Henry Ford's automobile company in 1903. (Hint: the questioner decided NOT to take the advice and parlayed his $5000 investment into a $12 million return within a few years.)
(If only there were a "Fail-fail" icon...!)
"Our guys weren't quick enough to sell when the stock hit its peak, so we want a do-over!"
Sorry -- if you're looking for the quick return on your investment, your guys have to be on the ball and know which way to jump and when. In this case, "they snoozed and you lose."
"Apple's view of the world is actually very restricted/restrictive, and only the consumer loses out."
That is certainly possible,, but your post certainly doesn't explain why that is.
"Apple Fanboi- twats..."
<irony> Okay -- I can see that you are going to be presenting a well-reasoned, dispassionate argument... </irony>
"...all other sensible consumers (...) could buy ceaper more powerful/less restricted kit from the other manufacturers..."
In all fairness, the vast majority of consumers don't give a rodent's rectum about how "restricted" their choice are. This is why Kindles and Nooks sell, even though tablets and smartphones can present digital books and do much more, and why car dealers' repair shops do big business. The guy that LIKES to work on his car may appreciate the freedom of going to to Auto Zone and buying parts that don't have the car manufacturer's name and specific part number on them. The average car owner just wants the problem fixed, and if all there were were parts from Ford, or GM, or *.manufacturer, it would make absolutely NO difference to them. Seriously, however much you may try to spin it it's not about "Apple Fanboi- twats" -- the MAJORITY of consumers care fuck-all for "restricted"... get over it.
"So, the Battery, case and OS are the only real differntiating factors. Apples must be shitting itself that other OEMs can do everything that they can do, and maybe even better - hence all the patent trolling."
...Except that, thus far, none of the others seem to actually TRYING to do anything better, but rather going on the "If we build it, they will come," mentality -- that all they need to do is build a tablet -- ANY tablet, and they'll rake in the money.
Build a tablet that plays any and all media better than the competition and hassle-free right out of the box and advertise the hell out of that fact. Make a tablet that wirelessly, seamlessly, and invisibly connects to your home/work network and lets you control your computer, allowing you to do remotely everything that you can do on your desktop and market it to the high heavens. Make a tablet that runs longer and lets you do whatever you do longer on a single battery charge and push that capability so that everyone who might want to buy a tablet KNOWS that without having to search the geek sites and pore through tables of comparative specs.
In short, either do everything BETTER than everyone else, or pick something that you think will be your strength and push, push, PUSH so that the consumer who wants what you do best KNOWS it and WANTS it! At this point, none of the tablet makers seem to be building either of those products or, if they are, are not letting Joe Average-Consumer that they are loudly, clearly, and REPEATEDLY enough to overcome the iFactor. I mean, at least HALF of the manufacturers talking tablets are supposed to be experts in the Consumer Electronics market -- Toshiba, Sony, Samsung, et al -- and WHERE are their marketing campaigns...? Nowhere, as far as I've seen. Apple advertises the HELL out of their products, and pretty much always has, and I'm seeing no billboards for *.manufacturer's tablets, no TV ads, no mass-market magazine ads... nothing.
The problem is NOT that Apple is stifling competition, it's that the other manufacturers seem to think that being "just as good" as the other offerings without necessarily being BETTER should be sufficient -- after all, it's basically worked for them for thirty years in the telephone/computer markets, and they think that it will work in the tablet market. It may yet, but right now, it isn't and if they don't realize that, then they will fail.
"...could buy ceaper more powerful/less restricted kit from the other manufacturers (when they finally get their stuff out and stop trying to profetier from the price points that Apple set.) (...)
Hence my erlier comment: FUCK APPLE, they are seriously controlling MY ability to buy decent kit at a proper price."
And HERE'S where your whole "FUCK APPLE" screed falls apart... Apple is doing nothing to "...seriously control (your) ability to buy decent kit at a proper price," They are selling THEIR kit at THEIR price. You should, rather, be saying "FUCK TOSHIBA", "FUCK SAMSUNG", "FUCK ACER:", "FUCK <ManufacturerName>" for not driving prices down, or selling whatever it is you want at the price you want. I mean, it sounds pretty clear from your posts that you wouldn't buy an Apple product ANYWAY, so saying "fuck them" for successfully playing their game, rather than saying "fuck them" about the OTHER manufacturers -- whose products you MIGHT buy -- for playing Apple's game rather than CHANGING the game, just seems really childish and silly.
