Patient's blood is usually tested no more than a few times a day, if that frequent. Tests also tend to take hours at least to come back - especially with routine, check-up, non-emergency types of tests. Quite a slow feed-back loop, and most definitely not the way to check whether your infuse is producing the right dose.
Maybe those gyros are now good enough for navigating subs through the vast expanses of our oceans, but not good enough to navigate space craft to nearby cosmic neighbours or to accurately point space telescopes to nearby objects?
Well my subconscious reading did fill in a "b" in that gap, not an "m". Which of course has to do with the word "NASA" that appeared in the same sentence. It's hard to believe those guys even can enter such small numbers in their budget application forms!
I'd mod you up if you had said Russia, seeing as we now pay them ~63 million per astronaut we send.
Which is well cheaper than using the Space Shuttle. I assume at least this is the ticket for a round trip, to and from the surface of the earth.
The Shuttle, with the philosophy of having a re-usable and thus cost effective vehicle, cost about $450 mln per launch according to Wikipedia, and could carry a maximum of eight astronauts, though usually less. One pilot and one commander to fly the thing who also have to bring it down leaves up to six astronauts that can be exchanged with crew on the ISS, or 75 mln per passenger. In case of the more common crew of seven, it'd be 90 mln.
Put inflation in the mix, and this Russian price tag is looking very interesting compared to NASAs in-house offering.
And that's while the Russian space agency is also government paid, like NASA, so a private company will likely be able to do it for even less.
I have seen some of such solar-powered planes on TV or also featured on Slashdot. Images tell the tale. These are indeed basically flying wings: huge wings, with often lots of motors (to keep the weight of a single motor down I suppose). Planes that need little power to fly and stay in the air - basically motorised gliders.
Now their solar cells will be about 10% effective; imagine this is pushed to 100% effective then there is 10x as much power available. With 10x the power it may be able to add a passenger or two to such a plane but nothing near to the power of a current jet liner. And that's of course only when the sun is shining, and with ideal solar cells.
Scaling them up to 747-scale wings will gain maybe another 10x surface - if that much. With a lot of extra weight to carry as well for structural integrity and whatnot. With ideal solar cells you may take a dozen passengers up in the sky, with contemporary solar cells not much of a chance.
There may be some efficiency to be gained in motors and props, a bit in air resistance, but those are all rather mature and no huge gains to be made there.
You would end up at roughly half the cost of regular air freight, as sea freight is so much cheaper than air freight. And then the question is whether people are willing to pay that much more to wait just one week instead of having it overnight - hard to find a market for that. It's usually either urgent and/or highly valuable cargo (e.g. electronics that lose value fast, and that are light weight anyway, or machine parts that are essential for production), or cargo that is not urgent (almost all general merchandise - which is why the main order season for Christmas season merchandise is around May/June) and where delivery time is simply accounted for beforehand.
Then to the actual costs:
Air freight from Shanghai to the US is in the order of USD 20-40 per kg.
Sea freight is in the order of USD 4000 per 40' container which can carry up to 25,000 kg. That is as low as $0.16/kg. Have less weight (most cargo is more bulky than heavy) and you're talking at maybe $0.30-0.40 per kg, about 1% of the cost of air freight.
Well, if all voters that fit your criteria go to the polls, there is a big risk of a serious constitutional crisis if one of them votes Obama and the other Romney. In which case you'll probably have a bigger mess than you have now.
So in the end you only get the people that really can't find a job elsewhere. As that are the ones that are still waiting after 6-9 months. Oh well, it's a way to narrow down your pool of prospective employees
It's not like people with tablets will be racing to go buy ANOTHER tablet.
You mean: like people that have an iPad were rushing to upgrade to iPad2 and then maybe a Samsung when it came out? People do that all the time, just like with their phones - everyone has one already but it's not that sales are slowing or so.
And interesting no-one ever said that of Apple when they entered a mature mobile phone market... yet today all of Slashdot accuse MS of being "too late" when they try to enter a still fast growing tablet market!
These return policies are typical US-only. No idea where you got it from, but no-where else in the world that I know of can you just buy stuff, take it home, try it out, and a week later return it.
I heard it even goes for clothes: just buy some, try them on at home, return what doesn't fit. Great to have a fancy evening dress for a party for free, of course.
You mean, they will not provide anything for download to begin with?
I wonder how else they're going to distribute 4K type video. Blu-Ray can't handle it. And I can't imagine it's going to be sold on hard disk, which is the only medium I can think of that has the capacity.
Introduce competition (e.g. by decoupling ownership of the wires with providing services on those wires - a highly successful strategy used in many Euroean countries) and prices will come down. Then the provider that has the lowest cost (their own overhead as everyone pays the same access fees to those wires) will be able to set the lowest prices, and attract customers. Or they could start providing excellent support/customer service, extra services, whatever.
