Jump to content

Mokara

Members
  • Content Count

    378
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Mokara last won the day on March 23

Mokara had the most liked content!

About Mokara

  • Rank
    Frequent member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Those are routers, not phones. Most, if not all, other manufacturers do the same.
  2. That is basically what manufacturers say for OS updates that fix minor parts of code to increase efficiency and reduce the chance of hangups. Playmemory functionality will not be removed however, since some of those cameras were sold with that functionality in place and people have payed money to Sony for applets in those cameras. Having some undocumented removal of that functionality would likely get them into trouble. Your hacks might not work anymore however, since they may access parts of the OS that have been changed.
  3. Actually, the earth itself probably has more of those metals than asteroids do, but it just can't be accessed in an economic way, either because it is too deep or it is too disperse. The same thing applies to asteroids. They might have high concentrations of specific metals, but unless there has been some enrichment process (on earth this happens through volcanism and related processes primarily - processes which don't happen on asteroids, hence no enrichment) it will not be feasible to mine it, even if you could get there and back. Carl Sagan had great dreams, but fuel costs money, and if the cost of fuel vastly exceeds to cost of whatever metal you want, then it is not worth it to go there. It makes far more sense to mine it here and use conservation/recycling when necessary. Stuff might at some point be mined on asteroids, but those activities primarily would be to make whatever community lived there relatively self sufficient for bulk materials (again, because of the fuel costs for shipping resources to those places from other locations in the solar system)
  4. It is an absurd idea. The cost of maintaining someone is space is enormous compared to maintaining them in a place like Earth. Not cost in money (which would be a lot anyway, but that is not the main impediment) but the cost in resources. It is comparable to the notion that people who are sent to work on oil rigs and then subsequently lose their jobs would just be left there to form a homeless community on the oil rig. That would just not happen. It is a thing in science fiction. Unfortunately the energy costs in getting to space, then out to something like an asteroid, then back again is enormous and would simply be uneconomical. Lifting even something small, such as a satellite, into orbit costs tens of millions of dollars just for the fuel. It requires even more to leave earth orbit. Then there is the question of getting back, and that is a lot harder than going out. Anything like that is not going to be cheap, and it will be cheaper to just mine that stuff of earth.
  5. You will not have people like that in space, because it is too expensive and consumes too many resources. This idea of floating slums drifting around space is absurd. It would be cheaper to ship those underclass folk back to earth and release them into the wilds of the prairies to fend for themselves without the huge overhead it would require in space. The people who would live in space environments would be very educated and skilled, they would have to be to survive.
  6. There was also poor deployment of troops. Why position most of your best troops between the enemy army and your castle walls? That is just begging for them to be broken up and massacred. They had no forward defensive positions at all! The attacking force was no better. The had no siege weapons. There were no trebuchets or siege towers, or even ladders.....how on earth did they expect to get into the city. Not to mention they camped their army right under the city walls, where they would have been in range of the cities artillery.....what a bunch of idiots. Considering that Cersei had greater forces at her disposal, and Daenerys had a dragon, what on earth possessed her to adopt a strategy of concentrating her forces in a small area and hunkering down in the city? Her forces should have ventured out and taken the strategic positions at places like the twins, followed by proactive attacks on the weakened northern armies as soon as they could reach them. By doing what she did she gave up all ground to the enemy, which could then be used for resupply and replenishment of fighting men as local lords see who is occupying their lands and switch sides. They just had to wait her out and she would be guaranteed to lose. You don't win by retreating to your bunker. That is just a bonkers strategy considering that she had superior numbers of fresh troops at the start of the episode.
  7. The issue I have with Expanse is that it is not realistic about how life in space would be. It depicts a vast underclass of exploited low class ignorant people as being the population of these off Earth settlements when in reality these sorts of communities would be the exact opposite because of the level of technology needed to survive. Colonies on other planets are not going to be populated by a bunch of homeless people, it is ridiculous. It is far more likely that the reverse would happen, off world settlements would be elites while what was left over will remain on earth (precisely because they are largely useless). The dragon also came out of the sun, which is the correct tactic to use when attacking from the air, because it blinds whoever is firing back. As for the rest of the ballista, those sorts of weapons were very accurate but they took time to aim. While they might be able to rotate relatively quickly, elevation would be much more of a problem. They would be virtually useless against a moving target except through sheer luck.
  8. Actually, she wanted to do that in Mereen as well, but her advisors stopped her. If she had made the statement she wanted to make, she would not have had all of the trouble with the Sons of the Harpy afterward. What she should have done is made an example of the elite (which is what she wanted to do) and put the fear of god into them. Instead, she listen to Tyrion and tried to accommodate and co-opt them, which they saw as weakness and an opening to be exploited. Which is precisely what they did. You cannot be kind to your enemies until they KNOW they have been crushed. Otherwise they see your grace as a second shot at power. Then you have to put them down even more harshly, making the point you should have made in the first place.
  9. It has nothing to do with politics. It is just how business operates in China and Japan at the moment. If you do business in either of those countries, you ignore the local culture at your peril, you will make life much more difficult for yourself if you do. Whenever you deal with offshore suppliers you need to understand how things work there, and what you need to do to manage the relationship in a constructive way. Just assuming that everything will be the way you would do it and when you want it is going to lead to you getting burned. That is not to say that things can't be different, but until there is some fundamental change in the philosophy in those countries, things will be as they are now perceived. Good and poor quality in manufacturing do not happen in isolation, they reflect the current priorities within those societies in general.
