When the power supply stopped working in my iMac, Apple refused not only to fix it, but they refused to ship a replacement part saying they don't support "Legacy computers" - My computer was only three years old. My only course of action was to Buy a new one - which cost me $3000. I was desperate and needed to access my data and programs. As it was, although I got my entire hard drive converted to an external drive, I was never able to access my emails at all, which is what I was really after, as I was in the middle buying a home, and all my legal doc were in my emails. As well as other finance related emails.

I love macs, but I'm not sure I want to ever buy another one.

[author flagged as a spammer - redacted]

Hardly a brilliant analysis - more like a brilliant piece of advocacy that, like most of its kind, is long on optimistic projections and very short on real numbers and a real analysis of those numbers. For instance: what is the megawatt hour cost of a solar power generation station that can replicate the power responsiveness and availability factor of a fossil power generation station (over a similar life cycle). He quotes the kwh cost for solar and wind power systems but each and every one of them is "backed up" by a much larger conventional power generation system that, ultimately, is burdened with the costs of maintaining grid stability, grid voltage, and grid frequency. There are huge engineering problems and substantial costs associated with maintaining a power supply that we now require to operate a modern economy. Just ONCE, I would like to see the green power advocates address those challenges and costs in a realistic way instead of glossing over them with their fantasy projections.
And I will say, as an aside, that I have spent my entire working career working in the renewable energy sector and fully agree that we need to transition to a renewable energy economy - but unrealistic projections are going to doom our economy if they are taken as being possible in the near term.

Diagram of re-entry for the Soyuz:
---------------------------------------------
http://spaceflight101.com/soyuz-tma-20m/wp-content/uploads/sites/77/2016/09/6618866_orig.jpg

Orbital Module:
---------------------
It houses all the equipment that will not be needed for reentry, such as experiments, cameras or cargo. The module also contains a toilet, docking avionics and communications gear. Internal volume is 6 m³, living space 5 m³. On the latest Soyuz versions (since Soyuz TM), a small window was introduced, providing the crew with a forward view.

Service Module:
---------------------
It has a pressurized container shaped like a bulging can that contains systems for temperature control, electric power supply, long-range radio communications, radio telemetry, and instruments for orientation and control. A non-pressurized part of the service module (Propulsion compartment, AO) contains the main engine and a liquid-fuelled propulsion system for maneuvering in orbit and initiating the descent back to Earth. The ship also has a system of low-thrust engines for orientation, attached to the Intermediate compartment. Outside the service module are the sensors for the orientation system and the solar array, which is oriented towards the sun by rotating the ship.


Consequences of bad jettisons:
------------------------------------------
The services modules are jettisoned before the spacecraft hits the atmosphere. A failure or partial jettison of the modules means that the capsule will not enter the atmosphere heat shield first which can lead to a number of scenarios:
- Capsule pushed off course (by hundreds of km)
- High sustained g-loads on reentry
- Plasma on reentry can burn through the craft if the heat shield is not exposed and oriented properly resulting in loss of crew.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_5
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_TMA-10
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_TMA-10

Coal is responsible for many orders of magnitude more deaths and radioactive emissions than all nuclear incidents combined. But people don't care about simple things like facts or numbers. Talking about renewables when a significant portion of baseload power is still produced by coal is pointless. Let people have their feel good green tech (made in China, powered by a lot of coal of course ; ), but replace coal with modern nuke.

Denying the place of recent generation nuclear power as a viable strategy of supplying cleaner baseload power is much like denying man made climate change. Fucking moronic.

Thorium salt reactors do produce waste, but it's incredibly safe compared to breeder/lwr reactor byproducts. In fact, you can introduce older reactor waste in to the liquid mix in small amounts and the LFTR will break it down to less harmful components by accelerating decay in the core.

http://lftrnow.com/

"LFTRs can also burn radioactive “waste” we are currently storing, made from the LWR units of today. We could actually reduce our radioactive waste using LFTRs and other Molten-Salt Reactors (MSRs) (more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fqB6p9pgM)."

So LFTR is a strategy for both power supply and cleaning up existing waste storage. Who'da thunk it??

They're still working on the laser power supply problems in the shark tank.

the "brain" itself will be ~$30K min. you need lenses, batteries/power supplies, drives to record to, viewfinders, cables, etc. on top of that. a steadicam rig will cost $50K+ too. the famous zeiss lens kubrick used (borrowed from NASA) cost over $23M (adjusted for inflation).

professional cameras are expensive. alexa and red are super cheap in comparison to traditional film camera set ups.

