> Lots of devel costs for technology that different than that in use now, and no estimates on operating costs.
That's why it's merely a feasability study rather than a go on an actual project. The article only mentioned engine research, which is probably all they're going to be doing for a while. If they decide they can't make a near-hypersonic engine that is quiet at sub-sonic speeds, they can simply throw in the towel and call it quits.
I think in its "piano bar" configuration (i.e. the early days when they're trying to show off a bit) it is specced at 555 seats or so. But I've seen figures that if all available floor space was converted to current (esp. Asian) configurations, it could hold 800 seats or more. That's when they remove the flip tables and you use your knee caps instead.
Re:Failure Reborn
on
Son of Concorde
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
> How many people fly around the world often enough that the time spent matters
Why does it have to be around the world? If I could be in Europe in 2 hours, that would make a huge difference. Instead of going once every one or two years, I might go two or more times a year, for shorter periods. When transit time stops being a significant percentage of total trip time, that weekend in Paris all of a sudden DOES mean two days in Paris, rather than one day in Paris and one on two planes.
Of course, the economics would have to be different. I am pretty confident that IF new SST technology is eventually commercialised again, it will be considerably less expensive than Concorde. Flying SST couldn't be more expensive than flying first class, preferably substantially less, otherwise your potential clientelle is reduced to Hollywood. That's one lesson they've learned if nothing else. The Concorde was the first of its type, so no prior economic data existed; but it also was a prestige project to show the world that Europe still had it, so economics didn't entirely make or brake it. For any new project that would of course not be true at all. Today, if it ain't makin' money, it ain't flyin'.
There are various reasons why cheaper SST is possible: improved engine efficiencies, increased aerodynamic understanding, replacement of heavy analog or mechanical components with electronics and fiber optics (e.g. drooping nose on Concorde will be replaced with virtual windows, miles of copper cable with fiber), increased passenger capacity.
I'm not saying that all these advances WILL make SST viable again, but rather that IF it becomes viable again, they will be major contributing factors. After all, the article said that EADS is simply studying the feasability of a new plane, not that one is on the drawing board. It's quite likely that they will
> make all the computers in it malfunction and it will still fly, glide at least
Makes sense on paper but is complete nonsense in reality. A 777 can be glided to an unpowered landing about as well as the Leaning Tower of Pisa. You can be all warm and fuzzy that you're right-side-up while gliding towards your doom, but doom it will be all the same.
Wanna bet...
on
iPod-Jacked
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
...that if HE had initiated the jack swap she would have pulled out her pepper spray?
> Is it just me, or does Gartner appear to just write what they think will go down well
Much more so than you probably think. They came in recently to our company to "streamline" our IS department. The whole process probably went something like "ok guys, how many drones do you want to lose, and which contractors do you want to screw over the most?" Based on that they created a "report" that recommended these figures, and they profitted handsomely. How can you lose?
I don't know which corner of the world you're writing from, but to American eyes the German liberals (or socialists as you put it) and conservatives are just different shades of each other. Even the most market-oriented electable party in Germany wouldn't dare completely dismantle a social system that's based on a different philosophy of what it means to be a civilized society. So the leeway any non-"socialist" party would have in turning the economy around radically is much less than you think.
...that Germany, where this technology was developed, ceased further development and is getting out of nuclear power entirely. If you look at the hassle they get from demonstrations each time spent fuel is moved, I guess it just ain't worth it long-term. I work for a large power producer in the SE USA (yes, them!) with several nuclear facilities, and when I look at the Billy-Bobs they're run by, I get very scared. The public should, too.
> I have always been under the impression that as soon > as I sit down at my computer at home I'm on my own time
I've heard of companies that specifically claim work done on the employee's own time for the duration of employment, plus of course the standard x-year non-compete after leaving.
> No, programs don't release memory when their windows are minimized
Except if the app deliberately does so by watching for the minimize message. The logic might be that if the user minimizes the window, some performance-related data can be released (e.g. reduntant data structures to speed up display), to be reconstructed again when the user switches back. In any case, if you were correct the memory use should go back up in Task Manager when restoring Mozilla. Except it doesn't.