  10. Probably the free version of Resolve did not support H.265 at the time when he was using it. Likely because licensing the codec is not free.
  11. The difference is QC. Items made for the foreign market often have high QC standards imposed by the foreign company ordering components (they may return the product if it fails, so make sure it does not fail). If you buy the same item locally, well, short cuts may have been made and you are just not told about it. No doubt that will change over time, but right now that is how it is in China. The consequences for poor QC locally are not that great, but are significant in foreign markets with high expectations, so you may see a range in reliability even with things that are superficially the same depending on where exactly you buy the product. There is a difference between how things are done in Japan and China, and it is largely due to local culture. In Japan there is an extreme expectation for quality, especially when it comes to appearances, and their industry is shaped around that. This is a double edged sword, and while QC may be excellent, it can lead to tunnel vision with respect to deeper problems. In China it is more a case of making things as cheaply as possible because competition is so fierce. Protections for things like IP are weak and sporadically (if at all) enforced, so you can't rely on that to keep the competition at bay. The only thing that works is to reduce costs as much as possible, and with that comes cutting corners and a lower level of QC. Until such time as China gets proper regulatory mechanisms in place, and actually enforces them, that is not going to change. This is a quote from a response to Andrew, but the board does not like editing it seems. Anyway, Trump, the problem with him as a "businessman" is that he is not really, not when it comes to manufacturing. He is a real estate developer (other people actually do the building, he contracts them to do it while he finds suckers, err, customers, to buy the resultant units) and a "brand" salesman. That is how he makes his money. He knows absolutely nothing about manufacturing. The "business" people around him in cabinet for the most part don't know either, they are largely from the financial services sector. When these people talk about manufacturing and global supply chains, they are mostly talking out their ass, they have no practical experience.
  12. She is not being a mad queen, what she is doing is perfectly logical in a medieval ruler mindset. It may not be palatable to modern sensibilities, but rulers in that sort of world were more like mafia bosses than modern state leaders, and you need to think about them from that point of view. For Daenerys it would have been important to stamp her authority on the situation once it was clear that she had won, since there were competing claims to the throne. She would have wanted to make it VERY clear to anyone who had thoughts of opposing her, or supporting someone else for throne, that SHE was in charge and any opposition would be crushed without mercy. For that a show of force was necessary. In medieval society, kindness and mercy by rulers, especially when they were conquering new territory, was weakness. Making an example of Kings Landing was the correct move to cement her power. No one would dare oppose her after that. Medieval rulers did not look to be loved, they looked for absolute obedience no matter what. Fear, used judiciously, was the tool they used to maintain power, not love. What the show writers did with her was the correct overall plot line. What was wrong about it was presenting it as an emotional response, when it should have been a more deliberate display of power for the sake of displaying power. This is what ruling is in an absolute monarchy.
  13. Probably because Sony themselves are licensing the PDAF technology they are actually using. That being the case, they would not be able to manufacture sensors for a third party using the IP in question unless the third party held a license as well. Whoever holds the critical piece of IP may not be inclined to license it to Panasonic for various reasons. They might want Panasonic to cross license some of their tech for example, and Panasonic may not want to do that. Most of the big companies probably have some sort of cross licensing deals going on for various aspects of camera technology. So, some companies may be able to implement IP owned by a third company, whereas another company may not. The reason very likely is that Sony does not own the IP involved (or at least partially), so they can't license it. They can only make sensors for companies that HAVE licensed it from the patent holders. Alternatively, Sony owns some aspects of the IP, and other companies own other aspects, so they got together and agreed to cross license what they individually owned to each other so that all could use the technology (otherwise none could). Panasonic likely can't bring anything to that table, so they are cut out. This is how things work routinely in tech business, especially with complicated things like electronic gadgets. No one owns everything, they have to make many deals to get the IP that allows them freedom to operate. It may not seem fair, the company that can make the best product may not be able to do so, or make their product as good as it could have been, due to IP restrictions.
  14. Junk can be made in either country, but, if you have ever dealt with a Japanese company you would know that they can be OCD about stuff, even things you might consider unimportant (which can be frustrating in itself). The chances of a quality issue slipping by are much lower with those sorts of values. But, with everything, that can be a weakness too - sometimes they get so fixated on smaller cosmetic things that they miss more important issues because they are not looking for those. It is different in China, if there is a short cut the manufacturer thinks they can get away with, they will try it, so you have to watch them like a hawk.
  15. Not really. The table shows actual sales percentages over a period of months, whereas the second is a ranking of sales, probably a running weekly average. The latter would involve much smaller numbers, so there might be big differences in rankings involving fairly small number of actual cameras, especially when you get to the lower ranked cameras which are probably not moving much product. Something that sells 50 cameras a week might be ranked at 100th place for example, while something else that sells 60 per week could be in 50th place. On the other hand cameras in the top 10 could be selling hundreds or thousands of units a week. The models at 50th and 100th place would be "ranked" but essentially not be selling many units in comparison. Also, keep in mind that the ranking involves different packages as well. The a7III is in two spots for example, presumably one is body only and the other is kit (I can't read Japanese but that is probably what it means). The R could rank above the RP if it is mostly selling in kit form while the RP sales could be broken into separate ranking for kit and bodies with roughly equal sales, which would then rank below the R as a result. Or vica versa. But one camera is being split up into multiple slots whereas the other is not. The really big differences in actual sales would happen in the products at the very top of the list, the lower ranked cameras are likely not selling all that many units, and that can skew rankings, especially if there are multiple SKUs for a particular camera.
×
×
  • Create New...