I'm guessing it went something like this:

Manager to software engineer: "We need you to design and build us a power supply."

software engineer: "Uh... okay."

This video lacks a lot of salient details.

Yes, the F35 is aiming at the A10 because contractors want jobs (something to do).

However, the strength of the A10 is also its weakness. Low and slow also means that it takes you a long time to get to your troops. Fast jets arrive much sooner (significantly so). A combination of both would be ideal. F35 to get there ASAP, and A10 arriving later to take over.

It's not really worth debating the merit of new fighters. You don't wait for a war to start developing weapons.

Yes, our recent enemies are durkas with small arms, and you don't need an F35 to fight them - but you also don't even need to fight them to begin with - they aren't an existential threat. Terrorist attacks are emotionally charged (well, until they happen so often that you get used to hearing about them, and they stop affecting people), but they are nothing compared to say, a carpet bombing campaign.

The relevance of things like the F35 is to have weapons ready and able to face a large national power, should a nation v nation conflict arise with a significant other nation. In the event that such a conflict ever does, you don't want to be caught with your pants down.

Defense spending costs scale with oversight requirements.

Keep in mind that money pays people. Even materials are simply salaries of the material suppliers. The more people you put on a program, the more that program will cost.

Yes, big contractors make big profits - but the major chunk of their charges is still salaries.

Let me explain what is going on.

Remember the $100 hammers?
In fact, the hammer still cost a few bucks. What cost 100+ bucks was the total charges associated with acquiring a hammer.
Everything someone does in association with acquiring the hammer, gets charged to a charge code that's specific for that task.

Someone has to create a material request - $time.
Someone has to check contracts for whether or not it will be covered - $time.
Someone has to place the order - $time.
Someone has to receiver the package, inspect it, and put it into a received bin - $time.
Someone has to go through the received items and assign them property tags - $time.
Someone has to take the item to the department that needed it, and get someone to sign for it - $time.
Someone has to update the monthly contract report - $time.
Someone has to generate an entry in the process artifacts report, detailing the actions taken in order to acquire the hammer - $time.
Someone on the government side has to review the process artifacts report, and validate that proper process was followed (and if not, punish the company for skipping steps) - $time.

Add up all the minutes here and there that each person charged in association with getting a hammer, and it's $95 on top of a $5 hammer. Which is why little things cost so much.

You could say "Hey, why do all that? Just buy the hammer".
Well, if a company did that, it would be in trouble with govt. oversight folks because they violated the process.
If an employee bought a hammer of his own volition, he would be in trouble with his company for violating the process.
The steps are required, and if you don't follow them, and there is ever any problem/issue, your lack of process will be discovered on investigation, and you could face massive liability - even if it's not even relevant - because it points to careless company culture.

Complex systems like jet fighters necessarily have bugs to work out. When you start using the system, that's when you discover all the bits and pieces that nobody anticipated - and you fix them. That's fine. That's always been the case.



As an airplane example, imagine if there's an issue with a regulator that ultimately causes a system failure - but that issue is just some constant value in a piece of software that determines a duty cycle.

Say for example, that all it takes is changing 1 digit, and recompiling. Ez, right? NOPE!

An engineer can't simply provide a fix.

If something went wrong, even unrelated, but simply in the same general system, he could be personally liable for anything that happens.

On top of that, if there is no contract for work on that system, then an engineer providing a free fix is robbing the company of work, and he could get fired.

A company can't instruct an engineer to provide a fix for the same reasons that the engineer himself can't just do it.

So, the process kicks in.