Actually, I was talking about Firebird, since that's the "version" of Mozilla I actually use (who wouldn't?). It's definitely more lightweight, but it still exhibited some of the same memory issues as Mozilla.
I do run it on Windows, and at home with 512MB it's less of a problem than at work with 256MB. Incidentally, Mozilla releases most of its memory when you minimize it. You can check that out with Task Manager. Still, it's an ungly "feature" and could do with removing.
Mozilla with XUL is indeed a nice distributed platform, a much richer way of writing "thin" clients than *HTML. You can actually write distributed apps that feel so much like a native local app that most users wouldn't even notice--except for performance, of course. A lot of porkiness and memory leakiness still needs to be removed, and some usability loose ends need to be tied up before everything is peachy. Right now (even with the latest builds I believe) keeping multiple copies of Mozilla up for days eventually eats an incredible amount of memory. Closing them brings the system down with furious swapping activity.
> think the state visit this week will make the overwhelming public view here abundantly clear
You go, guys!
> was an amusing article about some of the things the US have asked for
NPR was mentioning that this morning on the drive in; the most amusing thing I thought was that the queen might have to wear an ID badge herself. Nice one! Hmm, if all countries refused this type of coddling, maybe W would just stay at home?! Fat chance of that, though.
> Um...the Xbox? DVD player, costs $150, has built-in networking, can run Linux...
Dude, take your xbox and crawl back into the dungeon. The OP was talking about building a PC, not about a game console with a dorky front panel plug-in IR receiver. Besides, you can get the xbox way cheaper than that refurbished at various places.
And for all the reasons you've listed, the OP is exactly right that most of the innovation nowadays comes from small players. One more reason we're seeing so little innovation from the "big players" must be their sheer size and bureaucracy. Ten, fifteen years ago when Sony was God and every new device they released seemed like magic, technology moved more slowly than today. Back then a lot of the magic was still done in hardware, and let's face it, these guys do know hardware. But with so much more computing power nowadays, a lot of the functionality can be shifted to software, and into the realm of the doable for a hobbyist. All of a sudden the legions of smart guys with an idea can actually implement it without venture capital or buy-in from a large company. Suddenly the big players are playing catch-up, and that's what we're seeing now. A lot of the novel ideas come from tiny start-ups that bring some device based on one idea to market. Sure, Sony can jump on it and improve and polish it in many ways, but it's not a new idea anymore then. They're having the hardest time staying on top of all these new technologies springing up everywhere today. I think the era of technological innovation from large companies is over for good, because more and more of the things that used to be doable only with a huge budget (e.g. ASICs) can now either be done with cheap and fast micros, with FPGAs, or combinations thereof. Sure, what you end up buying at Wal-Mart will still come from some large company, but will often have been started by a small guy.
> It would probably be cheaper just to buy some 700mhz celeron
The Oritron is $169.99 at buy.com. You'd be really hard-pressed to build a complete minimal system for this price, unless you already have a lot of the components. Plus you'd need an IR receiver, either off-the-shelf, or home-built.
> My personal feeling is that DLP looks a little too "digital" > compared to some of the LCD offerings, at least in the RPTV arena
That's because you've probably only seen one set up for presentations, not for video. If you crank up the brightness and contrast to make those PPT slides bright and saturated, video will look like sh!t, kind of like RPTVs on the showroom floor. Calibrate the projector for video and you won't recognize the picture.
> Bulb replacement: The X1 is excellent at 3,000 hours, > but over the lifetime of the product, those bulbs can > add up at a couple of hundred dollars a piece.
Yes, but for the extra money that RPTV will cost, you can buy an awful lot of bulbs. Plus you end up with a smaller screen that has moving brightness bands as you shift your head, and it weighs as much as a piano (ok, not quite, but you KNOW your SO won't lift a hand to help you move it!). OTOH it will do real 1080i, something the X1 (or in fact most projectors) can't, if that's important to you. But for $2000 less than a 65" RPTV I'd say it's a tough option to pass up.
> What constitutes largst "post" company? > Larger than FedEx or UPS, or do those not count?
