Slashdot Mirror


Space Cube – the World's Smallest Linux PC

Barence writes "Meet the Space Cube — the world's smallest fully functional PC. Primarily designed for use in space, it somehow manages to cram a working PC with USB ports, card readers, audio outputs and proprietary interfaces into a tiny cube chassis measuring just two inches square. It runs a basic Linux front-end, which the blogger takes a look at, and there are some great photos of the device being loomed over by everyday objects like coffee mugs and cellphones. It has connections for controlling various electronics used by ESA, NASA and JAXA, but it will also apparently be for sale to the public soon, for use by amateur engineers and robotics clubs."

265 comments

  1. Smallest? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Informative

    In terms of volume it looks bigger than a beagle board + CF card. The Beagle board is 3" square, but it can be a lot less tall than this. It also has a much faster CPU and (to me, most importantly, since it means I can actually connect it to a modern monitor) DVI output.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    1. Re:Smallest? by PinkyDead · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe 2 years ago this might have been 'Wow!' - but with the likes of the Eee etc around - the appropriate response is 'Meh.'

      Just some quick back of a fag packet calculation on the Eee put it at 9cm^3. Obviously, a lot more than this with its 5cm^3, but you do get
      * a keyboard
      * a screen
      * 3 usb ports
      * wireless ethernet
      * mouse pad
      * power
      * loads more disk space
      * 3 times the processor
      * etc
      all for 300 quid

      Which if you got rid of would reduce the size right down to a lot less than 5cm^3.

      No disrespect to the folks that put this thing together - and yes I would like one please - but... it's not rockin' my world.

      --
      Genesis 1:32 And God typed :wq!
    2. Re:Smallest? by Atlantis-Rising · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Of course not. And it also doesn't help that the Space Cube, unlike the eeePC, is totally useless by itself.

      It's wonderful to have a tiny computer, but if you need to slap on a monitor, keyboard, and mouse to use it it's really not all that tiny, is it?

      It also doesn't help that the real reason, in general (i.e., other than embedded computing environments) the reason people want small computers is portability, and this thing is hardly portable- sure, it's small and light, but given that it's totally useless on its own, that lack of size and weight is mostly irrelevant.

      Even for use in space, I still think it's a waste of, well, space. Either you're going to connect it to a real computer for display and use (with that big monitor and keyboard) or you're not, and all those jacks are a waste of space.

      --
      "It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
    3. Re:Smallest? by quenda · · Score: 5, Funny

      . No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame.

    4. Re:Smallest? by Bert64 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Dont forget the power, the space cube requires a power source... while the eee does too long term, it can run for a length of time on it's battery.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    5. Re:Smallest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Just some quick back of a fag packet calculation on the Eee put it at 9cm^3.

      Isn't the Eee 22.5 cm x 16.5 cm x 3.5 cm? That looks like it comes out to almost 1300 cm^3. Even if my dimensions are wrong, I doubt your ability to fit a keyboard into 9cm without going to chording or something of that nature.

    6. Re:Smallest? by PinkyDead · · Score: 1

      Sorry, my bad. I didn't mean 9 cm cubed, I meant 9 cm cubed.

      --
      Genesis 1:32 And God typed :wq!
    7. Re:Smallest? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      It might be useful if you don't need a computer while mobile, just in a few fixed locations. You could take something like this between work and home, for example, and plug it into peripherals at both ends.

      Except that it's really slow. You would get better performance from a VM image running on a USB 16GB flash drive with 1GB reserved for saving state when suspending - plus you'd have 14GB more local storage space.

      The only possible niche where I can see it being useful is for on-site tech support people. If they're being called out, they know that there's a computer at the far end, but it may not be working. With something like this, they can test peripherals and access online systems using the monitor, keyboard, mouse, and network at the far end. It might be useful in the future, if hotel rooms started to include monitors, keyboards and mice and you didn't trust the hotel systems enough to want to run a VM on their hardware.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    8. Re:Smallest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not sure what you mean by "9cm^3". The volume of the EEE is not 9 cubic centimeters, it is more like 780 cc. (This is close to 9*9*9 cc.) The volume of this little computer is ~150 cc. So, it is 5 times smaller.

    9. Re:Smallest? by jmpeax · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not to mention the fact that it's damn expensive - £1500 (~$3000) according to TFA.

    10. Re:Smallest? by Z00L00K · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And then you have the Jack PC that fits into an ordinary wall outlet box. (Round type, not the rectangular type)

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    11. Re:Smallest? by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Just some quick back of a fag packet calculation

      Please don't tell us what you used as a writing utensil.

    12. Re:Smallest? by dubbreak · · Score: 3, Informative

      I checked out the beagle board site and they are pretty damn cool. Definitely a lot more fun for playing with at home.

      --
      "If you are going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
    13. Re:Smallest? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Troll?

      Who in hell are you giving mod points to these days, Taco?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    14. Re:Smallest? by fast+turtle · · Score: 1

      Even for use in space, I still think it's a waste of, well, space. Either you're going to connect it to a real computer for display and use (with that big monitor and keyboard) or you're not, and all those jacks are a waste of space.

      Well that's just it. It most likely wont include the Graphics, USB, Audio or Card Reader ports as they add undesired weight to the unit nor do they suit it's intended function, which is as a remote enabled controller/communication device for the various sensors it's supposed to connect to using the "Space-Wire" port.

      Remember, this device was created to go into space and that means they'll strip as much off it in order to cut the weight to a bare minimum as fuel costs are still damn expensive.

      --
      Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
    15. Re:Smallest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it was fone

    16. Re:Smallest? by jellomizer · · Score: 2, Funny

      I don't think there are many spots on earth where the difference of size will make having such a small system affordable. Perhaps on the ISS but past that even NYC Where property is like (a blatenly wild guess with no facts other then by rumor) $1000 per square foot. There is no cost savings, and a normal rack mounted computer will offer better savings.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    17. Re:Smallest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      danger Will Robinson.... stay clear of the metric system if you don't know how to use it...

      The Asus EEE is (from wikipedia): 225mm x 165 mm x ~30mm = 22.5cm x 16.5cm x ~3cm = 1113.75 cm3, way much than your 9cm3

      A/C

      ps: captcha for this post: "discord"! ;-)

    18. Re:Smallest? by Atlantis-Rising · · Score: 1

      There's a reason they serve astronauts caviar- the cost of the caviar is pretty much irrelevant compared to the cost of launching it.

      As it is, if the thing was designed for use in space- why didn't they cut off the ports during the design phase? Why leave them on so they could (possibly, I don't even know if they can) cut them off at a later date?

      --
      "It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
    19. Re:Smallest? by metaphorever · · Score: 1

      Your forgetting that while it needs a keyboard an monitor for a human to interact with it and set it up it can most certainly run headless and without periferals once it is set up. Sure you need a normal computing setup to get it programmed but once it is set up you can put it into whatever embedded envirnment you are using it and and not have all the extra bulk that you would have if you were using an eeePC etc.

      --
      If people continue to abuse this feature, I will have to remove it. - Slashdot Comment Box, 1998
    20. Re:Smallest? by mstahl · · Score: 1

      Why? If you needed the keyboard and monitor, and indeed if you already had those, then this would still be smaller than the computer you had before.

      Seriously why the nay-saying? This thing's so damn cute!

    21. Re:Smallest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is this crap modded insightful? This device is intended for embedded computing - like running a satellite or a robot. The keyboard and monitor interfaces are just there for testing purposes. When this thing is actually running something, these devices would be disconnected.

      For embedded applications you typically need:
      -small form factor
      -low power
      -as much CPU as you can get away with with the above constraints.
      -For space applications, radiation hardened (which, outside of shielding, typically means slower CPUs and RAM)

      This meets those needs.

    22. Re:Smallest? by Woek · · Score: 1

      The measurements given in the article are "2x2x2 inch square". I take it they mean 2x2x2 inches, making 8 inch cubed, making 131 cc.

    23. Re:Smallest? by DoubleBarrelDarryl · · Score: 1

      If we were gonna do things that way, we would eradicate all woodpeckers.

    24. Re:Smallest? by khellendros1984 · · Score: 1

      Someone to whom you should say "Whoosh!"

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    25. Re:Smallest? by Atlantis-Rising · · Score: 1

      If that were true, which is certainly possible, the keyboard and monitor interfaces are irrelevant, and should not have been added in the design phase. They're totally not necessary, increase the cost, increase the complexity, increase the weight and increase the size.

      --
      "It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
    26. Re:Smallest? by simplerThanPossible · · Score: 1

      An integrated projector would address the display issue.

