Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Really? (Score 1, Troll) 157

by jjjhs (#45751999) Attached to: Rough Roving: Curiosity's Wheel Damage 'Accelerated'

Yes, it's called a launch vehicle. This isn't Star Trek where you can touch your nipple and talk to the blind guy in the engine room to whip you up a magical force field to float that shit up into space.

They had to lift all of that to MARS, dude. Try dragging a 1985 Honda Civic up Mt. Everest 50 million times. Then tell me you wouldn't toss out the spare tire in the first 50 feet.

So, what, it takes infinitely more energy for an extra few mm of sheet metal to launch that thing? A launch vehicle the size of the moon for slightly thicker tires versus the one they initially used? Apparently the Atlas V was used, and from what I am reading it is very much capable of launching the rover with a few more pounds/thicker tires and still grossly overpowered to deliver the payload. Also I never said anything about changing the tires to rubber or plastic! But alas I am just a armchair internet engineer. I don't have an engineer degree so I must just be another stupid hick.

Comment: Re:Really? (Score 1) 157

by jjjhs (#45751815) Attached to: Rough Roving: Curiosity's Wheel Damage 'Accelerated'

So? Was there an arbitrary weight limit? What's a few more pounds for proper tires? Was there some reason that it had to be exactly 1,980lb? I find that very hard to believe. Cars have proper tires, at first what look like bicycle tires but they get bigger and heavier so do the tires and suspension. Buildings get taller, so they have foundations to support them. I think that is common sense. We can have our heavier cars loaded with more gizmos and the tires are designed to handle that and extra cargo, so why did they cheap out on Curiosity's tires? Are you telling they COULD NOT make the tires thicker or use a stronger and perhaps heavier metal while keeping everything they wanted, or they didn't WANT TO?

Comment: Re:DOUBLEPLUS (Score 1) 292

by jjjhs (#45133535) Attached to: British Police Foil Alleged Mall Massacre Copycat Plot
Except when the business posts a "No Guns" sign. Some states put their weight behind it. Even otherwise, if the owner/employee finds out (like open carrying), private property rights trumps personal safety if you are asked to leave or put away the gun and don't you get charged with trespassing. The company likely wouldn't be held liable for whatever happens to you either.

Comment: I simply don't buy tablets (Score 2) 550

by jjjhs (#44325257) Attached to: Microsoft Is Sitting On Six Million Unsold Surface Tablets

Never felt the need for a toy just to browse the interwebs. And it'd be just like my phone, 'they' tell me what I can and can't do with it. No upgrades to newer major releases. They introduce glaring bugs in the firmware, and refuse to fix it because it's past its 5 second lifetime. No thanks, to any tablet.

Comment: Re:Apple banned Adobe because iPhone sucked. (Score 4, Insightful) 209

by jjjhs (#43225719) Attached to: Apple Hires Former Adobe CTO Kevin Lynch, Destroyer of iPhones
To be fair Flash is a piece of crud, on systems otherwise capable of playing videos, in full screen would use exponentially more CPU usually maxing the cpu/core making the video unwatchable in full screen. The higher your desktop resolution the more exponential cpu power Flash required to scale to fullscreen. It could be worked around by dropping the desktop resolution much lower say 800x600 or even 640x480. Silverlight didn't have any issues with cpu usage scaling to fullscreen. Sure they have gpu acceleration now but I suspect it's just to work around that issue.

The Tao doesn't take sides; it gives birth to both wins and losses. The Guru doesn't take sides; she welcomes both hackers and lusers.

Working...