It appears so, except for the US market. Can't find any figures right now (naturally, when you're looking for them), but I've read various articles similar to this that refer to Deutsche Post having the largest marketshare worldwide. In the US you see them as DHL, which is pretty low profile, but standing to gain some ground after the Airborne purchase.
> $37,600 in US vs $26,600 in Germany does mean something.
No, it doesn't. Once you remove the few percent of top earners in the US from the calculations, the figures look very different. The US has much more peaks at the top end than Germany, which inflates simple per-capita income. Face it, Bill Gates' or Warren Buffett's income doesn't benefit you personally one bit--you neither travel more nor have more leisure time because of it. There are figures available that normalize the data in various ways.
There are also other things that skew the figures. An interesting article on the topic appeared in The Economist ealier this year. But since it's premium content now, I've googled for it and found a copy elsewhere.
True, but then again the British national hobby IS to put down the Germans at every opportunity. If you read The Economist regularly, when reporting on the German economy, if they left out the name of the country you'd get the impression they're talking about some inconsequential two-bit Third World country. Don't get me wrong, no one is harder on themselves than the Germans (just read Der Spiegel and you want to slash your wrists over all the doom and gloom), but it's kind of ironic that the ones pointing their fingers the most are those with their own fair share of problems.
So Britain went for the quick fix short term gains by throwing pretty much their entire social net out the window in the image of their masters across the pond. The Germans OTOH in their typical stubbornness and reluctance to change cling on to their economic model from the '80s, leading to respective blips and dips in the growth charts. Still, they're aware that change is required. I'd say wait another ten years before gloating. The '90s are hardly a solid economic barometer, lots of wanky business went on there (ahem, AOL?!). Besides, sooner or later the outrageous British defence spending is going to come home to roost. I'd say in the not-too-distant future "Operation Freedom" will show up as a big fat dip in the British bottom line, and some politicians will get a fair spanking.
Slashdot Mirror
> Lots of devel costs for technology that different than that in use now, and no estimates on operating costs.
That's why it's merely a feasability study rather than a go on an actual project. The article only mentioned engine research, which is probably all they're going to be doing for a while. If they decide they can't make a near-hypersonic engine that is quiet at sub-sonic speeds, they can simply throw in the towel and call it quits.
I think in its "piano bar" configuration (i.e. the early days when they're trying to show off a bit) it is specced at 555 seats or so. But I've seen figures that if all available floor space was converted to current (esp. Asian) configurations, it could hold 800 seats or more. That's when they remove the flip tables and you use your knee caps instead.
> How many people fly around the world often enough that the time spent matters
Why does it have to be around the world? If I could be in Europe in 2 hours, that would make a huge difference. Instead of going once every one or two years, I might go two or more times a year, for shorter periods. When transit time stops being a significant percentage of total trip time, that weekend in Paris all of a sudden DOES mean two days in Paris, rather than one day in Paris and one on two planes.
Of course, the economics would have to be different. I am pretty confident that IF new SST technology is eventually commercialised again, it will be considerably less expensive than Concorde. Flying SST couldn't be more expensive than flying first class, preferably substantially less, otherwise your potential clientelle is reduced to Hollywood. That's one lesson they've learned if nothing else. The Concorde was the first of its type, so no prior economic data existed; but it also was a prestige project to show the world that Europe still had it, so economics didn't entirely make or brake it. For any new project that would of course not be true at all. Today, if it ain't makin' money, it ain't flyin'.
There are various reasons why cheaper SST is possible: improved engine efficiencies, increased aerodynamic understanding, replacement of heavy analog or mechanical components with electronics and fiber optics (e.g. drooping nose on Concorde will be replaced with virtual windows, miles of copper cable with fiber), increased passenger capacity.
I'm not saying that all these advances WILL make SST viable again, but rather that IF it becomes viable again, they will be major contributing factors. After all, the article said that EADS is simply studying the feasability of a new plane, not that one is on the drawing board. It's quite likely that they will
> make all the computers in it malfunction and it will still fly, glide at least
Makes sense on paper but is complete nonsense in reality. A 777 can be glided to an unpowered landing about as well as the Leaning Tower of Pisa. You can be all warm and fuzzy that you're right-side-up while gliding towards your doom, but doom it will be all the same.