    27. Re:Smallest? by treeves · · Score: 1

      It's closer to (11 cm)^3.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    28. Re:Smallest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A pencil? fag packet = cigarette pack. It's British slang. It still sounds funny though.

    29. Re:Smallest? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      8 inches is good...

    30. Re:Smallest? by h3llfish · · Score: 1

      This is not super relevant to the article, but since you mention DVI, I wonder if you have a moment or two to clear up some confusion for me...

      I'm curious as to why you have a strong preference for DVI over VGA. I know that it's a digital signal rather than analog, but I don't see much difference when I switch from one to the other. Also, I have yet to purchase a monitor that didn't have a VGA input. In fact, lots of the LCD TVs on the market these days have a VGA but not a DVI input.

      Also, isn't DVI sorta on the way out, what with HDMI emerging recently? I have to say, I'm not super crazy about HDMI connectors... it doesn't sit in there firmly like a USB, and it can't be screwed in like VGA or DVI. I do like that it carries sound as well, however.

    31. Re:Smallest? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Girls like my wood pecker.

    32. Re:Smallest? by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      It's wonderful to have a tiny computer, but if you need to slap on a monitor, keyboard, and mouse to use it it's really not all that tiny, is it?

      That's because this is not a desktop system. For its intended purposes (a portable, flexible computer that can be placed almost anywhere) it perfect, and very tiny. Keep in mind that this was designed to be sent into space.

    33. Re:Smallest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Shimafuji space cube is about two years old, so make with the post-dated "Wow!"

      http://www.shimafuji.co.jp/product/spacecube01.html

    34. Re:Smallest? by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      your guess is very low....
      IIRC it's in the 100K/sq ft for Manhattan.

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    35. Re:Smallest? by markjhood2003 · · Score: 1

      Why attach a keyboard, mouse, and display if you can just attach it to your existing network? The device has an ethernet port and USB. It would make a cool little server for streaming, hosting a small web site, or any of a bunch of utility tasks. I was actually thinking it would be good upgrade from my Linksys NSLU2.

    36. Re:Smallest? by jellomizer · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think i am closer

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    37. Re:Smallest? by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      I noticed the price was kinda insane. Why would anyone want to pay that kind of money for the cube when you could buy a Gumstix for $200? You can even expand a gumstix box by using daughterboards,whereas with the cube you are just stuck with what it has. They would need to be a lot lower than a Gumstix or Netstix for me to look at one. But as always this is my 02c,YMMV

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    38. Re:Smallest? by Atlantis-Rising · · Score: 1

      Then the design is a failure, as it could be made smaller and lighter by removing all the components that make it a desktop system. Like a display port.

      --
      "It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
    39. Re:Smallest? by Atlantis-Rising · · Score: 1

      Exactly my question- why does such a device need a keyboard, monitor, etc jacks? Those are irrelevant, as they imply a large amount of extra equipment added to it.

      If you do plan to add that equipment, you can use a bigger computer. If you don't, then it's not necessary.

      --
      "It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
    40. Re:Smallest? by MPAB · · Score: 1

      And get infected by a worm?

    41. Re:Smallest? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1
      Modern displays are digital. With CRTs it didn't make much difference - you either had the digital to analogue converter in the monitor or the card, but you needed it somewhere. With a TFT, your choice is either having a digital signal, or a digital to analogue converter at one end and an analogue to digital converter at the other end. This is why modern monitors, such as the 23" panel on my desk, don't support analogue inputs (VGA or DVI unless it's DVI-D). For a short cable and / or a low resolution (or low quality display) you won't notice the difference. Try running a ten meter cable (not uncommon for connecting to projectors) with a couple of patches in the middle (cable from computer to wall, cable from wall to ceiling, cable from ceiling to projector) and you'll notice an obvious difference with a DVI signal.

      As to HDMI, it doesn't make a difference. The digital signal in HDMI is the same as DVI and HDCP can run over either. I don't particularly care about integrated audio, since I don't have any displays with integrated speakers. HDMI would be fine though, since you can trivially plug a HDMI display into a device with DVI-D output and vice versa. At the moment, I'd probably rather have DVI than HDMI because there are still a few devices around (projectors, again) which only have VGA inputs. DVI contains analogue and digital signals, so it can drive both HDMI and VGA devices with a $5 adaptor. HDMI plus S-Video would probably be ideal since I've yet to come across any recent device that doesn't support a DVI-D/HDMI or S-Video input.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    42. Re:Smallest? by jessedorland · · Score: 0

      Space first came out in 2006, the most important thing about this device is that it is running on linux. Perhaps, I would be even more impress if it can run Vista! Nevertheless, this is quite an interesting device and definatly demonstrates our various technological developments, but there is no practical use for such a device, atleast not with those specs.

      --
      Even veals have more autonomy!
    43. Re:Smallest? by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      Come on. You could certainly use a display in space :)

    44. Re:Smallest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, this is pretty nifty for embedded systems. When you're writing your control software you can plug in your human interface devices and code/debug with your favorite Linux IDE tools right on your target hardware. Once your software is written and debugged, you just disconnect the monitor, mouse and keyboard and drop the cube right into the platform it will be controlling.

    45. Re:Smallest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It also doesn't help that the real reason, in general (i.e., other than embedded computing environments) the reason people want small computers is portability, and this thing is hardly portable

      The real reasons I want a small desktop pc like this are:
      a) save desktop space - with an rf keyboard and mouse, this wouldn't take up much room. For my home pc I just want interblag and word processing - like ~95% of home pc users.
      b) save power - this is much more attractive to leave on 24/7 than my noisy, hot atx box. Something like this is as near as we have right now to an instant on pc.

      Having said that, I like the idea of something that mounts to the back of an lcd monitor better.

      Storage? who cares - NAS.

    46. Re:Smallest? by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      I doubt it, that would put a 10ft by 10ft room (which isn't exactly a big room) at 10 million dollars.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    47. Re:Smallest? by Atlantis-Rising · · Score: 1

      Would you want to be viewing your data on a display 2" square?

      --
      "It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
    48. Re:Smallest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably a pen since pencils don't write very well on cigarette packs.

      Fag = cigarette in the Queens English which is spoken in most of her colonies except apparently the deliquent one. Warning usage of this expression in the wrong country can lead to black eyes. E.g. "Hey Sailor can you spare a fag?"

      It probably derived from a faggot (bundle) of wood which just might also be the source of the expression "all fagged out" (tired). Presumably from carrying wood all day. I imagine that its use to refer to homosexuals came from this usage where fag could mean someone who gets tired easily E.g. a wimp. Truth be told my preference would be for "Dandy" or "Nancy Boy" over Gay (happy) or Fag (tired) as they are a tad more colorful.

      Incidentally the word pencil and the word penis do share a common ancestor "penicillus" (Latin) which meant paint brush or little tail.

      This creates some funny imagery with common expressions such as "pencil-pusher" or "pencil neck"

    49. Re:Smallest? by rew · · Score: 1

      It's wonderful to have a tiny computer, but if you need to slap on a monitor, keyboard, and mouse to use it it's really not all that tiny, is it?

      What do you use a computer for then? Ah. I can guess. You use it to do Email and type documents....

      This thing sound to me as a great computer for some other uses. It would be great as the controlling unit in my washing machine. An UTP connection on the machine, and I can tell the washing machine to start at a certain time, instead of now, I have to start it before work and come back to already-smelly clothes after work.

      Probably desgined for use in a cube-sat. Those are 4 inches on a side. So you'd have 7/8ths of the space available for batteries, radio and experiments.

    50. Re:Smallest? by JSBiff · · Score: 1

      It is definitely mostly a novelty item, but per your statement that a computer is useless without a keyboard and monitor - it depends on what you use the computer for. Obviously, you need a keyboard and monitor to initially set any system up. But there are plenty of computer devices which are useful without a mouse and keyboard attached, once they are running, e.g. router/firewall, network server (admittedly, with only 64MB of flash ram, most of that probably used by the OS, the usefulness of this as a server is rather limited, but still), as a 'media' device - by which I mean, something you could stick next to a stereo or TV to stream audio or video from your main computer to your living room/den/basement/whatever (although, again, given the low-end specs of this thing, it definitely wouldn't be useful for HD video, but maybe for playing audio streams).

      The biggest problem with this thing is that they want 1500 Lbs-Sterling, which using current exchange rages converts to almost $2800. That's a lot of money to pay for a computer with specs from 1998.

    51. Re:Smallest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not? Some cellphones have smaller displays than that.

  2. Airport security by SystematicPsycho · · Score: 3, Funny

    Would they let you pass with that in an airport?

