If it wasn't for the spacecrafts sent to Mars, it would not have been possible to identify the meteorite as coming from Mars. From the article : "Scientists were able to trace the meteorite back to Mars, as its chemical composition matched the relative proportions of various gases measured in observations of the atmosphere of Mars made by the Viking spacecraft in the 1970s."
As for the rovers sent later, they were not sent to investigate life but mainly to study the geology and climate.
Then set aside a few hundred million a year in x-prize style incentives open to *everyone* not just US companies.
Cooperation is one thing, but we shouldn't rely on other nations to provide us with space access. It would be bad for the economy : US funds and technological advantage going to other countries.
I was thinking the same thing, but her parents learned to drive in S. America (where the driving is much more demanding), she learned in the US - and was not thought by her parents! And it also doesn't explain her cousins, again some learned in S. America, some here.
My wife is a self proclaimed bad driver, but she always says it's not her fault and is genetic. At first I thought she was kidding, but it's true : her mom, her dad, her brother, many of her cousins -- a whole family of bad drivers.
By your own calculations, you showed that electrics are about as polluting as the best fossil fueled vehicles. Seems like that would be an advantage now.
The combustion engine has reached a level of refinement and sophistication yet to be reached by electric vehicles; they are still in their infancy. The potential for electrics is enormous, much much greater than the future potential of combustion engines.
So switching to electrics does improve things immediately, plus allows for much greater advancements in the years to come. It's the best overall solution, its only real problem is cost.
I'm not saying that we *shouldn't* use super efficient diesels. Just that the sooner we switch to electrics, the sooner real progress will be made.
Oh, and nuclear power in the US was not stopped because of the environmentalists. It's simply cheaper to use oil and coal, and the general public has an unreasonable fear of nuclear plants.
If the environmentalists really had that kind of power in the US, do you really think we'd be the most polluting and wasteful country in the world (per capita)?
The newly discovered continent has all manner of valuable and exotic fruits, vegetables and animals. The savages living there are in need of being converted to christianity and having their gold and silver plundered. There is trading to be done. There is rich farmland and vast unexplored forests teeming with game. Why it's a whole new world (tm), and ours for the taking!
vs.
We can spend billions of dollars to send no more than 4 people to a barren, desolate place where they will die almost instantly if there are any problems with their complex and expensive life support equipment. In return we get invaluable scientific knowledge and practical experience in living under such conditions.
I ask you - which is the easier 'sell' to the public?
So what you're saying is that *when* (not if) US power plants are made to pollute less, then all US electric cars will also pollute less - instantly. At the same time, all fossil fueled vehicles will still pollute just as much, for years to come.
... because the lightweight frame will fold like a piece of tissue.
You WANT the frame to fold. Ever hear of crumple zones?
Which is why I won't buy one of these things until the frame is a carbon fiber composite stronger than steel or titanium. Expensive.
The advantage of CF is weight, it is not much stronger than steel (if at all, depending on application). So while more and more components of mainstream vehicles will be made using CF, the main reason is for better fuel economy (less weight = less fuel needed).
In the meantime, I plan to continue to drive a gas guzzling heavy framed car that keeps me safe from the dimwitted morons on the road.
Your heavy and inefficient vehicle is not only a danger to others, but to yourself as well. You equate a heavy and inflexible frame with improved safety, but this is not reality, and (if you haven't noticed) the exact opposite direction that car manufacturers have taken ever since safety standards were put in place.
WebOS is definitly a step up in terms of freedom and ease of development compared to anything out there today. It's biggest problem is a lack of apps. This is where maemo really shines, any linux app can be ported with minimal effort, in most cases it's just a few UI changes.
In my experience Fedora is a bit faster and easier to customize but does take some work to get set-up. Ubuntu by contrast is almost guaranteed to work correctly as soon as you install, but expect pain if you stray too far from the beaten path.
I would say that because of this, Ubuntu is a closer match to the GP needs -- "I run to get work done, not to tweak or play around with crap".
Look into that tax thing, some countries have agreements with the US so you need only pay taxes in one country and not both (you still need to file with the IRS though).
You're going to have to lower your prices a bit. Considering that I can get 40 acres on the moon for less than $1500, I don't see how this is a good deal.
a) Almost all of the open source stuff will run on ARM (GTK/Qt stuff, interpreted language apps, Firefox, etc). b) No, Wine Is Not (an) Emulator. c) No, because again you would need an emulator. d) Not the MS ones. OSS equivalents might.
It all depends on how close you're getting to the hardware, and to what extent you're using specific hardware features of a chip. In some cases it really is as simple as tweaking a few things and recompiling, if the software was designed to be portable. The original windows NT (from which 2000, XP, Vista, and 7 are all evolved from) was designed to be portable, in the early days it ran on RISC also.
They released flash 64 bit on Linux before any other rplatform, so they obviously have an interest. The video tag makes no mention of which codec to use, so youtube could use a patent encumbered and royalty-requiring one (H.264).
Slashdot Mirror
The automobile didn't replace the bicycle, it replaced the horse and buggy.
If it wasn't for the spacecrafts sent to Mars, it would not have been possible to identify the meteorite as coming from Mars. From the article : "Scientists were able to trace the meteorite back to Mars, as its chemical composition matched the relative proportions of various gases measured in observations of the atmosphere of Mars made by the Viking spacecraft in the 1970s."
As for the rovers sent later, they were not sent to investigate life but mainly to study the geology and climate.