...that if HE had initiated the jack swap she would have pulled out her pepper spray?
What color were the atoms?
> Is it just me, or does Gartner appear to just write what they think will go down well
Much more so than you probably think. They came in recently to our company to "streamline" our IS department. The whole process probably went something like "ok guys, how many drones do you want to lose, and which contractors do you want to screw over the most?" Based on that they created a "report" that recommended these figures, and they profitted handsomely. How can you lose?
I don't know which corner of the world you're writing from, but to American eyes the German liberals (or socialists as you put it) and conservatives are just different shades of each other. Even the most market-oriented electable party in Germany wouldn't dare completely dismantle a social system that's based on a different philosophy of what it means to be a civilized society. So the leeway any non-"socialist" party would have in turning the economy around radically is much less than you think.
> It is our achievemnt Dammit!
Well, the technology was developed in Germany and updated in ZA. Germany isn't even mentioned in the linked article. Boo-hoo!
...that Germany, where this technology was developed, ceased further development and is getting out of nuclear power entirely. If you look at the hassle they get from demonstrations each time spent fuel is moved, I guess it just ain't worth it long-term. I work for a large power producer in the SE USA (yes, them!) with several nuclear facilities, and when I look at the Billy-Bobs they're run by, I get very scared. The public should, too.
> I have always been under the impression that as soon
> as I sit down at my computer at home I'm on my own time
I've heard of companies that specifically claim work done on the employee's own time for the duration of employment, plus of course the standard x-year non-compete after leaving.
> No, programs don't release memory when their windows are minimized
Except if the app deliberately does so by watching for the minimize message. The logic might be that if the user minimizes the window, some performance-related data can be released (e.g. reduntant data structures to speed up display), to be reconstructed again when the user switches back. In any case, if you were correct the memory use should go back up in Task Manager when restoring Mozilla. Except it doesn't.
Actually, I was talking about Firebird, since that's the "version" of Mozilla I actually use (who wouldn't?). It's definitely more lightweight, but it still exhibited some of the same memory issues as Mozilla.
I do run it on Windows, and at home with 512MB it's less of a problem than at work with 256MB. Incidentally, Mozilla releases most of its memory when you minimize it. You can check that out with Task Manager. Still, it's an ungly "feature" and could do with removing.
Mozilla with XUL is indeed a nice distributed platform, a much richer way of writing "thin" clients than *HTML. You can actually write distributed apps that feel so much like a native local app that most users wouldn't even notice--except for performance, of course. A lot of porkiness and memory leakiness still needs to be removed, and some usability loose ends need to be tied up before everything is peachy. Right now (even with the latest builds I believe) keeping multiple copies of Mozilla up for days eventually eats an incredible amount of memory. Closing them brings the system down with furious swapping activity.
> think the state visit this week will make the overwhelming public view here abundantly clear
You go, guys!
> was an amusing article about some of the things the US have asked for
NPR was mentioning that this morning on the drive in; the most amusing thing I thought was that the queen might have to wear an ID badge herself. Nice one! Hmm, if all countries refused this type of coddling, maybe W would just stay at home?! Fat chance of that, though.
> Um...the Xbox? DVD player, costs $150, has built-in networking, can run Linux...
Dude, take your xbox and crawl back into the dungeon. The OP was talking about building a PC, not about a game console with a dorky front panel plug-in IR receiver. Besides, you can get the xbox way cheaper than that refurbished at various places.