    --
    Analytic & algebraic topology of locally Euclidean meterization of infinitely differentiable Riemmanian manifold
    1. Re:Airport security by MyLongNickName · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes. Just paint it to look like this.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    2. Re:Airport security by FlatWhatson · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's the data-centers and network rooms that should watch out, not the airports.

      These things are perfect for use in MITM attacks.

      --
      BLAM!
    3. Re:Airport security by jrothwell97 · · Score: 1
      I can see two possible scenarios if TSA were to receive an example unit:
      • TSA thinks it's a bomb, confiscates it.
      • A TSA agent pinches the computer, but then discards it when he can't install Smiley Central.
      --
      Those using pirated Tinysoft signatures(TM) are a real threat to society and should all be thrown in jail.
    4. Re:Airport security by DanOrc451 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That'd be cool for far more than just airport security, I think that might just be the coolest casemod idea I've ever heard of.

      Since a Rubik's cube is 3"x3"x3", you could literally fit a shell that looked just like a standard Rubik's over it, and have removable squares for the ports....

      The mind boggles at the coolness of that!

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une signature.
    5. Re:Airport security by unfasten · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't one of these be even more of a worry? This thing is barely bigger than RJ-45 connector. And it even runs linux.

    6. Re:Airport security by wild_berry · · Score: 1

      Nitpick: the measurements are not quite as large as 3"x3"x3". Your own link confirms my memory: "A standard cube measures approximately 2¼ inches (5.7 cm) on each side."

    7. Re:Airport security by DanOrc451 · · Score: 1

      Ah, d'oh! You're right. I had just read fast and saw the "standard 3x3x3 size" line... where the unit is squares, not inches.

      Two morals:

      1) RTFA is a good thing
      2) I shouldn't design Mars probes

      That, sir, was a nit well picked. It should still (barely) fit though. It might have to be fudged a little bit, but the untrained eye would probably never be able to tell the difference. And it would be no less spiffy. ^.^

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une signature.
    8. Re:Airport security by Landshark17 · · Score: 1

      I'd rather have it painted to look like the Companion Cube.

      --
      This sig is false.
    9. Re:Airport security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd rather paint it like this.

  3. Yes but... by Underfoot · · Score: 5, Funny

    does it run... oh... it does? Awsome.

    --
    I mentioned tinker-toys once in a post - now I'm modded down for life.
    1. Re:Yes but... by __aamnbm3774 · · Score: 2, Funny

      if only they had this on the international space station. :)

    2. Re:Yes but... by MrMarket · · Score: 2, Funny

      beowulf cluster?

    3. Re:Yes but... by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      I want one! I wish there was some way to plug it into my TV set though, no S-Video out =(

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    4. Re:Yes but... by lastchance_000 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Thanks for not letting us down.

    5. Re:Yes but... by MrMarket · · Score: 2, Funny

      Might as well get the others out of the way... In Soviet Russia, Beowulf clusters all your base.
      Carry on.

    6. Re:Yes but... by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      Better to have a small video projector built-in, have the bag it comes in somehow fold out into a screen to project upon (and easily collapse back into a bag), and a webcam that can track your hands for a projected multi-touch display.

      If you add voice recognition and synthesis, that's a few steps closer to being able to call it a Mother box.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  4. How does a cube... by Kazymyr · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...measure two inches square?

    --
    I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
    1. Re:How does a cube... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Along every face?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:How does a cube... by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 1

      It does it six times.

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    3. Re:How does a cube... by acdc_rules · · Score: 5, Insightful

      certainly 2x2x2 which is 8 cubic inches. looking at the photo you get the idea the author of the article is innumerate.

    4. Re:How does a cube... by Bibz · · Score: 1

      From TFA : "and occupies a space that's roughly 2in square"

      The summary got it wrong, the base is base of the cube is 2 sq inches.

      --
      I didn't found something funny to put here.
    5. Re:How does a cube... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      How does a cube measure two inches square?

      Veeeery carefully...

    6. Re:How does a cube... by FoolsGold · · Score: 1

      Per side perhaps?

      Slashdot editors are idiots, we already know that. Nitpicking is a hollow sport.

    7. Re:How does a cube... by Dancindan84 · · Score: 5, Informative
      From TFA:

      Quite simply, it's one of the smallest PCs in the world, with each side measuring around 2 square inches.

      *Emphasis mine

      --
      "Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much." - Oscar Wilde
    8. Re:How does a cube... by Otter · · Score: 1

      From the pictures, it looks like that's a mistake too and it's a cube with two inch sides. I don't recall apples in the UK even being less than two inches in diameter, let alone less than root-two inches. (Is there some convention for making a square root sign in ASCII?)

    9. Re:How does a cube... by mlwmohawk · · Score: 3, Funny

      each side

      As if "each side" of a cube needs to be specified. Journalism trumps geometry.

    10. Re:How does a cube... by MiniMike · · Score: 1

      The summary skipped over the most remarkable feature- it's only 2-D!

    11. Re:How does a cube... by Meriahven · · Score: 2, Informative

      The product site lists the size as 52mm x 52mm x 52mm.

    12. Re:How does a cube... by Perf · · Score: 2, Informative

      (Is there some convention for making a square root sign in ASCII?)

      Could do x^(1/2) or x^0.5

    13. Re:How does a cube... by sm62704 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ...measure two inches square?

      Each face of the cube measures two inches square

      I am Homer of Borg, prepare to be assim... mmmmm, donut!

      I am a real cyborg. So is VP Dick Cheney. You will be assimilated. resistance is not only futile, when your time comes you will beg to join us.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    14. Re:How does a cube... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But each side does not measure around 2 square inches, regardless of what the mathematically challenged author of the TFA says. Each side is around 2 inches x 2 inches, which is 4 square inches.

    15. Re:How does a cube... by Ed+Avis · · Score: 1

      He didn't say it was 2 square inches. He said it was 2 inches square, which means 2 inches by 2 inches.

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    16. Re:How does a cube... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not two square inches. Two inches square, or two inches on a side.

    17. Re:How does a cube... by wilhelm · · Score: 1

      sqrt(2), maybe?

      The HTML entity is √, for another method.

    18. Re:How does a cube... by Door+in+Cart · · Score: 2, Funny

      If you RTFA, you'd learn that it's actually each edge that measures about 2 inches. And some of us don't need a calculator to figure out that 2 * 2 * 2 = 2.

    19. Re:How does a cube... by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      In the absence of both correct entity recognition and unicode, I propose hyphen-slash, possibly followed by parenthetical value. E.g. "the square root of two" == -/(2). It could even be made syntactical in a programming language as subtract-divide or negative-division wouldn't be a recognized operator pair.

      Variations could be done, such as "cube root of two" == 3-/(2) (different than "three times the square root of two" == 3 * -/(2) ).

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    20. Re:How does a cube... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From TFA:

      Quite simply, it's one of the smallest PCs in the world, with each side measuring around 2 square inches.

      *Emphasis mine

      Check the photos in TFA. That PSP-3000 is 2 3/4" wide. This cube is definitely not 1.4x1.4x1.4.

    21. Re:How does a cube... by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Summary:

      a tiny cube chassis measuring just two inches square

      TFA:

      each side measuring around 2 square inches

      Inches square != Square inches. Geez.

      However, in this case, I'm betting that the "wrong" summary got it right, and TFA was probably incorrectly using "square inches" when they meant "inches square".

      For reference: cube 2 inches square = measures 2 inches in any of the three dimensions. Cube with each side measuring 2 square inches = measures about 1.41 inches in any of the three dimensions (square root of 2).

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    22. Re:How does a cube... by unitron · · Score: 2, Funny

      And some of us don't need a calculator to figure out that 2 * 2 * 2 = 2.

      And any calulator that multiplies 2 by itself and then multiplies the result by 2 and comes up with 2 as the answer is certainly a calculator which I don't need (except for entertainment value in limited situations).

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    23. Re:How does a cube... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, trying it... nope, nothing shows up.

    24. Re:How does a cube... by Deadplant · · Score: 1

      that's what *she* said.

    25. Re:How does a cube... by TekPolitik · · Score: 1

      For reference: cube 2 inches square = measures 2 inches in any of the three dimensions.

      This must be that "new math". Since in the "old math" you could not have a cube 2 inches square as cubes were three dimensional objects. My reaction to the summary was "wow, they've created a computer that has no depth whatsoever? Did it have the assistance of some scientists from Gallifrey?

      Cube with each side measuring 2 square inches = measures about 1.41 inches in any of the three dimensions (square root of 2).