Someone has to generate a trouble report - $time.
Someone has to identify a possible solution - $time.
Someone has to check contracts to see if work on that fix would be covered under current tasking - $time.
Say it's not covered (it's a previously closed [i.e. delivered] item), so you need a new charge code.
Someone has to write a proposal to fix the defect - $time.
Someone has to go deal with the government to get them to accept the proposal - $time.
(say it's accepted)
Someone has to write new contracts with the government for the new work - $time.
To know what to put into the contract, "requrements engineers" have to talk with the "software engineers" to get a list of action items, and incorporate them into the contract - $time.
(say the contract is accepted)
Finance in conjuration with Requirements engineers has to generate a list of charge codes for each action item - $time.
CM engineers have to update the CM system - $time.
Some manager has to coordinate this mess, and let folks know when to do what - $time.
Software engineer goes to work, changes 1 number, recompiles - $time.
Software engineer checks in new load into CM - $time.
CM engineer updates CM history report - $time.
Software engineer delivers new load to testing manger - $time.
Test manager gets crew of 30 test engineers to run the new load through testing in a SIL (systems integration lab) - $time.
Test engineers write report on results - $time.
If results are fine, Test manager has 30 test engineers run a test on real hardware - $time.
Test engineers write new report - $time.
(assuming all went well)
CM engineer gets resting results and pushes the task to deliverable - $time.
Management has a report written up to hand to the governemnt, covering all work done, and each action taken - documenting that proper process was followed - $time.
Folks writing document know nothing technical, so they get engineers to write sections covering actual work done, and mostly collate what other people send to them - $time.
Engineers write most the report - $time.
Company has new load delivered to government (sending a disk), along with the report/papers/documentation - $time.
Government reviews the report, but because the govt. employees are not technical and don't understand any of the technical data, they simply take the company's word for the results, and simply grade the company on how closely they followed process (the only thing they do understand) - $time.
Company sends engineer to government location to load the new software and help government side testing - $time.
Government runs independent acceptance tests on delivered load - $time.
(Say all goes well)
Government talks with company contracts people, and contract is brought to a close - $time.
CM / Requirements engineers close out the action item - $time.

And this is how a 1 line code change takes 6 months and 5 million dollars.

And this gets repeated for _everything_.

Then imagine if it is a hardware issue, and the only real fix is a change of hardware. For an airplane, just getting permission to plug anything that needs electricity into the airplanes power supply takes months of paper work and lab testing artifacts for approval. Try getting your testing done in that kind of environment.



Basically, the F35 could actually be fixed quickly and cheaply - but the system that is in place right now does not allow for it. And if you tried to circumvent that system, you would be in trouble. The system is required. It's how oversight works - to make sure everything is by the book, documented, reviewed, and approved - so no money gets wasted on any funny business.

Best part, if the government thinks that the program is costing too much, they put more oversight on it to watch for more waste.
Because apparently, when you pay more people to stare at something, the waste just runs away in fear.
Someone at the contractors has to write the reports that these oversight people are supposed to be reviewing - so when you go to a contractor and see a cube farm with 90 paper pushers and 10 'actual' engineers (not a joke), you start to wonder how anything gets done.

Once upon a time, during the cold war, we had an existential threat.
People took things seriously. There was no F'ing around with paperwork - people had to deliver hardware. The typical time elapsed from "idea" to "aircraft first flight" used to be 2 years. USSR went away, cold war ended, new hardware deliveries fell to a trickle - but the spending remained, and the money billed to an inflated process.

-scheherazade

I'm not so sure about the first two, but the elevator problem might be solvable with some kind of emergency brake and maybe a backup power supply to get it to the nearest floor.

It's actually slightly more complicated still. With the power supply he's using, a DC power supply, he could turn it up to 100+ volts and hold both leads without issue (not touch them to his tongue, but hold them in his hands would be fine). I've done exactly that before; I could feel a slight amount of discomfort as current flowed through my fingers at both leads (the point of highest current density in the circuit that is my body), but it could otherwise be said that it 'tickled'. I've also had experiences once or twice in my life where I accidentally touched 120V AC, and it most certainly did NOT tickle, it HURT.

What people don't realize about humans (and even regular tap water) is that both are actually highly resistive to DC current, in the megaohms region. Once you get to 10's of Hz, for example 60Hz, 100V starts becoming quite deadly. The capacitance in our body (and in water with ion contaminants) allows current to flow much more readily when you get to alternating current of at least that minimum frequency. The net effect is that your body's resistance decreases as the input frequency increases.

Yes, it is 'current that kills', and even more accurately 'current density that kills', but it's the amount and frequency of voltage applied paired with the frequency specific resistance of the system that determines how much current will flow.

>> ^jonny:

