On the last test the stage began to spin too rapidly and the engine shut down because the fuel was slung out of reach of the fuel intake. This time they will have the legs attached which helps with stability on the way down. The water part is just for safety - if you lose control during a landing in the middle of the ocean you crash in the middle of the ocean. Losing control on the way back to Canaveral and crashing into Cocoa Beach would be bad.
Because this is 20 years later and now it is cool to make things look retro. In the 70's a faded color photo taken with a brownie camera wasn't retro, it was your family photo album.
Kodak did have a film camera that carried the film in a "floppy disk" cartridge. I think that thing was in the "truth is stranger than fiction" category.
Gah.... touchpad mouse controller deleted a line - about TV manufacturers not touting their paid service apps in an expensive ad campaign during sporting events.
About the paid content - one thing us computer nerds are really good at is being correct while getting it wrong. I was sure that the paid services were a dumb idea from the jump - for the same reasons the GP stated. Those reasons are right.... yet reality didn't turn out that way. My old CEO and I used to talk with a couple of our sales directors about our marketing and we had all kinds of points that we felt were really important for informing our customers about their choices. (and they were in fact the salient points if you wanted to make a good decision about using our products). The people who work in sales and actually know what the customers really want told us very succinctly: "You don't think like normal people think." Apparently people don't always evaluate things using the same criteria as one would expect.
But then, as techies we should know this. In 2014 you will still help someone who has lost their important document and ask them "where did you save it?" only to receive the reply: "In Word." It has only been 30 years, nobody should be confused about application/data/file/storage anymore - yet that is more the norm than our mindset.
They are providing free content because that is what is expected from the internet - people won't pay for it. You can have the most convenient, zero overhead cost currency possible and people still won't click on the pay article or video, they will click on the free one.
Nobody would ever subscribe to a service that provides content, particularly DRM video. Things like Hulu, Netflix, Amazon Instant Video, Redbox, Vudu... that will never fly. And nobody would ever buy a little box like a Roku to play the services on their TV when they already own a PC. And no TV manufacturers would ever include applications for such paid services in their television sets during the NCAA national championship game and NFL playoff games. Not to mention cable and satellite as paid content providers with DRM.
Maybe people are willing to pay for DRM protected video content. Perhaps there are some other types of content that they are less willing to pay for, like traditional newspaper services. And some types of content that they just won't pay for at all, like blogs about some chick's cat toys. People even pay for porn on the internet for some reason, to the tune of many, many billions of dollars.
Sometimes old truisms are true, like "The only constant in business is change."
China only holds about $5.6 trillion in US debt, per the last estimate I saw. Far from the whole $16 trillion. Still, since we just passed a budget that will offer up another $7 trillion in government bonds for sale over the next few years, they have the opportunity to push that total up!
China has a recently minted middle class that is larger than the entire population of the US. They are already showing signs that they are not going to remain silent little workers. Before long the pressure on the government to clean up the environment will become too great for them to ignore. Whether you are in Pittsburgh or Shenzhen, poor people don't have much time for complaining about pollution. They have other priorities. The very wealthy can trundle off to their mountain estates, whether the Biltmore house near Asheville or the Dayi Villa in Guangzhou. The middle class... they have to live where they work. And 400 million pissed off people with disposable income is going to be hard for the central government to ignore. I have a feeling that the Chinese will be forced to clean up their act much more rapidly than the US did.
Perhaps that's another business opportunity... selling clean tech to the Chinese. Wanna bet there's folks from General Electric over there right now trying to drum up sales for their clean coal technology?
Your understanding of the mechanisms of corporatism are shakey. "Those regulations" are put in place in a circle of power that has the government gaining more power which those with wealth and power (corporations and unions) use to gain advantage for themselves. Why do you think the health insurance industry didn't fight Obama on his "healthcare reform"? They have massive amounts of capital. Why didn't they spend it defeating Obamacare? They were in the room the whole time, locking in advantages for themselves.
The solution to regulatory capture isn't to give the regulators more power. That just gives those with something to lose/gain more incentive to influence the system to favor their interests.
Unfortunately the cycle of government power / corporatist favors seems to be a one-way ratchet. Ever more power, ever more abuse of that power to protect the 'haves'. It works at all levels of government. Just look at cab services or getting a flower arrangement in your local neighborhood. These are among the myriad of things that are protected by a wall of licensing that is purely designed to eliminate competition and protect the entrenched businesses. If you can't take your 2005 Honda Accord and pick up extra cash giving rides on the weekend because of the taxi cab lobby in your city, what do you think is happening to businesses that want to compete on a national scale?
if the laborers cannot freely migrate and trade their labor freely, then the companies should not have a right to trade the products of their labor
Sooooo..... all other countries should boycott the USA until they change their immigration policy to an open border policy to allow the free migration of labor? I don't think you'll get much traction on slashdot with that line, judging by the normal response to H1b visa discussions.
That's a surprisingly libertarian view for someone who would write your final paragraph.
I can't speak to apple's enterprise support, but I have experienced issues with MS servers and their support came through with custom fixes on the spot. We had an issue with Exchange some years ago and they escalated our issue through the night, grabbing data dumps as we went. By the morning they had identified an issue with their OS software and a patch was released to us the next day. I was pretty impressed with that level of support.