      In the old math this would seem to be referring to a tesseract (but even then the terminology would be unsound).

    26. Re:How does a cube... by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Hmm. I was under the impression that "2 inches square" was a perfectly acceptable way to refer to a cube with edge lengths of 2 inches, considering that "with edge lengths of 2 inches" is somewhat unwieldy.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  5. too bad it's not available by utnapistim · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Too bad it's not available to the general public at the moment :(

    --
    Tie two birds together: although they have four wings, they cannot fly. (The blind man)
    1. Re:too bad it's not available by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually this stuff IS available to the general public.

      It's called the PC-104 formfactor and it's been around for decades. Hell I got a 386 with A2D inputs and digital in and outs as well as VGA, CF interface and audio interface in the basement that is slightly larger than that that I used for wearable Computing in the early 90's.

      It's not new or special. It's standard industrial PC gear repackaged and sold with a "Ooooooh space technology" marketing twist.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:too bad it's not available by NormalVisual · · Score: 2

      This is substantially smaller than the PC-104 form factor, which is 3.6" x 3.8". It did however remind me a bit of the old Intrinsyc CerfCube devices that used to be available a few years back, one of which I have in my collection of stuff somewhere around here.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    3. Re:too bad it's not available by HiThere · · Score: 1

      If it's actually designed for space..., well...

      It's got to be shake tested, fire safety tested in high Oxy environments, and it's got to run in zero-G without fans. (No convection currents.)

      I think it's probably quite a bit special. That doesn't mean that it's especially useful down here. (Lots of things are "shake test" safe these days. Computers are rarely fire dangers unless their power supply explodes. Etc.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    4. Re:too bad it's not available by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While the PC-104 form factor is small, it is not a 2"x 2" square, it is closer to 3.7" x 3.5".

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PC104

  6. Dimensions, anybody? by meringuoid · · Score: 0, Redundant
    a tiny cube chassis measuring just two inches square

    A cube is measured in square units. Brillant.

    So how large is it really? Two inches on a side, for eight cubic inches? Or each face is two square inches, for 2*sqrt(2) cubic inches? Or the cube as a whole has two cubic inches in volume?

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    1. Re:Dimensions, anybody? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's a cube and they give you the dimensions of one face, what do you think the dimensions of the other faces are?

    2. Re:Dimensions, anybody? by Bibz · · Score: 1

      From TFA : "and occupies a space that's roughly 2in square"

      So I guess the base of the cube is 2sq inches, but now word on the height, I'd guess it's the same since it's a cube...

      --
      I didn't found something funny to put here.
    3. Re:Dimensions, anybody? by Van+Cutter+Romney · · Score: 5, Funny

      Dumbass, its a "Space Cube". It should be measured in the fourth dimension as 2 square inches/sec.

      --
      Help a man when he is in trouble and he will remember you when he is in trouble again.
    4. Re:Dimensions, anybody? by sjaguar · · Score: 1
      From the article:

      with each side measuring around 2 square inches

      That give the following dimensions: sqrt(2)" x sqrt(2)" x sqrt(2)" (~2.828 cubic inches) However, I think that the author meant that each side was a 2" by 2" square. In which case I would expect 8 cubic inches.

      --
      If at first you don't succeed, call it version 1.0.
    5. Re:Dimensions, anybody? by meringuoid · · Score: 0, Redundant
      Clicking through from TFA, things get worse: Remarkably, it's an entire PC inside a chassis that's 2 x 2 x 2in square.

      That's ambiguous in so many ways. Taken pedantically and literally, that's a 2D plane surface of 8 square inches, since the first two 2's are dimensionless. Assuming from that they represent inches, then that's a 4D hypercube of 16 inches^4 because the last 2 is square.

      Looking at the picture, I think what they actually mean is that each edge is 2 inches long, for a footprint of 4 square inches and a volume of 8 cubic inches. But seriously, can we get at least some care in how we handle units? This is primary-school stuff. And why is a British writeup of a Japanese device measuring in inches in the first place? Wouldn't be surprised to learn that it's actually 5cm on a side...

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    6. Re:Dimensions, anybody? by rarel · · Score: 5, Funny

      Plus I hear it can do the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs!

    7. Re:Dimensions, anybody? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brian: But parsecs are a unit of distance, not sp...
      Peter: Neh-neh-neh.

    8. Re:Dimensions, anybody? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No that would be a spacetime cube.

    9. Re:Dimensions, anybody? by norminator · · Score: 1

      Is this a companion product to the TimeCube? This could get trippy.

    10. Re:Dimensions, anybody? by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      How many other faces there are depends on whether I'm feeling hyper.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  7. Another? by amdpox · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What's the dealeo with all these ridiculously tiny "fully functional" Linux boxes coming out? Does anyone have a use for them, other than attempting to cram a distributed computing network into a backpack? A machine that needs an external keyboard, screen and power adaptor has no need to be any smaller than a midget-ITX.

    1. Re:Another? by meringuoid · · Score: 4, Insightful
      'Primarily designed for use in space'.

      It is enormously expensive to launch things into orbit. Making a smaller and lighter computer saves on launch costs, and the weight allowance can be used for other things. Then again, presumably you still have to launch a mouse and keyboard and VDU for this thing, so it's not quite as great a saving as it sounds...

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    2. Re:Another? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like the story says, robotics. Small, light brain == good, at least until we get the power problem solved (The futurama solution of having robots use alcohol internal combustion engines is polluting and nasty and requires maintenance - I favour wireless resonant power transfer)

    3. Re:Another? by slim · · Score: 5, Informative

      Then again, presumably you still have to launch a mouse and keyboard and VDU for this thing, so it's not quite as great a saving as it sounds...

      Depends on its job. It could be a headless device for logging/collating/forwarding sensor data, controlling a robot, whatever.

    4. Re:Another? by martinve · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Exactly the same question. My puny phone has 64MB RAM, 369 MHz CPU, screen, battery, built-in speakers, mini-USB port and minimalistic keyboard and internal volume of 66cc (roughly 4 cubic inches). I really do not see the point of that gadget except being really cheap and expendable - and that product is not.

    5. Re:Another? by utnapistim · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not necessarily. You could (for example) have them control all kinds of things with no peripherals attached for most of the time (that is, except in the case when a problem needs to be diagnosed).

      In case of a problem if there's need for diagnostics, you can then plug some small screen+keyboard and you're set to go.

      They're running linux so they should be ideal for monitoring sensors and reporting, transmitting ping/heartbeat signals for any kinds of devices, for controlling hardware, basically for anything that can run autonomously.

      --
      Tie two birds together: although they have four wings, they cannot fly. (The blind man)
    6. Re:Another? by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      What's the dealeo with all these ridiculously tiny "fully functional" Linux boxes coming out? Does anyone have a use for them, other than attempting to cram a distributed computing network into a backpack?

      Yes. "Computer Virus Aboard the ISS"

    7. Re:Another? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, substance, schmubstance.

      Look at the 3rd photo on TFA, and you'll see that against Steve Jobs' latest offering, it loses out completely on style.

      (Wonder if it's dual core?)

    8. Re:Another? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the 5th photo, we can see it's smaller than a Palm too.

    9. Re:Another? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it's not even a cube:

      # Andre Says:
      August 27th, 2008 at 2:18 pm

      According to the product documentation it s 64MB of SDRAM and 16MB of flash.

      For people working in the metric system, the dimensions are:52mm x 52mm x 55mm

    10. Re:Another? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My puny phone has 64MB RAM, 369 MHz CPU, screen, battery, built-in speakers, mini-USB port and minimalistic keyboard and internal volume of 66cc.

      But does it run Linux?

    11. Re:Another? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Primarily designed for use in space'.

      I Fourier transformed mine and use it in frequency.

    12. Re:Another? by Narnie · · Score: 1

      They're running linux so they should be ideal for monitoring sensors and reporting, transmitting ping/heartbeat signals for any kinds of devices, for controlling hardware, basically for anything that can run autonomously.

      I'd consider getting one to keep under the coffee mug. Not too sure what I'd use it for, but I would want it to be CPU intensive so it'd keep the coffee warm.

      --
      greed@All_Evils:~#
    13. Re:Another? by martinve · · Score: 1

      Nope, but it runs Quake.

    14. Re:Another? by Idbar · · Score: 1

      Then, why would you use a metallic case and screws? Isn't that counter intuitive to the fact that you need lighter components?

  8. awesome by __aardcx5948 · · Score: 1

    Wow, this is great! Where can I get this? Looks like it's entirely passive as well. SSD/Flash... FTW! This could replace any non gamer's computer. ;-)

    1. Re:awesome by Minwee · · Score: 1

      And, hey, it's only fifteen hundred pounds, so it still costs more than most gamer's computers.