What helped here is that most of these wires were installed with governemnt subsidies (many of the telcos owning the wires are/were government owned enterprises - now usually private but most installation and digging was done in the government owned era)
The owners of the wires may complain - but the customers will cheer.
A properly encoded movie (not low compression like MPEG) is more like 5-10 GB for a 1080p movie. So 20-40 GB for a 4k resolution. A lot but not too bad.
Oh and not everyone lives with those silly restrictions on Internet... in HKG many homes can get up to 1,000 Mbit nowadays. So 20-40 GB is no problem, a minute or two downloading on that speed. It's the availability of content that's probably the biggest issue.
Too lazy to search but I do expect that the higher-end video cards have no problems decoding such resolution. And modern quad-plus-core processors are commonplace nowadays. At least nothing someone who is happy to put down $17k for a TV won't be able to afford.
The problem will be the content itself... maybe 2K is just good enough? Or at 4k the file sizes become prohibitively large?
However too little quantity is not good - both Apple and Google have about 100 time more apps in their stores... MS has a long way to go.
And somehow I hope they make it. Not that I care much about MS as such, it'd be great to have a third viable competitor in this market. And MS Is pretty much the only company that I can think of that could pull that off.
In between those I strongly prefer Google's terms.
First of all the Play Store has little virus issues. No idea on numbers, but it's not that I hear often about viruses in apps. Certainly the more popular apps are generally safe. And Apples app store is also not 100% clean, the vetting process is far from perfect.
I don't use third-party stores, but I have installed software directly from an app vendor's site. And have installed my own apps directly on my phone, without any issues. Having these possibilities is great. Being limited to a single store, and not being able to easily install apps in any other way, that just sucks.
Even if the Play Store started vetting their apps, then still not much lost as you're not limited to that store. There are alternatives. Unfortunately MS decides to go the Apple way - forgetting how the openness of Windows is part of what made the platform so ubiquitous.
Slashdot Mirror
Patient's blood is usually tested no more than a few times a day, if that frequent. Tests also tend to take hours at least to come back - especially with routine, check-up, non-emergency types of tests. Quite a slow feed-back loop, and most definitely not the way to check whether your infuse is producing the right dose.
Thanks for the correction. And it proves my point even more so... $1.6 bln per flight, wow...
If you really don't have any other sensors maybe... but of course it never hurts to have more accuracy.
Maybe those gyros are now good enough for navigating subs through the vast expanses of our oceans, but not good enough to navigate space craft to nearby cosmic neighbours or to accurately point space telescopes to nearby objects?
Well my subconscious reading did fill in a "b" in that gap, not an "m". Which of course has to do with the word "NASA" that appeared in the same sentence. It's hard to believe those guys even can enter such small numbers in their budget application forms!
I'd mod you up if you had said Russia, seeing as we now pay them ~63 million per astronaut we send.
Which is well cheaper than using the Space Shuttle. I assume at least this is the ticket for a round trip, to and from the surface of the earth.
The Shuttle, with the philosophy of having a re-usable and thus cost effective vehicle, cost about $450 mln per launch according to Wikipedia, and could carry a maximum of eight astronauts, though usually less. One pilot and one commander to fly the thing who also have to bring it down leaves up to six astronauts that can be exchanged with crew on the ISS, or 75 mln per passenger. In case of the more common crew of seven, it'd be 90 mln.
Put inflation in the mix, and this Russian price tag is looking very interesting compared to NASAs in-house offering.
And that's while the Russian space agency is also government paid, like NASA, so a private company will likely be able to do it for even less.
No amount of mechanical quality of your pencil will prevent it from getting lost.
At the surface is the most important as the plane has to get started on the surface, and taking off is when you need the largest amount of power.
I have seen some of such solar-powered planes on TV or also featured on Slashdot. Images tell the tale. These are indeed basically flying wings: huge wings, with often lots of motors (to keep the weight of a single motor down I suppose). Planes that need little power to fly and stay in the air - basically motorised gliders.
Now their solar cells will be about 10% effective; imagine this is pushed to 100% effective then there is 10x as much power available. With 10x the power it may be able to add a passenger or two to such a plane but nothing near to the power of a current jet liner. And that's of course only when the sun is shining, and with ideal solar cells.
Scaling them up to 747-scale wings will gain maybe another 10x surface - if that much. With a lot of extra weight to carry as well for structural integrity and whatnot. With ideal solar cells you may take a dozen passengers up in the sky, with contemporary solar cells not much of a chance.
There may be some efficiency to be gained in motors and props, a bit in air resistance, but those are all rather mature and no huge gains to be made there.