Those kind of issues are quite rare - but in a large enterprise you see rare stuff all the time. In my experience, the more vertical the app, the better the response when you have an issue - probably because they only have so many potential customers and they can't afford to piss them off. Accounting system vendors and CRM vendors get right on it. We had less luck when we encountered issues with MS office. Same vendor, different economic incentives.
Call it what you like, but plants respond to other organisms in their environment and communicate among themselves. They form complicated and interconnected communities. Trees in the forest actually communicate information about danger not only via the release of volatile compounds like acetylene gas, but also via a nervous-system-like network of mycorrhizae, a cooperative arrangement that not only connects multiple organisms, but one that spans multiple kingdoms.
Bacterial and archaea communicate with other microbes via complex chemical signals, even cooperating in forming complex biofilm communities that go to war with other communities. They also communicate with higher organisms, including their human hosts. Current research is beginning to show that organisms in our microbiome can actually influence our behavior and health - to the degree that they can actually command us to gain or lose weight. Research in mice has shown that a protozoan can control the behavior of its host mouse making it more likely to be eaten by a cat, the other host in the parasitic organism's life cycle.
Organisms across all kingdoms respond to stimuli in their environment and communicate with other organisms in extremely complex ways that we are only beginning to understand. Claiming that humans have no special status above animals because animals can feel pain and then claiming that humans and animals have a special status above other organisms because their anatomy is more foreign and their manifestation of response to negative stimuli doesn't involve a central nervous system is a bit hypocritical because the line-drawing is equally arbitrary. Humans are animals. We don't gather energy directly from sunlight. We don't fix carbon. We obtain our energy and building materials from other organisms, just like all other animals. Any moral component to this is a completely human construct. Perhaps that is what separates us from the other animals. Our navel-gazing.
Agreed that simply posting links to hosted content is less of an issue than hosting it on YouTube directly, but it still amounts to facilitating rights violations. I don't know if doing so should be illegal per se, just that doing so should hurt Google's bottom line, in such a way that they proactively try to prevent it.
Let's try explaining it by absurd example.
I don't know that Scowler complaining to his friends about the drug dealers that hang out behind the 7-11 should be illegal per se, but it still amounts to facilitating illicit drug use. I'm not saying he should go to jail, just that providing information about the location of drug dealers should hurt Scowler's pocketbook, in such a way that he'll proactively try to prevent it.
Substitute any other behavior you'd like for drugs in this silly vignette and you'll see why your financial solution is no improvement. I'm not saying that homosexuality should be illegal per se, just that engaging in that behavior should affect your bottom line...
Free speech is free speech. Anything that chips away at our right to freely express our ideas is an abomination. "Facilitating rights violations" is an absurd, made-up weasel word to get around protections for free speech. Substituting financial penalties for criminal violations doesn't change the calculus at all. And no, the fact that there are government officials at the highest levels who agree with you doesn't make you right, it just makes it more terrifying.
None of that means that there isn't a real problem that the entertainment industry has to face with piracy. It just means that I'm not willing to trade any of my freedom for their security. And you shouldn't be willing to make that trade either.
That "troll" moderation was completely uncalled for. Someone with mod points, please rectify it. It was a valid point -- if this abomination actually gets through the courts (and I'll flap my arms and fly to the moon if it happens), will animals have reproductive rights?
The whole thing is silly. Monty Python silly.
If any of these chimps are named Eric.... Well, let's just hope they have their chimp license in order before they get to court.... Judges can be sticklers on paperwork. I doubt the old "cross out the word 'dog' and write in 'chimp' above" trick is going to fly.
And as an old-school champion of free speech you should fight for the chimps' right to free speech, even if they can't speak - being chimpanzees and all. Which is nobody's fault, not even the animal researchers.
On a more serious note of agreement, I wonder if the judge can have them committed for observation for filing something so patently ridiculous that it suggests either a devious bit of performance art or a pathology at work.
I really couldn't disagree more. It is one thing to claim that "information wants to be free" and disavow copyrights altogether, but simply pointing to a location and saying "this is what exists at website.com" should always be protected speech under all circumstances. I really can't think of any justification for preventing someone from pointing out a true fact about where something is located. Not even if it were something much worse than a bootleg copy of a concert video or a copy of a Hollywood DVD - like something really both illegal and immoral, such as kiddie porn.
That is all that google does. "Hey, you can find a web page that contains the words "banana hammock" at this address". I don't care what words you substitute for "banana Hammock" and what content you actually find at the web address, simply pointing to it should in all cases be a protected expression of the right to free speech. I don't care if you earn 8 trillion dollars for saying it, or it costs you three bucks and a half-eaten snickers bar to say it, the financial arrangements around your speech are perfectly irrelevant to your right to speak.
The problem isn't that the idea of including groups for sexes is questionable - it is the subdividing of small groups into even smaller groups based on numerous criteria. This is commonly done in small pilot studies that turn up marginal results which are later shown to be erroneous. Normally this is a non-issue. It is part of the scientific process - look for phenomena and then follow up with further study.
But when the study becomes the basis for stories in the media - watch out. We see this over and over. A small study of (insert food, chemical product, alternative treatment here) that checks a bunch of different variables shows a significant change in one or two. The media runs with the story and people begin to act as if the study is "scientific truth". When the follow up studies show that the whole thing was nonsense, it is too late. The idea has already entered the public consciousness as fact.
Here is a nice article about the effect of these sorts of preliminary results on the practice of medicine. It has some nice links to other sources on things like publication bias and researcher degrees of freedom that lead to the publication of false positives.