EternalFury

Amusing, considering I was bashed last night with repeated "you can't patch it once it's on Mars".

Huh, no, not at all. The last 10 years have been spent increasing photosite density. Today's sensors can have 10-20 times the resolution, and be the same physical size or smaller. Today's sensors are also more reliable, less sensitive to dust and noise than sensors made 10 years ago.

It may even be "plebeian" to ask questions about the technical features of a data collection instrument named "Curiosity". I should have been an aristocrat instead of an engineer ; I could marvel at everything wrapped in the bliss of my ignorance.

And for the record, I think it is amazing and wonderful to receive these images. I am so thankful for that. But, for a data collection instrument that cost $2.6 billion to build, I cannot conceal my very personal feeling that an opportunity was missed.

You know, I didn't claim to understand the reasons behind the technical limitations, but the reactions of some of you are puzzling to me.

We can go on and on about familiarity considerations, and planning considerations, and instrumentation considerations, and scientific concerns, etc. It all sounds like excuses after a bit.

Let's reformulate the question: Why not keep the same enclosure, the same lens assembly, the same mechanical parts and simply swap the 2MP sensor for a 20MP sensor?

Further, let's say you are really not sure about that spanking new 20MP sensor, because it is new, you are not familiar with it, and it was not part of the plan drafted 10 years ago, why not add 1 extra camera with a 20MP sensor? If it blows up during the trip or during landing, too bad, it's lost. If it makes it down there safe and sound, you can collect a 10-minute HD sequence that you can stream back to earth over the next 2 years, during down-times, as a very low priority task.

Potential benefit: You offer the world the first and a truly spectacular HD film shot on Mars, in all its splendor, and you inspire a new generation of world explorers, who will ultimately drive man to take another small step, but a giant one for mankind.

Clearly, if that's the best we can do for something as trivial as shooting a video up there, I cannot fathom a man setting foot on Mars in my lifetime. That may be normal, but it saddens me somehow.

Thanks! The reason seems to be: It's the way it was planned 10 years ago and we don't go back on planning on a project like this one.

Can someone explain how/why a $2.6 billion piece of equipment appears to have cameras that can't match a $100 digital camera? I know it takes a long time for data to travel from there to here, but I am sure a lot of people wouldn't mind waiting for 1080p, full-color video footage of the red planet. Instead, we get these 1-megapixel, black-and-white shots that need to be stitched together to create a half decent panorama image. Sorry, there is probably a good technical reason for this, but I am just ignorant of it and I would appreciate an explanation.

I think Elon should get a car on the road first.

Ah, then they have no idea if what they are describing is even remotely possible given the constraints imposed by Wikimedia. Making a theme/skin for Wikimedia is quite a task, actually.

Where is the Wikimedia theme/skin described in this showcase?

LOL, I get that a lot too. "The first version is 90% done.", they say. "I just need to delegate it to a tech co-founder so I can focus on business.", they add. "You'll get double-digit equity, up-to 13%, even.", they conclude. For me, "co-founder" starts at (100 / n)%, where "n" is the number of co-founders.

Yep, that is typical. 90% of the time, I am approached by someone who says "We have 90% of that things done and ready to go, we just need you to come on board and make it your own."

The problem is that I cannot make "my own" something I had absolutely no part in, from its inception. I guess there could be some odd situation where someone comes up with something in the exact same manner I would have, but the chances of that are low.

The other typical behavior is business people who believe "the idea" is everything and that the building of "it" is a trivial task that a tech co-founder will want to tackle because they are unable to formulate ideas on their own. [The reality is that ideas are a dime a dozen and execution is 99% of success. And tech co-founder will be as much business-oriented as any entrepreneur must be.]

Edison, Ford and the Wright brothers were crackpots, I guess.

There is a difference between something that may lead from here to there and something that is definitely never going to lead anywhere.

An example of the former: You write some software that re-orients an array of solar panels to make the most of weather conditions in real time. It's not going to crack the "energy production and storage" enigma, but it's a step in the right direction. Next, you may want to study how panel geometry influences energy collection.

An example of the latter: You set up a Web site that allows teenagers to compare their gadgets.

People tend to think in very small boxes nowadays. Partly because they are more interested in getting rich quick than in changing the world, partly because they have their nose too close to tiny details to see the big pictures.

Want to make a mark?

Focus on energy production and storage!

Want to make a mark?

Think about generation ships!

Want to make a mark?

Design a way to reform government!

Mankind does not need another social Web site.

Because they would not make a tenth of the money they do if they did that, obviously.

Most sales or acquisitions originated online are based on rational decisions, not on the appeal of annoying ads.

The day advertisers start to use a verifiable CPA system, 80% of online advertising cease to exist and 95% of today's start-ups see their cash vaporize.

The world just learned that no human being ever clicks on these ads? WOW! Amazing.

I am very interested.

I just wonder about performance and deployment practicality.

One thing is certain though, the days of wondering "Is Java fast enough for this?" are long gone. These days, people have no issue promoting deep stacks far above and beyond any OS platform.

And then people ask: Why do they hate us? Nothing stays covert everywhere and forever.

Bravo!

Poor grammar is the telltale sign of other impediments that hinder the practice of any activity that requires good attention to details.

BTW, I think a site like this begs for another site offering the services of those who take Photoshop comps and turn them into actual iOS or Android UIs. Because, while Photoshop comps can be totally awesome, there is a humongous gap between them and an actual UI.

So, $100 to get a chance to contract with a quality designer? Umm...

2 years from now, it's going to be interesting to see what percentage of projects actually delivered on their promises.

In this particular case, time to market is going to be super critical. They must get to market within the next 9 months or these hardware specifications will be laughable and Android 5+ will already be out there.

In a way, I want to invest in this. Yet, something in the back of my mind tells me it would not be an investment, but a transfer of cash from me to them...with no product at the end of the bargain.

I don't know if I should laugh or cry. Let's just say rock stars are not engineers.

Great work. But you know what they say about lipstick and pigs.

Microsoft's problem is not their lack of spending on advertising, branding, marketing, PR, etc. They spend colossal amounts of money in these departments.

Their problem is that they no longer know who they are. Worse, they no longer know who they want to be.

In that respect, they are very close to Sony.

Let's talk about it...

Pie-in-the-sky companies have to make money eventually. Either you start making money, or you'll have to do it later and that may disappoint some people.

I am open minded. I will give Flask a try.

I doubt it'll be easier to deploy than a LAMP server, though. I already recoil at the idea of having to figure out why Passenger is not working as it should, or why I should run a terrible HTTP front just to try this out.

Here we go again...

Maybe it does suck. You can certainly tell it was not designed by computer scientists. In many ways, it throws away years for programming language best practices.

This being said, what are the practical alternatives? JSP? Servlets? ASP? Python/Django? Ruby/Rails? What?

I am sorry but JSP, Servlets, ASP, Python/Django, Ruby/Rails are just shit of a different kind. But they do not deserve that holier-than-thou aura.

I suggest bad programmers keep blaming their tools for their own shortcomings. I suggest that when bad programmers have produced enough horrors to sully a tool, they blame the tool and move on to the next tool.

For real? $49?

You have all that and so much more in jEdit for $0.

There is only 1 kind of innovation a for-profit business needs to worry about: Making a profit.

For all those ventures, which often compare themselves to market leaders, it is nothing more than a buzzword.