You would end up at roughly half the cost of regular air freight, as sea freight is so much cheaper than air freight. And then the question is whether people are willing to pay that much more to wait just one week instead of having it overnight - hard to find a market for that. It's usually either urgent and/or highly valuable cargo (e.g. electronics that lose value fast, and that are light weight anyway, or machine parts that are essential for production), or cargo that is not urgent (almost all general merchandise - which is why the main order season for Christmas season merchandise is around May/June) and where delivery time is simply accounted for beforehand.
Then to the actual costs:
Air freight from Shanghai to the US is in the order of USD 20-40 per kg.
Sea freight is in the order of USD 4000 per 40' container which can carry up to 25,000 kg. That is as low as $0.16/kg. Have less weight (most cargo is more bulky than heavy) and you're talking at maybe $0.30-0.40 per kg, about 1% of the cost of air freight.
Who needs the Internet when you have Slashdot?
Well, if all voters that fit your criteria go to the polls, there is a big risk of a serious constitutional crisis if one of them votes Obama and the other Romney. In which case you'll probably have a bigger mess than you have now.
So in the end you only get the people that really can't find a job elsewhere. As that are the ones that are still waiting after 6-9 months. Oh well, it's a way to narrow down your pool of prospective employees
It's not like people with tablets will be racing to go buy ANOTHER tablet.
You mean: like people that have an iPad were rushing to upgrade to iPad2 and then maybe a Samsung when it came out? People do that all the time, just like with their phones - everyone has one already but it's not that sales are slowing or so.
And interesting no-one ever said that of Apple when they entered a mature mobile phone market... yet today all of Slashdot accuse MS of being "too late" when they try to enter a still fast growing tablet market!
These return policies are typical US-only. No idea where you got it from, but no-where else in the world that I know of can you just buy stuff, take it home, try it out, and a week later return it.
I heard it even goes for clothes: just buy some, try them on at home, return what doesn't fit. Great to have a fancy evening dress for a party for free, of course.
You mean, they will not provide anything for download to begin with?
I wonder how else they're going to distribute 4K type video. Blu-Ray can't handle it. And I can't imagine it's going to be sold on hard disk, which is the only medium I can think of that has the capacity.
Exactly.
Introduce competition (e.g. by decoupling ownership of the wires with providing services on those wires - a highly successful strategy used in many Euroean countries) and prices will come down. Then the provider that has the lowest cost (their own overhead as everyone pays the same access fees to those wires) will be able to set the lowest prices, and attract customers. Or they could start providing excellent support/customer service, extra services, whatever.
What helped here is that most of these wires were installed with governemnt subsidies (many of the telcos owning the wires are/were government owned enterprises - now usually private but most installation and digging was done in the government owned era)
The owners of the wires may complain - but the customers will cheer.
A properly encoded movie (not low compression like MPEG) is more like 5-10 GB for a 1080p movie. So 20-40 GB for a 4k resolution. A lot but not too bad.
Oh and not everyone lives with those silly restrictions on Internet... in HKG many homes can get up to 1,000 Mbit nowadays. So 20-40 GB is no problem, a minute or two downloading on that speed. It's the availability of content that's probably the biggest issue.
Too lazy to search but I do expect that the higher-end video cards have no problems decoding such resolution. And modern quad-plus-core processors are commonplace nowadays. At least nothing someone who is happy to put down $17k for a TV won't be able to afford.
The problem will be the content itself... maybe 2K is just good enough? Or at 4k the file sizes become prohibitively large?
Then you have a really small living room. 84" is big for a TV, but not for a wall. In portrait mode you'll be able to mount it to a regular door.
Is there any content in such high resolution available?
Regular blu-ray is 720p or 1080p. And I'm not aware of higher-resolution physical media.
The only source of such high-res content I can think of is cinema-type media, and I don't think those media are so easily accessible by consumers.
Quality over quantity any time.
However too little quantity is not good - both Apple and Google have about 100 time more apps in their stores... MS has a long way to go.
And somehow I hope they make it. Not that I care much about MS as such, it'd be great to have a third viable competitor in this market. And MS Is pretty much the only company that I can think of that could pull that off.
They're all working on Android and iOS already!
In between those I strongly prefer Google's terms.
First of all the Play Store has little virus issues. No idea on numbers, but it's not that I hear often about viruses in apps. Certainly the more popular apps are generally safe. And Apples app store is also not 100% clean, the vetting process is far from perfect.
I don't use third-party stores, but I have installed software directly from an app vendor's site. And have installed my own apps directly on my phone, without any issues. Having these possibilities is great. Being limited to a single store, and not being able to easily install apps in any other way, that just sucks.
Even if the Play Store started vetting their apps, then still not much lost as you're not limited to that store. There are alternatives. Unfortunately MS decides to go the Apple way - forgetting how the openness of Windows is part of what made the platform so ubiquitous.
Are there that many vacancies for air marshalls?