I've seen modern Shakespear
on stage.
It is not clear that a film cannot be remade.
280 publicly visible posts • joined 12 Oct 2020
Sort out the going down and getting back out, and more easily using lighter gear than on Earth.
Choosing a vacuum-tolerant rope is an exercise I suspect has been done.
Pitons, screws, rock anchors, Friends and chocks only depend on finding something solid in walls or slopes or above to belay.
If the floor is the interesting bit then wheels, treads and steppy things should suffice. Boston Dynamics may soon have a Lunar Rover.
Ships take ages to build then last a long time.
Aircraft are built quickly, but the design is still improving - we have not been doing them long.
And, having built the ship, the Navy like to play with it a bit and make sure they can make it stop, turn, go, float.
And more subtle activities before which you'd be over-optimistic to fly difficult aircraft onto a different off it.
Festina lente isn't any unit motto AFAIK, but beats sinking or crashing.
Then building one or two more to the same pattern, using the choices that worked, is quite sensible.
So, letting two teams do observations at the same time, getting science done quicker, doing the projects that were almost good enough for the limited facility as well - reasonable.
Making a long baseline interferometer?
Getting the spare ready.
Building one with a couple of somewhat tested improvements and additions.
Putting out a tug there, maybe. But that's new engineering, to try out nearer Earth.
Last month I photographed some bicycles. One had the white splash on the back mudguard which (as well as other clues) suggested it had been in use during WW2.
You may be thinking of some shiny aerospace gadget with electric gearshifters, disc brakes, and the like.
Ordinary ones last well, have interchangeable parts, and with z wrench and cynicism can be made to grind on for a very long time.
No, you appear to have said that.
And it isn't true.
If you need an NTFS driver in Linux, nobody can stop you arranging for one to exist.
That isnt a guarantee that anyone will help you.
If we don't need one, the utility of FLOSS or Linux is not diminished.
Your logical flaw is visible on inspection.
Going back to 1984 a Xerox printer annoyed a techie user with its closed source driver.
Hence, GNU.
My current Xerox laser just worked. The previous one was timed out by the Apple user going to 64 bit.
Yes, I could have replaced it with a daemon and z system printthis directory, but not in the 5 minutes allowed.
The core property of Open Source licencing is that nobody can prevent you from fixing something you want to that nobody else has decided to work on.
For values of fixing from your spare time through paying an individual offering a prize or setting up a big company to do it.
Theres a difference between inability to prevent, and doing what you want, but don't be confused.
Not my area, but you can't usually show off how good the code you wrote for company A when you look for a job with company B, can you?
Unless it is open source, of course!
So, there's some potential incentive to have a chunk of good code done well which you can show specific individuals.
And if there have been other people jn the project picking out infelicities for you, it may make you look even better.
Availability of source code doesn't ensure that it is read or understood or corrected.
But...
Availability ensures that faults cannot* be denied, ignored, or kept unfixed.
All of those occur with closed source not because of its inferior philosophical nature, but because companies misbehave. There may be no programmer to hand. The direction and marketing may prefer to sell faulty software than to spend money fixing and reissuing it, the (new) management may not understand, believe, or care...
That's a quality worth having, but not automatic salvation.
* short of your copy of the compiler being dishonest as is theirs. Scary compiler attacks.
Project 2000 must have had something good about it, but turning nurse training into a way of producing nurses who owe more money than nursing usefullh pays wasn't it.
Give nice sensible people who want to care for people, and by all means do complicated stuff with gadgets around it, a place to live, some money, and some nursing to do with blocks of classroom stuff, and a debt-free qualification and you'd be using a system which worked well.
Giving them something called a degree and a big debt to pay off and you are, demonstrably, not.
It may feel like an investment to a banker, but it shouldn't look like one to society.
Well no. You may be someone who read Jacob Nielsen's article on it and agrees that better thumbnails often come from cropping, moving the frame, and then shrinking, thean from mogrifying a batch to turn 3000 pixel images into 100px thumbs.
A thumb needs to do two of thd image things well, to grab the attention of the viewer, politely, and to convey the most important nature of the image.
Brains are still good at that.
The initial ones were written by various people.
Academics interested in how (GP) medicine is done, buyers of pharmaceutical information (and one use area for gp systems was for dispensing practices, who needed something like a pharmacy ststem)
And then jobbing GPs with an interest in solving particular problems in their work.
While the records were on a drive in the building, alongside similar information jn larger volumes in paper packets, the threat and security models were fine, thanks.
Moving ask the records for half the country onto two systems at four data centres, and linking that to Dominic Cummings, Tufton St et Al, a little different.
The computer industry has given us its thoughts rather later than Hipocrates wrote down his, and we've been developing them since then, thanks.