    2. Re:awesome by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      Nah. If you're going to drop $3,000 you're probably going to want the gaming rig.

      An Eee, Beagle Board, Gumstix, or a Pandora will set you back a lot less.

    3. Re:awesome by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      At 200MHz, it might struggle a bit. And with only analogue VGA it would be hard to connect to a modern monitor. More interesting is the Beagle Board with a 600MHz Cortex A8, a PowerVR GPU and a nice DSP. It takes SD cards, which are now cheap in 16GB sizes, and in terms of volume it's smaller than the Space Cube. Oh, and they're actually shipping to consumers now.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:awesome by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Too bad the Beagle board still doesn't have enough RAM to be really useful. I'd really like to replace the p3 I have for web surfing and music playing in the living room with something embedded. But good luck running Firefox in 128mb ram.

      Still a neat unit for less RAM intensive applications though.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    5. Re:awesome by Taxman415a · · Score: 1

      Agreed, the BeagleBoard is really intriguing but something with more memory and ethernet in a case would be very compelling.

    6. Re:awesome by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      what about via's epia boards?

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    7. Re:awesome by Taxman415a · · Score: 1

      The epia's are good, but they are more expensive and use much more power. This one says under 13 watts while the BeagleBoard claims about 2 watts. Even with more memory 2 watts won't be as much as the epia and the epia is probably quoted without the memory anyway.

    8. Re:awesome by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      But good luck running Firefox in 128mb ram.

      Why would that be a problem? I have it running right now with six tabs open, and it's using just 64MB -- about four MB of which is the in-memory cache. This is 2.0.0.16; supposedly the upgrade is even more efficient. 128MB should be plenty for Firefox plus a minimal graphical environment. Alternately, there are a number of other perfectly usable web browsers with even lower memory requirements: Epiphany, Konqueror, even Links2 (which has a graphical mode as well as text).

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
  9. "Fully functional"? I doubt it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
  10. What's the big deal with PC compatibility ? by Brane2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This thing is obviously aimed at special applications.

    For these kind of things there are much better solutions than x86 chips. They are smaller, faster, cheaper and more economic than classic HW.

    Take a look at TI's daVinci program, for example, or maybe some small Coldfire from Freescale or maybe some cool Arm from NXP etcetc.

    1. Re:What's the big deal with PC compatibility ? by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 1
      "Most intriguing, though, is the Space Wire port. It may sound like a mere science fiction fantasy, but this incredibly thin socket is a crucial part of the Space Cubeâ(TM)s armoury. Thatâ(TM)s because itâ(TM)s a type of proprietary interface use by the ESA, NASA and JAXA when the Cube actually goes into space. Itâ(TM)s useful for connecting various sensors and processing units to the Space Cube, as well as the complicated-sounding Downlink Telementary Sub-Systems, which sounds like something more akin to Battlestar Galactica or Star Wars than anything used in real life. It turns out that Space Wire is also used as a common interface for linking together modules and electronics that are often designed in different institutions."

      Is it just me, or does this sound an awful lot like Phillips I2C bus?

      --
      If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
    2. Re:What's the big deal with PC compatibility ? by IDtheTarget · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would think that the primary "big deal" would be programming talent.

      Way back when, the government used proprietary, government-programmed operating systems and software for stuff, and it rarely worked and it was difficult to find programmers to maintain or update the software. This way, by using a processor that can run a well-known, well-liked, popular OS that has literally millions of enthusiastic programmers available, it shouldn't be difficult to get critical software written or maintained.

      You also won't need to re-invent the wheel for common modules, and your programmers can therefore concentrate on the stuff that is unique to your application of the hardware.

    3. Re:What's the big deal with PC compatibility ? by tikram · · Score: 0

      Development.

      You can take any linux-compatible desktop machine, you go and develop the application that controls the spaceship or something, and you don't need an emulator because you can test it right on your development machine.

      Then when it's ready, you just move the application over to the 'cube' and it's off you go.

      It's much simpler than developing for and emulator or similar, you don't need to jump that many hoops before deployment.

    4. Re:What's the big deal with PC compatibility ? by GauteL · · Score: 2, Informative

      Apart from the inappropriate use of the 'PC' term, the article doesn't actually state what type of architecture the processor is.

      This far more interesting paper on it, states that it has a MIPS processor.

    5. Re:What's the big deal with PC compatibility ? by raddan · · Score: 1

      But there's loads of software that runs on x86. Developer time costs magnitudes more than equipment, and for many places, my workplace included, these things are just great. If you're lucky enough to have software that's easily portable, and you don't mind dealing with the inevitable byte-order issues, character encoding issues, and other problems, by all means, use specialized machines. x86 is just so damned flexible that it's worth the extra cost.

      We use Soekris [soekris.com] boxes all over the place because their power requirements are minimal, they can withstand harsh environments, they don't need cooling, they run x86 software, they're designed to run headless, and they don't take up much space. So even though you could buy a much more capable (speed- and expansion-wise) Wal-Mart PC for about the same price, the Soekris boxes still win out.

      Plus, they're just neat.

    6. Re:What's the big deal with PC compatibility ? by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      It's not like you need x86 for linux. My linux-running N770 (ARM chip) fits easily in my pocket, and it even has a screen.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    7. Re:What's the big deal with PC compatibility ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF?! Linux runs on all sorts of non-x86 architectures. The OP rightly bashed the choice of x86. Other CPUs listed by the OP would have been more appropriate.

      You don't need special programming talent to target said CPUs unless you write in assembly. You'd program for them just the same as you'd on your PC. Endianness is really the only possibly biting issue, but then it goes without saying that writing code that's a-priori unportable due to endianness is a WTF in itself.

  11. Transformer in the cube? by Underfoot · · Score: 0

    Looking at the pictures (which are amazing) my big question is: is the PSU transformer in the cube? or is the power modification done in the cord? I can't imagine a CPU and a transformer in that tight of a space, without frying the other components.

    Wild.

    --
    I mentioned tinker-toys once in a post - now I'm modded down for life.
    1. Re:Transformer in the cube? by unts · · Score: 1

      It's got a "5V in" socket... so it definitely needs an external power pack. Of course there'll still be a bunch of regulators inside.

  12. Coincidence ?! by Bibz · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's interesting how this articles follows the one about the NASA space virus (http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/27/1231224)

    --
    I didn't found something funny to put here.
  13. Radiation hardened? by unts · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I appreciate that it's not meant for handling critical systems, but nevertheless, I wonder if its components are radiation hardened. In particular, what CPU has that thing got? Some sort of ARM?

    And the RAM... is it SECDED?

    1. Re:Radiation hardened? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One would imagine that is the responsibility of the consumer if that is expected to be an issue in it's application.

    2. Re:Radiation hardened? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It appears to have a NEC VR5701 MIPS CPU inside.

  14. wait what? by otravi · · Score: 2, Informative

    So.. it's a blast from the past?

    1. Re:wait what? by Leffe · · Score: 1

      2006? I thought the name change was recent.

      http://www.i4u.com/article951.html (article from 2003 where it was called "tea cube" or perhaps t-cube)

  15. GBP 1500 ? WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Nice but GBP 1500 is ridiculously expensive for such ridiculous specs (64 MB RAM/16 GB disk), too bad I wanted one...

    1. Re:GBP 1500 ? WTF? by Pvt_Ryan · · Score: 1

      indeed especially when they got theirs for ~£150.

    2. Re:GBP 1500 ? WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFA ?

      ll be a bit more expensive than the price we found before - around $325. Instead, this remarkable PC will probably be going for around £1,500.

    3. Re:GBP 1500 ? WTF? by Pvt_Ryan · · Score: 1

      I did..

      READ WHAT I WROTE

      last I checked $325 was about £150 (infact since you have irrated me $325 = £180.56 @ £1 == $1.8)

      Since you have difficulty understanding my meaning I'll write it here so its very simple: I was implying that I was annoyed that they paid £150 (I took £1 to $2 ish) and that when it does come to the UK it will be £1500 (10x what they paid)

      Was that simple enough for you?

    4. Re:GBP 1500 ? WTF? by Ant+P. · · Score: 1

      Unless someone _really_ can't spare the horizontal size of one CD jewel case, this isn't worth even £150. The ALIX beats the crap out of those specs for less, and more importantly (we are commenting on a slashvertisement for a splog, after all) it has a nicer looking box.

  16. PC Pro is clueless. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Behold Picotux!

    Or, less dramatically, gumstix.