And for all the reasons you've listed, the OP is exactly right that most of the innovation nowadays comes from small players. One more reason we're seeing so little innovation from the "big players" must be their sheer size and bureaucracy. Ten, fifteen years ago when Sony was God and every new device they released seemed like magic, technology moved more slowly than today. Back then a lot of the magic was still done in hardware, and let's face it, these guys do know hardware. But with so much more computing power nowadays, a lot of the functionality can be shifted to software, and into the realm of the doable for a hobbyist. All of a sudden the legions of smart guys with an idea can actually implement it without venture capital or buy-in from a large company. Suddenly the big players are playing catch-up, and that's what we're seeing now. A lot of the novel ideas come from tiny start-ups that bring some device based on one idea to market. Sure, Sony can jump on it and improve and polish it in many ways, but it's not a new idea anymore then. They're having the hardest time staying on top of all these new technologies springing up everywhere today. I think the era of technological innovation from large companies is over for good, because more and more of the things that used to be doable only with a huge budget (e.g. ASICs) can now either be done with cheap and fast micros, with FPGAs, or combinations thereof. Sure, what you end up buying at Wal-Mart will still come from some large company, but will often have been started by a small guy.
> It would probably be cheaper just to buy some 700mhz celeron
The Oritron is $169.99 at buy.com. You'd be really hard-pressed to build a complete minimal system for this price, unless you already have a lot of the components. Plus you'd need an IR receiver, either off-the-shelf, or home-built.
> My personal feeling is that DLP looks a little too "digital"
> compared to some of the LCD offerings, at least in the RPTV arena
That's because you've probably only seen one set up for presentations, not for video. If you crank up the brightness and contrast to make those PPT slides bright and saturated, video will look like sh!t, kind of like RPTVs on the showroom floor. Calibrate the projector for video and you won't recognize the picture.
> Bulb replacement: The X1 is excellent at 3,000 hours,
> but over the lifetime of the product, those bulbs can
> add up at a couple of hundred dollars a piece.
Yes, but for the extra money that RPTV will cost, you can buy an awful lot of bulbs. Plus you end up with a smaller screen that has moving brightness bands as you shift your head, and it weighs as much as a piano (ok, not quite, but you KNOW your SO won't lift a hand to help you move it!). OTOH it will do real 1080i, something the X1 (or in fact most projectors) can't, if that's important to you. But for $2000 less than a 65" RPTV I'd say it's a tough option to pass up.
> What constitutes largst "post" company?
> Larger than FedEx or UPS, or do those not count?
It appears so, except for the US market. Can't find any figures right now (naturally, when you're looking for them), but I've read various articles similar to this that refer to Deutsche Post having the largest marketshare worldwide. In the US you see them as DHL, which is pretty low profile, but standing to gain some ground after the Airborne purchase.
> $37,600 in US vs $26,600 in Germany does mean something.
No, it doesn't. Once you remove the few percent of top earners in the US from the calculations, the figures look very different. The US has much more peaks at the top end than Germany, which inflates simple per-capita income. Face it, Bill Gates' or Warren Buffett's income doesn't benefit you personally one bit--you neither travel more nor have more leisure time because of it. There are figures available that normalize the data in various ways.
There are also other things that skew the figures. An interesting article on the topic appeared in The Economist ealier this year. But since it's premium content now, I've googled for it and found a copy elsewhere.
> And we're not that dissimilar to the Germans.
Well, I guess familiarity breeds contempt.
> Their national hobby is to invade the French.
Hey, just because it happened three times in the last 150 years...
True, but then again the British national hobby IS to put down the Germans at every opportunity. If you read The Economist regularly, when reporting on the German economy, if they left out the name of the country you'd get the impression they're talking about some inconsequential two-bit Third World country. Don't get me wrong, no one is harder on themselves than the Germans (just read Der Spiegel and you want to slash your wrists over all the doom and gloom), but it's kind of ironic that the ones pointing their fingers the most are those with their own fair share of problems.
So Britain went for the quick fix short term gains by throwing pretty much their entire social net out the window in the image of their masters across the pond. The Germans OTOH in their typical stubbornness and reluctance to change cling on to their economic model from the '80s, leading to respective blips and dips in the growth charts. Still, they're aware that change is required. I'd say wait another ten years before gloating. The '90s are hardly a solid economic barometer, lots of wanky business went on there (ahem, AOL?!). Besides, sooner or later the outrageous British defence spending is going to come home to roost. I'd say in the not-too-distant future "Operation Freedom" will show up as a big fat dip in the British bottom line, and some politicians will get a fair spanking.