I have, it's the comapny's way of saying 'thank you'.
Then set aside a few hundred million a year in x-prize style incentives open to *everyone* not just US companies.
Cooperation is one thing, but we shouldn't rely on other nations to provide us with space access. It would be bad for the economy : US funds and technological advantage going to other countries.
I was thinking the same thing, but her parents learned to drive in S. America (where the driving is much more demanding), she learned in the US - and was not thought by her parents! And it also doesn't explain her cousins, again some learned in S. America, some here.
My wife is a self proclaimed bad driver, but she always says it's not her fault and is genetic. At first I thought she was kidding, but it's true : her mom, her dad, her brother, many of her cousins -- a whole family of bad drivers.
By your own calculations, you showed that electrics are about as polluting as the best fossil fueled vehicles. Seems like that would be an advantage now.
The combustion engine has reached a level of refinement and sophistication yet to be reached by electric vehicles; they are still in their infancy. The potential for electrics is enormous, much much greater than the future potential of combustion engines.
So switching to electrics does improve things immediately, plus allows for much greater advancements in the years to come. It's the best overall solution, its only real problem is cost.
I'm not saying that we *shouldn't* use super efficient diesels. Just that the sooner we switch to electrics, the sooner real progress will be made.
Oh, and nuclear power in the US was not stopped because of the environmentalists. It's simply cheaper to use oil and coal, and the general public has an unreasonable fear of nuclear plants.
If the environmentalists really had that kind of power in the US, do you really think we'd be the most polluting and wasteful country in the world (per capita)?
The newly discovered continent has all manner of valuable and exotic fruits, vegetables and animals. The savages living there are in need of being converted to christianity and having their gold and silver plundered. There is trading to be done. There is rich farmland and vast unexplored forests teeming with game. Why it's a whole new world (tm), and ours for the taking!
vs.
We can spend billions of dollars to send no more than 4 people to a barren, desolate place where they will die almost instantly if there are any problems with their complex and expensive life support equipment. In return we get invaluable scientific knowledge and practical experience in living under such conditions.
I ask you - which is the easier 'sell' to the public?
So what you're saying is that *when* (not if) US power plants are made to pollute less, then all US electric cars will also pollute less - instantly. At the same time, all fossil fueled vehicles will still pollute just as much, for years to come.
Sounds like the electric wins to me.
... because the lightweight frame will fold like a piece of tissue.
You WANT the frame to fold. Ever hear of crumple zones?
Which is why I won't buy one of these things until the frame is a carbon fiber composite stronger than steel or titanium. Expensive.
The advantage of CF is weight, it is not much stronger than steel (if at all, depending on application). So while more and more components of mainstream vehicles will be made using CF, the main reason is for better fuel economy (less weight = less fuel needed).
In the meantime, I plan to continue to drive a gas guzzling heavy framed car that keeps me safe from the dimwitted morons on the road.
Your heavy and inefficient vehicle is not only a danger to others, but to yourself as well. You equate a heavy and inflexible frame with improved safety, but this is not reality, and (if you haven't noticed) the exact opposite direction that car manufacturers have taken ever since safety standards were put in place.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/uptospeed/2009/09/iihs-crash-chevy-malibu-bel-air.html
WebOS is definitly a step up in terms of freedom and ease of development compared to anything out there today. It's biggest problem is a lack of apps. This is where maemo really shines, any linux app can be ported with minimal effort, in most cases it's just a few UI changes.
In my experience Fedora is a bit faster and easier to customize but does take some work to get set-up. Ubuntu by contrast is almost guaranteed to work correctly as soon as you install, but expect pain if you stray too far from the beaten path.
I would say that because of this, Ubuntu is a closer match to the GP needs -- "I run to get work done, not to tweak or play around with crap".
Nokia is porting over Qt to run on top of symbian. Once that's done it will be simple enough to use a 'sane' API.
French and Italian easier to learn than German for an English speaker? No way!
Because it isn't shipping yet.
"has a touchscreen, runs bajillions of apps, is shiny and pretty, and can be my media center". AKA iPhone.
No, there is another. Or rather, there will be another very soon : the nokia N900. Oh, and as an extra bonus, no vendor lock-in !
Look into that tax thing, some countries have agreements with the US so you need only pay taxes in one country and not both (you still need to file with the IRS though).
Red hat is open source, but not free. They're talking trash about 'freeware'. Just sayin'
The proof is common sense.
Which is to say, no proof at all !
You're going to have to lower your prices a bit. Considering that I can get 40 acres on the moon for less than $1500, I don't see how this is a good deal.
a) Almost all of the open source stuff will run on ARM (GTK/Qt stuff, interpreted language apps, Firefox, etc).
b) No, Wine Is Not (an) Emulator.
c) No, because again you would need an emulator.
d) Not the MS ones. OSS equivalents might.
It all depends on how close you're getting to the hardware, and to what extent you're using specific hardware features of a chip. In some cases it really is as simple as tweaking a few things and recompiling, if the software was designed to be portable. The original windows NT (from which 2000, XP, Vista, and 7 are all evolved from) was designed to be portable, in the early days it ran on RISC also.
article in one page
btrfs development is funded by Oracle. They have yet to release a stable version. Will they ever do that now that they have ZFS ?
They released flash 64 bit on Linux before any other rplatform, so they obviously have an interest.
The video tag makes no mention of which codec to use, so youtube could use a patent encumbered and royalty-requiring one (H.264).