    The spacecube is cute, I admit, I'd be amused to have one; but the notion of it being the smallest is silly.

    1. Re:PC Pro is clueless. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are several other ARM and MIPS based solutions which are also smaller than this x86 cube. I think they were trying to imply (by referring to it as a PC) that this was the smallest x86 linux computer.

    2. Re:PC Pro is clueless. by blanks · · Score: 1

      The first thing that came to mind was gumstix for me as well. Having owned a gumstix "rig" a 2 inch square computer seems fairly large.

    3. Re:PC Pro is clueless. by antime · · Score: 1

      It's not an x86 cube. It's a MIPS cube.

    4. Re:PC Pro is clueless. by bigtangringo · · Score: 1

      If it came with a Weighted Companion Cube skin, I'd consider buying one just for the hell of it.

      --
      Yes, I am a smart ass; it's better than the alternative.
    5. Re:PC Pro is clueless. by Wodin · · Score: 1

      A 2 square inch computer would be very impressive. This, however, is an 8 cubic inch computer...

      --
      -- Wodin
  17. incorrect summary by yankpop · · Score: 5, Informative

    The second line of the article states that it is one of the smallest computers in the world, not the smallest.

    yp.

    1. Re:incorrect summary by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      There's small and then there's small.

      The article continues:

      "The design is not just small, but efficient. So efficient, in fact, that the tiny space cube doesn't have any bulky fans, relying instead on convection currents to keep it cool when in space." ...because 31 Oct = 18 Dec! Haw haw haw!

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    2. Re:incorrect summary by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      It'll be efficient right up to the point where the air in the thing heats up enough to cause it to fail.

      Convection relies on density differences and gravity (i.e. not freefall), in freefall density differences suck at causing air to move.

      Better put a fan on it, or send several dozen of them for whatever task is needed.

    3. Re:incorrect summary by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1
      Well, free convection is largely dependent on gravity. But forced convection will still work.

      Better put a fan on it, or send several dozen of them for whatever task is needed.

      If it is truly very efficient, no need to put a fan on it. Just make sure it's being used near an air circulation vent, to take advantage of the already existant currents.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  18. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  19. But can it run by joeflies · · Score: 3, Funny

    the Gammima.AG worm? I hear that's popular in space nowadays

  20. NOT a Linux PC. It's a little MIPS based system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is Not a PC.

    From the Manufacturer's web site, it runs a fairly standard MIPS SoC from NEC... a Vr5701. There is not x86 compatible CPU in there. Since it's MIPS, don't expect to just use RPM and install anything, and clearly it doesn't use RedHat. The OS might be derived from RedHat, but I suspect it's just bad journalism (everything Linux is RedHat, right?).

    I'm not saying it's not cool, but it isn't a PC. And I think if you want a Space capable device, you'll have to deal with the radiation hardness yourself. www.gaisler.com has some perhaps more suitable chips that are rad hard (SPARC based).

  21. Hmmmm by MasterMynd · · Score: 1

    I always figured that a Space Cube would at least be bigger than the Enterprise.

  22. Cubes from Space? by miserere+nobis · · Score: 4, Funny

    Ahh, so Locutus has a mini-me and this is his home. How cute!

  23. akihabara by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    these have been for sale in akihabara, tokyo, japan, for over a year. saw it in one obscure robotics shop in May last year. if i recall correctly it only cost about $1000, so it should definately be way cheaper now.

  24. Imagine... by Anita+Coney · · Score: 4, Funny

    Imagine a beowulf cluster of these puppies! You might actually be able to run a GUI.

    --
    If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
    1. Re:Imagine... by cashman73 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Wow! You could make several of them in different colors, and your beowulf cluster would look like a gigantic Rubik's Cube! Cool!

    2. Re:Imagine... by Anita+Coney · · Score: 1

      Ok, that was funnier than mine by a longshot. Proven objectively by the diet Mt Dew that shot through my nose when I read it.

      --
      If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
  25. $300 - $1500 price jump?! by the_B0fh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The biggest problem is that they're selling it for US$300+ in Japan, but the University wants to sell it for $1500+

    Another good idea dying on the vine caused by greed.

    1. Re:$300 - $1500 price jump?! by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      The biggest problem is that they're selling it for US$300+ in Japan, but the University wants to sell it for $1500+

      It's worse than you think. That second price wasn't in dollars. It was pounds. You're looking at $3000 for one of these from the University of Dundee. Better to get on a plane to Tokyo and ask around Akihabara , even with the round trip ticket you'll come out ahead and you'll be able to stop off in a maid cafe while you're there.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    2. Re:$300 - $1500 price jump?! by kellyb9 · · Score: 0

      Another good idea dying on the vine caused by greed.

      Greed doesn't seem to be hurting Apple or Dell or any other computer manufacturer for that matter.

    3. Re:$300 - $1500 price jump?! by danielt998 · · Score: 1

      they're just charging you 1,500 quid for a box with really cheap components

  26. Finally, portable Googly Eyes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    entering âxeyeâ(TM) brings up a pair of comedy googly eyes that follow your cursor around the screen.

    Sweet Lord and savior Jesus Christ that's amazing! This little cube is going to redefine all of humanity. Barack, McCain, are you listening? One cube in the palm of very American. It's time to stop dreaming. Linux is here, NOW!

  27. N810 by oever · · Score: 1, Interesting

    How is this special? The Nokia N810 has a faster processor and comes with GPS, wifi, keyboard and 640 x 480 screen. Storage space can be added to exceed that of the Space Cube.

    --
    DNA is the ultimate spaghetti code.
    1. Re:N810 by malaprohibita · · Score: 1

      The Nokias are nice. It's just too bad they don't have wired ethernet or video out.

    2. Re:N810 by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      when did they downgrade the screen size on the Nokias?

      My 770 has a 800X480 screen. that sucks if they reduced screen resolution on the newer ones.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re:N810 by meist3r · · Score: 2, Funny

      Too bad GPS is useless in SPACE. And on the other hand a mobile phone is probably not the most reliable solution to grab sensor outputs and have them relayed to earth. The price of text messages alone would be outrageous ...

    4. Re:N810 by kellyb9 · · Score: 1

      It's just too bad they don't have wired ethernet or video out.

      Neither does the MacBook Air. Not designed to for that matter.

    5. Re:N810 by edremy · · Score: 1
      Why is GPS useless in space? It most certainly works in orbit- you just need a few more satellites to get an accurate fix on altitude and you need to get signals from satellites on the other side of the earth, but you can do it. See http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/12714/?a=f

      Now around Jupiter you're pretty much out of luck, but there's no way NASA's ever using one of these guys on a deep space probe. Data rates are a bit worse than even a first gen iPhone :^)

      --
      "Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
    6. Re:N810 by oever · · Score: 1

      My bad, I mixed up the screen resolution (800x480) with the camera resolution (640x480).

      --
      DNA is the ultimate spaghetti code.
  28. How About *Cheapest*? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    That device is $325. How about a $50 Linux PC that might not be the smallest, but is still smaller than a notebook, runs at least as fast as a P3/500MHz, has at least one each USB and PCI (but maybe no onboard VGA), and runs fanless?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  29. Imagine . . . by dcw · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Buy a bunch of them, pack them into a suitcase with some laptop batteries, Portable Cluster.

    --
    "All those, moments will be lost, in time, like tears, in rain. Time to die." Roy Batty
    1. Re:Imagine . . . by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Yes, and because the CPUs are so slow, you could just cluster the laptops that the batteries came from and get better performance from the same size suitcase.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    2. Re:Imagine . . . by pak9rabid · · Score: 1

      Buy a bunch of them, pack them into a suitcase with some laptop batteries, Portable Cluster.

      I could only imagine how an airport would react to that apparatus.

    3. Re:Imagine . . . by dcw · · Score: 1

      and have all the network cables geeked-out with LED activity indicators!

      Can you say body-cavity-search?

      --
      "All those, moments will be lost, in time, like tears, in rain. Time to die." Roy Batty
  30. It makes sense! by Rie+Beam · · Score: 3, Funny

    Who'd a thunk that the Borg would have such humble beginnings?

    I have to say, it does explain their relative ease of Assimilation...

  31. Oops by meringuoid · · Score: 1
    Taken pedantically and literally, that's a 2D plane surface of 8 square inches, since the first two 2's are dimensionless. Assuming from that they represent inches, then that's a 4D hypercube of 16 inches^4 because the last 2 is square.

    On the internet, any post with such supercilious pedantry must of necessity contain an error itself; normally it manifests in spelling flames, but it seems to hold for geometry too. I got far too taken with the lovely powers-of-two progression. The four-dimensional interpretation gives eight hypercubic inches, because the last 2 is square inches, but it's still a 2 and not a 4...

