Not if you give the whitespace back.
Not if you give the whitespace back.
Oh, the wonderful conclusions the false dichotomy fallacy can take you. You can't trust the AP, therefore you CAN trust Wikileaks.
There's a word for having no inclination to respect the rights of others. It's called sociopathy. Psychologists coined that term because they needed something that sounds more scientific than "evil".
Charge for the non-security feature updates -- maybe even do it through the app store. Customers have to pay for updates one way or the other, so you should be able to sell a competitively priced phone and then make just as much money selling fewer physical phones and more software updates as you would under the status quo. That'd be good for the environment too.
The one sticking point is, as always, the carriers. They'd much rather you trade in your perfectly good phone for another one whose price is rolled into a contract extension. I'm convinced that Verizon on several occasions deliberately botched upgrades to force you to buy a new phone with more RAM.
Sure, the only really unpredictable aspect of this scenario is the size of the peak. If their business plans were predicated on maintaining usage near the initial peak indefinitely, then they were stupid plans.
I'm guessing that the plans for this product aren't that stupid. In that case a sensible goal will be to maintain a modest but loyal group of regular users and to periodically introduce new features that will entice usage jags out of occasional players.
Right, so they're going to reengineer every last subcomponent of every last part to withstand cryogenic temperatures, specifically for production in the tiny volumes needed in the space industry? Just for the inconvenience of reusing an upper stage?
Again: contrary to would-be-rocketeer imaginations, launch costs are not the be-all end-all of expenses when it comes to space. Engineering and low-volume production is killer. Mission designers always heavily stress TRL (Technology Readiness Level) of all components, as it's such a key determiner of mission cost. If any plan you propose involves "just reengineer everything", you do not have a plan.
What you need is: Oxygen, Radiation shielding, Water, Food, Power and some gear.
Yes, it's totally that simple! The ISS has hundreds of thousands of parts, but only because congress insisted on adding thousands of Machines That Go Ping for no good reason. And random objects totally love being submerged in liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen. And empty tanks are totally easy to haul all the way to orbit when pre-loaded with fittings and jackets and extra tanks. And building things in space (including bloody *welding*) is such a nothing job that totally costs nothing!
Meanwhile, in the real world...
The tanks will serve as basic habitats etc., you could grow food (wasn't this successfull?) in one of them to replenish your oxygen supply.
Everything which does not need to be inside, you leave it outside,
What plastic are you thinking of and at what thickness, that is compatible with liquid oxygen, retains flexibility at LOX (or worse, LH) temperatures, and withstands the pressure, all without adding a massive mass penalty? How is the plastic supposed to deform around every little structure in the habitat (aka, not face multiple atmospheres of asymmetric pressure)? What sort of hardware are you thinking of where every last element is just fine with being frozen down to LOX (or worse, LH) temperatures? How many man hours are you thinking of to "rip out" the giant bag through the tiny docking port (after having to detach it where it's carefully bound around each element? Unless you were thinking of having it fully loose inside there, which is even more problematic. Where's it supposed to go on the ISS? If you're doing the (larger) hydrogen tank, how 100% sure are you that you're not making an explosive fuel-air mixture, given that hydrogen burns at just a couple percentage concentration? How positive are you that you've fully vented every last nook and cranny? And on and on and on.
Wet workshops were worked on during the Apollo era. They were ditched for dry workshops because it's easier, cheaper, and more functional.
Shuttle ETs never got up to a stable orbit. It would have been possible to use the OMS to take them up there, but then the Shuttle would have had basically no payload capacity on that mission.
Of course, that's one of the lesser problems with the concept. Often proposed, often investigated, but never considered worth throwing serious money into.
Because all of the hardware that goes in a habitat is just totally compatible with being submerged in liquid oxygen and/or liquid hydrogen?
And the US did launch a converted stage in the 70s with Skylab (albeit, Skylab was built on Earth and didn't contribute propellant / thrust... a rather different beast
To a rocket scientist, it's "obvious"; to a habitat designer, it's a nightmare. They're designed for dramatically different needs, and in-space construction is very difficult (and thus expensive). Orbital habitats are not just big shells, they're complex structures that take a lot of work to make. The original proponent of the wet workshop concept, George Mueller (who had worked with Von Braun on the idea), himself had switched to arguing for a dry workshop over a wet one by 1969 (this eventually became Skylab), telling congress that the wet concept had become just an inferior stopgap based on necessity rather that desirability.
There's this concept that launch costs are everything. They're not. A lot of times, it really is just cheaper to spend more in launch costs than to do more engineering, assembly, and/or in-orbit work.
The community in the case of Tesla (which was just an example picked from countless) was the customers. Are you saying that customers are irrelevant for a company? You also seem to be of the view that the "rally around the founder" effect is a good thing, given your comment about the TOR project being replaced.
I don't even know what OpenOffice thing you're talking about, by the way.
You're missing the point. The complaint about electronic voting is that someone can compel someone to vote in a particular way when voting isn't in person because they can confirm that the vote was cast in the way that they want, which they can't do at a polling place. But this situation already exists with absentee ballots, when the person is filling out the ballot.
Meanwhile, in Estonian online voting, when you vote online, you can still later go to a polling place and change your vote. Meaning that the person who watched you vote a certain way online still has no clue whether that vote is actually going to be the final say, unless they hold you hostage all of voting day. Which someone could do with likely voters for a given candidate whether online voting exists or not.
This has nothing to do with whether people at the electoral commission can match voters with their votes (which they can't do with either paper or online votes in any decent system).
Public transit provides a service that complements as well as competes -- especially in an old, dense city like Boston where there isn't a lot of room to add cars and public transit carries about half the commuters despite being in dire financial straits.
Think about what would happen to Uber and Lyft in a place like that if you doubled the number of people using surface roads.
Separate your wife's professional computers from the Internet. Seriously, don't go half way. If you are refusing security patches you are risking even more than if you aren't. Ferry data between computers on usb sticks or CDs. There are a few pieces of malware that can hide in photo files, but they aren't common, and if they can't connect out they will often just hide. DON"T transfer zip archives. You don't know what is in them.
Now that you have your MSWindows needs isolated, install Linux on the machine that connects to the Internet. This has the additional advantage that malware that targets Linux often can't run on MSWindows. Avoid flash as much as possible. (I won't have it installed, but perhaps you need it.)
If you set things up right this isn't much more work than just running two computers, and if you use CDs or DVDs as your transfer medium, you get good backups of all your work. Usb sticks are more convenient, but are also more expensive and not good for long term storage. (Even CDs die over the decades, though.)
"May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house." -- George Carlin