You're gonna look real funny trying to use that computer without a power supply, keyboard, mouse, cables, fans, heat sink(s), software, etc. It is a fact that Macs used to be quite a bit more expensive (and not just because of the name, but because of parts choices), but it's just not true anymore, at least to the extent you are claiming. No doubt you could spec out a roughly equivalent computer and install Linux and whatever other free software you want for probably about 20% less. Part of the premium is the convenience of not having to shop for all the difference parts and put it together yourself (and hope you don't short out your motherboard in the process). I'm fairly sure most PC sellers charge a "premium" for delivering it in one piece with software installed.
Also, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you picked the low end of the Mac Pro line for ease of comparison, but it also happens to be the worst choice by far in terms price/performance.
>> ^jmzero:
Or you could buy good PCs and see the price is pretty much the same.
Lol @budzos. Mac people have always said this, and it has always been funny. They used to have some magic wiggle room because so many parts were different (different processor, especially) - but that's mostly gone now. OK, so here you can get a quad core Mac Pro for $2499. Let's see what those parts it lists are worth:
Processor: $316 (here's the specific model)
Graphics Card: $109 (here's actually a slightly better model)
6GB of RAM: $100 (good RAM for that premium)
1TB hard disk: $100 (decent hard disk for that)
Motherboard: $250 (let's get a nice one)
Case: $250 (let's get a nice one)
Optical drive: $100
So far we're at $1225. Maybe they've got some Apple magic (whoo! Superdrive!) to make up a couple hundred more dollars - but it's going to take a lot to spend another $1275 (ie. more than double). If you prefer a Mac, go ahead and get one - but pretending they're the same price is silly.
To be clear, I don't hate Apple and some of their products are reasonably priced now. A Macbook Air, for example, has been a good deal for a while and is still much nicer than its competitors. But their hardware has historically been way more expensive, and lots of it still has a significant premium attached.



omg - seriously guys?

Oh please - stop it with the DIY PC vs. Mac Pro comparisons, they are just ridiculous.
A HP Z8x0 or a Dell Precision for example



Well... I can't really compare it to, say, the Dell machines we get at work - and for just the kind of reasons you mention. My company pays a premium to Dell (though not as much as we'd pay for Apple) because Dell will drop-ship us a replacement at our whim and gives us reasonable corporate support.

With an Apple you're pretty much just getting the box at that price as far as I've ever figured (we do have some Macs here at work). And if you just want a box, I think it's fair to compare out the price of parts. That's why I compared it like I did. I mean, yeah, if they were doing some sort of corporate support at that price then it would make more sense.

You're gonna look real funny trying to use that computer without a power supply, keyboard, mouse, cables, fans, heat sink(s), software, etc



Yeah, sure, whatever - there's a couple $100 worth of stuff there (more, depending on how you value the software obviously). But, uh:

install Linux and whatever other free software you want for probably about 20% less.



How do you figure that? Even if I spend $1500 (and by now I've got better components in every single slot), I'm still left with $1000 to, uh, buy Linux. That's about $1000, or 40%. That's significant. And the fact is I'd rather have my current home computer (worth $1200 when I bought it a year ago) than that Mac. You're just not getting much for $2500.

Again, if there's some reason you want a Mac, then GO FOR IT! - but I don't see how you can deny there's a significant price premium, at least on this model (again, there's other Macs that I think have reached reasonable price levels).

You're gonna look real funny trying to use that computer without a power supply, keyboard, mouse, cables, fans, heat sink(s), software, etc. It is a fact that Macs used to be quite a bit more expensive (and not just because of the name, but because of parts choices), but it's just not true anymore, at least to the extent you are claiming. No doubt you could spec out a roughly equivalent computer and install Linux and whatever other free software you want for probably about 20% less. Part of the premium is the convenience of not having to shop for all the difference parts and put it together yourself (and hope you don't short out your motherboard in the process). I'm fairly sure most PC sellers charge a "premium" for delivering it in one piece with software installed.

Also, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you picked the low end of the Mac Pro line for ease of comparison, but it also happens to be the worst choice by far in terms price/performance.
>> ^jmzero:

Or you could buy good PCs and see the price is pretty much the same.

Lol @budzos. Mac people have always said this, and it has always been funny. They used to have some magic wiggle room because so many parts were different (different processor, especially) - but that's mostly gone now. OK, so here you can get a quad core Mac Pro for $2499. Let's see what those parts it lists are worth:
Processor: $316 (here's the specific model)
Graphics Card: $109 (here's actually a slightly better model)
6GB of RAM: $100 (good RAM for that premium)
1TB hard disk: $100 (decent hard disk for that)
Motherboard: $250 (let's get a nice one)
Case: $250 (let's get a nice one)
Optical drive: $100
So far we're at $1225. Maybe they've got some Apple magic (whoo! Superdrive!) to make up a couple hundred more dollars - but it's going to take a lot to spend another $1275 (ie. more than double). If you prefer a Mac, go ahead and get one - but pretending they're the same price is silly.
To be clear, I don't hate Apple and some of their products are reasonably priced now. A Macbook Air, for example, has been a good deal for a while and is still much nicer than its competitors. But their hardware has historically been way more expensive, and lots of it still has a significant premium attached.