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  32. Product details by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

    Further details on the Space Cube see the translated product page (original page). To save you clicking on the link:

    Flash Memory: VR 5,701,200 MHz/250MHz/300MHz
    Flash Memory: 16M byte
    DRAM I/F: DDR SDRAM 64M byte
    Input/output: IEEE1355 (SpaceWire), RTC and CF (True IDE), XGA (1024×768), USB1.1 and LAN (100BASE), Audio (Stereo) input/output RS232C and JTAG I/F (for debugging)
    Power source: +5V
    External size: 52mmx52mmx55mm (the spine is excluded)

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    1. Re:Product details by steevc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Note the copyright of 2005-2006. I saw these ages ago. Not really news, but still a neat gadget. Having a PC this small means you can put it in places where you might not normally have one, providing it has the power for the application. I'm sure it could be good in a car for audio and assorted data logging.

      You can get something more powerful for less money, but sometimes size and power consumption will be the main factors.

  33. Radhard? by Conspicuous+Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If this thing is meant to be going into space doesn't it need to be using radiation hardened components?
    TFA states the cost is likely to be around GBP1500, that along with the size and specs of it makes me wonder if they're using commercial grade components in there. Aren't radiation hardened componentes generally around 10 years behind standard PC's? In other words is this thing actually going to be of any use in space or is is just some wierd marketing gimmick?

  34. Wow by mlwmohawk · · Score: 2

    I have a new record minium time required for going from "not knowing something is available" to "wanting something badly."

  35. Not the smallest? by jrothwell97 · · Score: 1

    Gumstix are tiny 386-compatible boards - although they're modular, they occupy less volume than a space cube.

    --
    Those using pirated Tinysoft signatures(TM) are a real threat to society and should all be thrown in jail.
    1. Re:Not the smallest? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Gumstix [gumstix.com] are tiny 386-compatible boards

      Where did you get the idea that XScale chips were 386-compatible? Unless this is a very loose definition, meaning 'able to run a userspace 386 emulator.'

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  36. Downroad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Website: http://www.shimafuji.co.jp

    Try mouse-over the third menu.

  37. 1500 POUNDS by ascendant · · Score: 1

    not $1500, 1500 pounds.
    that's 2800 USD, and google can help you convert the rest.

    --
    Do not attribute to malice that which can be easily explained by incompetence.
  38. Not Space Cube by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 3, Funny

    Dumbass, its a "Space Cube". It should be measured in the fourth dimension as 2 square inches/sec.

    No, that would make it a "Time Cube", and that would be a Bad Thing.

    --
    Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
  39. When spacecube meets timecube. by argent · · Score: 1

    When spacecuube meets timecube, we're off to the 8th dimension for a hell of a party!

  40. Which is not even true by vrt3 · · Score: 5, Informative

    On http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2008/07/03/introducing-the-space-cube/ (which is linked from the linked article) they mention that the thing is about 2x2x2 inches, so each side is about 4 square inches.

    --
    This sig under construction. Please check back later.
    1. Re:Which is not even true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks Archimedes.

    2. Re:Which is not even true by debest · · Score: 1

      Hmmm...

      I was taught in my Canadian elementary school math classes that if you had a square, 2" x 2", that it could be described as being "two inches square" (meaning a 2" line making up one side of a square), and that the area of such a square was "four square inches" (2 inches ^2).

      Seeing how you used the term "square inches" and sm62704 used the term "inches square", I'd say you're both correct.

      --
      Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!
    3. Re:Which is not even true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks Alex Tribek.

  41. !2 inches square by RingDev · · Score: 3, Informative

    Each edge is 55mm long, or 2.16". So each side is 4.67 square inches. All together it is 10.1 cubic inches, which would be the appropriate measurement for a cube.

    -Rick

    --
    "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
  42. Space Wire by inKubus · · Score: 1

    Don't forget it has a Spacewire interface.

    I kindof found the bulky db15 connector on the side funny, but I guess you'd need some sort of adapter anyway. But if you had a lot of them you'd probably use a kvm and at that point you could move to a proprietary, thin, small, light connection.

    --
    Cool! Amazing Toys.
  43. Retro-future by Xeth · · Score: 1
    FTA:

    Downlink Telementary Sub-Systems, which sounds like something more akin to Battlestar Galactica

    Sounds like someone hasn't been watching closely. Doesn't he know that starships are principally operated by wrought-iron wheels and analog needle gauges?

    --
    If your theory is different from practice, then your theory is wrong.
  44. Blend it first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most important of all... Will it blend?

  45. It's a Cosmic Cube by bandini · · Score: 1
    There's already a wiki page for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_Cube From the summary:

    "A Cosmic Cube is (usually, but not always) a cube-shaped matrix that holds vast energies that are responsive to the wills of sentient beings."

    Yup. And:

    "A sentient being can use a Cosmic Cube to manifest its thoughts as reality, and thus to accomplish virtually anything it desires."

    Sounds like my Mac Mini!

    --
    Give people tools that guarantee their right to work with independent efficiency. - Ivan Illich
  46. Why CF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As space is clearly a factor in this endeavour, why would they use CF?

    There are plenty of ubiquitious flash memory formats which are much smaller.

  47. Another?...idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "What's the deal with all these ridiculously tiny "fully functional" Linux boxes coming out? Does anyone have a use for them, other than attempting to cram a distributed computing network into a backpack?"

    I can think of one. A lot of flat-screen HDTVs have multiple ports, including VGA. Hang a small PC onto the back, connected via wireless and you can have your own personal media channel. The rest is an RF remote and imagination away.

  48. Interesting by ilovesymbian · · Score: 0

    Interesting shape for a PC! But for the CPU power and very high cost, its a little prohibitive.

    Why can't they try something like this on the Nintendo DS or the PSP? I know there's PSPUbuntu and all that, but those are not really ported to the PSP.

  49. It may be the world's smallest PC... by Javarrito · · Score: 1

    ...but its not quite as small as that apple.

  50. Resistance is futile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like a seed for a Borg cube.

  51. Fully loaded even! by mikeasu · · Score: 1

    It runs xeye! OMFG, what else do you possibly need!

  52. You are educated stupid by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 1

    You are educated stupid - and you have no inkling to just how EVIL you think.

    Academia destroys your brain, your ability to think opposite. The eyes of the flounder fish were relocated, why were yours relocated? Your opposite eyes were moved to 1 corner to overlay for single perspective, but that corrupts your Opposite Brain.

  53. Side by side comparison to Apple's version by ionymous · · Score: 0
  54. gumstix by Foofoobar · · Score: 1

    exactly and gumstix is selling pc's now as well that are as small as your wallet.

    --
    This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
    1. Re:gumstix by Taxman415a · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah but the gumstix are much slower than the TI's OMAP35x processors in the Beagleboard. Gumstix does seem to be coming out with some OMAP products in Q4, but currently their only advantage is that they are neatly packaged with a small case and they have a model with ethernet built in. Otherwise the Beagleboard has much more going for it.

      Those two things would be nice to be able to get preconfigured for a beagleboard, and nothing I saw on their site hinted at it. Of course you can do it yoursself with an expansion board and soldering iron or usb ethernet, but that's bulkier. I'd buy a beagleboard now if I could get it with ethernet and a nice small case for cheap, but I can't find that anywhere so far. I'm sure someone will offer it soon enough.

    2. Re:gumstix by Foofoobar · · Score: 1

      Yes but on the plus side, Gumstix come with expansion boards making them infinitely customizable to your needs. If the cube was made out of tinier cubes (like Legos) that you plugged into it and effectively could even 'cluster' complete cubes into 'blades', i'd be spending money hand over fist on them.

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
  55. Not for sale yet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't wait till it becomes a real product and this story becomes a dupe.

  56. Is this what they are running their server off of? by sixpenny_83 · · Score: 1

    It only takes 2 simultaneous hits to be slashdotted.

  57. Welcome to 2006 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.ubergizmo.com/15/archives/2006/04/the_smallest_pc_in_the_world.html

    Two years ago it also came in yellow!

    http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/pcs/space-cube-in-the-wild-171244.php

  58. The pressing question is... by dwiget001 · · Score: 1

    does it run Linux? Doh, wait! Never mind!

  59. Interesting device, but... by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

    ... is overpriced as hell

    --
    Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
  60. Allspark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  61. Do you hear that, emacs? by vimm · · Score: 1
    FTFA:

    The Red Hat operating system is able to use many common commands that are normally found on more standard Linux PCs. FTP can be used, as well as editors such as vi

    PWn32D!12!!!1one

  62. Performance by disputationist · · Score: 1

    But will it run Crysis?