...if someone passes Wikileaks information that the owner doesn't want given out, that person is a "fighter for information freedom and transparency" (or whatever their current feel-good term is), while if someone passes information that Wikileaks holds and doesn't want given out, that person is a "malicious individual", then...?
It all sounds rather "I am large, you are stout, he is fat," hairsplitting, to me.
"Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value."
-- Marechal Ferdinand Foch 1904
"The horse is here to stay, the automobile is only a fad."
-- Advice of President of Michigan Savings Bank to Horace Rackham, lawyer for
Henry Ford, 1903
"Pads are so limited, it was inevitable that it would be a fad."
-- Sarah Davis, 2011
It's rare that a transformative technology leaps into existence fully-capable and obviously superior to its predecessor. Tablet computing may be -- like the automobile and the airplane in their day -- in its infancy and find new ways to serve needs that we haven't even considered yet.
Making a blanket dismissal of an infant technology as a "fad} because of its current immaturity without considering likely future developments can sometimes prove to be a bit embarrassing, is all I'm saying.
TBH, I read it as "...run on 'overpriced' Apple shares...", written in full awareness of the knee-jerk "Apple SUXXXX!!!!!!" nature of some of the commentards.
They were just anticipating the flood of "Well *OBVIOUSLY* now that the Saint Jobs Reality Distortion Field has gone away, Apple stock is going to TANK... JUST LIKE I ALWAYS PREDICTED IT WOULD!!!! The stock's steady rise over the last dozen years was just a GLITCH and NOW it's going back into the GUTTERS WHERE IT BELONGS!!!!!" comments.
(Did I miss any of the standard frothing-points...? I'm still about a quart low on my coffee levels for today, so I'm not really awake, yet.)
Now, FLAME ON!
"Analogy: If you go to the grocery store,..."
In this particular case, the problem isn't that the grocery store knows what you buy... It's more analogous to that annoying neighbor that you try to avoid -- the one that always buttonholes you with a new "sure thing" that he's always trying to get you to sign up for -- that knows what you bought at the grocery store, the bed-n-bath store, the pharmacy, the newsstand, and that "club" in the next town that you go to on Saturday nights.
I don't see where I have any obligation to give him any of that info.
Hmmm... I'm not a programmer but, OTOH, AppleScript has a random number generator... I may have to dust off my scripting and see if I could set up one that tells the browser to write a random number to that line in the cache every three minutes... Something to think about in what I laughingly refer to as my free time...
"(The victim) said he received a “creepy” phone call on Sunday night from someone claiming to be a member of Anonymous..."
Please tell me that he received the call on his cellphone, or a landline that logs the originating number of calls received...
I mean, yeah... It's probably another barely-pubescent, bad-ass-HaXoR-wannabe, but people this stupid need to have phones, computers, sharp objects and anything else that they can hurt themselves with taken away from them for their own good.
"Keith Downey, (...) likened the web attack to college sit-ins of the 1970s and to Gandhi's civil disobedience movement against British rule in India."
...And those people faced police beating and jail terms -- often repeatedly -- for their disobedience. Actions have consequences, Keith, and if you believe that your actions were the correct ones, then you accept the consequences. That's the lesson that you were (allegedly) trying to demonstrate to PayPal, now it's your turn.
I think you're missing Alan's point...
Since almost all Windows business software functionality can be duplicated on a Mac (and, in fact, Windows can be run as a VM on a Mac, ANY Windows software can be run), his business is most likely a a Windows service shop. If enough people take Dino's advice he may actually have to learn about Macs in order to stay in business. (And -- let's face it -- frothing at the mouth while working on electronic gear is probably a dangerous practice, so he might be at risk as a Mac tech!)
"Furthermore, Google has an optional request for individuals to provide photo ID to reactivate disabled accounts."
Would it count as falsifying a government document if I told Google that my name was Ringo Fonebone and provided them with a (Photoshopped) scan of my ID that showed that name...?*
That ACTUAL legal ID, after all, is still intact and unchanged.
...Whether it would violate Google's Ts & Cs would, of course, depend on how that were written...
* Not that I would *EVER* think of doing such a thing, of course...!
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019