  63. smallest linux box... by Baiken · · Score: 1

    imagine a Beow...
    but does it run?...
    boy... these jokes are getting old

  64. I dunno... by memristance · · Score: 1

    2"x2"x2"?

    I'd much rather my space computer be 1"x4"x9", perhaps in a nice matte black...

  65. I Have SuperNatural Wisdom. by StreetStealth · · Score: 1

    Egad, that takes me back to the old days of the Web, long before everything I read was linked through a small number of blogs with a highly focused area of subject matter, a time when one could randomly, easily stumble onto not just odd curiosities but genuine, raving madness with little effort.

    Thank you for that. I think.

    --
    Your mind is clear / The things that you fear / Will fade with how much you / Believe what you hear
  66. The CerfCube was around long before this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The CerfCube by Intrinsyc was around long before this:

    http://www.linuxdevices.com/articles/AT2683549967.html

    StrongARM processor, 32MB of RAM, and a USB port. Not bad for a turn-of-the-millennium Linux cube.

  67. "world's smallest" and "fully functional" by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    Perhaps I do not understand the definition of these terms?

    Beagleboard is smaller and has video output, capable of running Firefox. That sounds more like fully functional.

    Gumstix is much much smaller, suitable for hobby projects where you need a Linux system in a tiny space (like a tiny robot).

    This cube form factor seems like the largest thing I've seen for embedded. Even a Palm PDA seems smaller. (or Zaurus if you must have Linux)

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  68. RS-232 !?!? by johnrpenner · · Score: 1

    what a waste of space including rs-232...?? we can afford to go to space,
    but we need an rs-232 port just in case we can't afford the newer USB peripherals!?!?
    maybe we should include PS/2 ports in case they cant afford a USB keyboard & mouse??

    imho, the ports should be:

    - DVI video
    - USB 2.0
    - Ethernet
    - Compact Flash
    - Audio In/Out
    - fit more RAM where you wasted space for RS-232

    that's it.

    1. Re:RS-232 !?!? by tibman · · Score: 1

      My guess is because most of the equipment on the station is so old it's scary. A Serial connection is probably a requirement (i notice it has two serial connectors too, a 3 pin and the rs232). Also it has something else called "Space Wire Port" not sure what the heck that is?

      Anyways, I doubt the serial ports are for peripherals. Probably for communicating with sensors and all sorts of random gadgets.

      I do agree with needing more ram, jeez..

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
  69. Square inches? by haeger · · Score: 1

    Aren't we nerds here? Surely the progressive tech-crowd in America would have accepted the metric standard?

    Let's not forget the previous occation when nerds forgot that metric units are standard.

    .haeger

    --
    You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. -- Harlan Ellison
  70. Re:NOT a Linux PC. It's a little MIPS based system by shish · · Score: 1

    This is Not a PC.

    Is it not personal? Or is it not a computer? o_O

    There is not x86 compatible CPU in there.

    So?

    Since it's MIPS, don't expect to just use RPM and install anything

    why not?

    --
    I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
  71. Re:But does it run by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

    Why not? 200 ~ 300 mhz and 64 MB RAM is plenty for Windows 98, and I can't think of a better virus platform than that. Hmmm, the USB support might be kinda buggy though. I'd avoid hot-plugging any USB scanners, I guess.

    --
    I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
  72. Looks like: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...A cripple soulcube from Doom 3

  73. In Germany, the Eee machines are ~300 by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    You're being ripped off massively.

     

    --
    Deleted
  74. isn't just teacube updated & relabeled? by bsx · · Score: 1

    how is this different from the teacube circa 2004?

  75. 1 monitor, keyboard, mouse by KalvinB · · Score: 1

    Instead of having to haul up screens and input devices for each specialized computer you only need one set for all them.

    They could fly up dozens of these designed to do specific tasks and then hook them up to a docking station one at a time when needed.

    No doubt there is at least one set somewhere in the shuttle and space station already. Why send up a monitor when you already have one available to you?

  76. The Real Space-Cube by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know how this cube is related, but at one point NASA was working on a computing platform called the space-cube that was designed to replace radiation-hardened processors with more-or-less commodity redundant processors. All of this, of course, in a small form factor with a nice bus for connecting to other systems and space-cubes for parallel processing. I think the real space-cube is supposed to be flight-tested on the upcoming Hubble Servicing mission.

  77. what? by WillRobinson · · Score: 1

    You rang?

  78. Compact Flash? by Mr_Silver · · Score: 1

    I find Compact Flash an odd choice, especially when MicroSD-HC can go up to 32GB (which would mean you can do something useful with it) and are significantly smaller so keeping or even reducing the form factor.

    I remember the days when CF was much much cheaper but an 8GB card SDHC is currently about £20. Whereas the cheapest 8GB Compact Flash card I could find was about £35.

    So SDHC wins on size, speed, dimensions and cost.

    --
    Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
  79. POE? by fuocoZERO · · Score: 1

    I can see many uses if this thing supported POE...

  80. Space Cube Matchbox PC by logicassasin · · Score: 1

    http://www.reviewsonline.com/articles/962097916.htm

    I'm suprised at you guys... I'm almost positive that I read about the Matchbox PC on Slashdot many moons ago. Anywho, at 5 cubic inches, the matchbook PC would be smaller than the space cube's 8 cu/in. I would imagine that 8 years is more than enough time to pack even more power into an even smaller PC but, alas, I may be wrong

    --
    Fifty watts per channel, baby cakes.
  81. Two inches square? by Linus+the+Turbonerd · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't it be two inches cubed?

  82. Disgustingly, ridiculously expensive price by Caspian · · Score: 1

    The bloody thing is expected to cost £1,500.(~$3,000 USD). That is absolutely fucking insane. I bought a ZipIt 2 handheld that runs Linux (and I put Debian on it) AND HAS A BUILT IN BATTERY AND SCREEN for $50 used... these morons want $3,000 for something on the same order of size, with a CPU of roughly the same magnitude?

    --
    With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
  83. There are other small computers, but. . . by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

    As has been pointed out by many helpful Slashdotters, there are plenty of other cigarette pack-sized computers which have come before this one, but I would ask, "How many of those were built to meet space-travel specifications?"

    I believe the idea behind this one, (assuming my cursory read-through of the article is correct), is that it's guaranteed to survive and perform perfectly after being blasted into space in the nosecone of a bloody-great controlled bomb. I rather doubt my monster desktop computer could manage that even under the best of circumstances. 1,500 quid is a bargain.

    -FL

  84. What about RJ-45 sized Linux PCs? by Guspaz · · Score: 1

    Does nobody remember the PicoTux (http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/28/2237230&from=rss) or other similar RJ-45 sized computers? This Space Cube thing is most certainly not the "smallest" Linux PC.

    It's unfortunate that PicoTux hasn't upgraded their specs during the intervening years; if they could fit a 55MHz ARM processor with 8MB of RAM into an RJ-45 socket back in 2005, I'm almost certain they could do better today.

    It's already fast enough to do light routing duties (plug the thing into a switch and you've got a working PPPoE DSL router), but a faster CPU and more RAM would almost certainly help.

    For comparison, this thing has 4MB flash, 8MB of RAM, and a 55MHz ARM processor. The flash and RAM are the same as a current-gen WRT54G modem, and half each of the WRT54GL (needed for doing much more than basic stuff). If only they could get a faster processor on those things (the WRT54GL is a 200MHz MIPS processor, the WRTSL54G is 264MHz), you'd have equivalent flexibility (minus the WRT's onboard switch) in a far smaller package.

  85. This Cube PC already around since 2004 by i4u · · Score: 1

    The T-Cube pocket-size PC is running T-Engine and was first introduced already in 2004.

    http://www.i4u.com/article951.html

  86. Might be handy for some things... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Plug the thing into some circuit driver modules, put some software in it that does what MegaSquirt and MegaSpark do, and you've got a tidy ECU for running any internal combustion engine. (Should be capable enough of running fuel, spark, and boost curves, as well as knock retard, and perhaps wideband O2.)

    Or you could use it with a motor controller, and use it for datalogging or fine-tuning on an electric power system.

    Or it could be the guts for some simple kiosk based operation. Any problems with the computer in the kiosk? Just take out one cube, and drop in another. (Although that could probably be done with a cheaper and more generic motherboard in most cases.)

    Plenty of applications could use that level of computing in a small package, even though the device itself isn't that much of a computer. (You're better off buying a laptop for more typical applications.)