As I recall, there were still many problems with his transforming robots (nifty as the idea was). The biggest problem seemed to be power issues...
I don't see power as a problem in space: since the snake weighs nothing, it only has to act against its measly momentum (until the astronauts hold a snake race;-). A simple latching mechanism, maybe with a spring to continuously exert force, would hold joints stiff for grasping. Solar cells, along with small batteries, would probably be sufficient. And if they're working in darkness, they can just use temporary mirrors.
But I do see control as a problem. True robotics, especially in space, has a miserable track record. Even apparently simple things are actually very difficult, as Deep Space 1 pointing its camera in the wrong direction demonstrate. The snake will need to perform complex folding and grasping motions using a dozen joints. Designing that control system will be formidable. (The space shuttles' vaunted "robotic" arm is no more robotic than a bulldozer. It is a waldo (remote-controlled hand) driven by a human operator at a joystick.)
If the snake is anything like the prototypes they showed, it will have lots of bearings. Vacuum welding will be a minor challenge, and thermal expansion could be a major concern. Many missions, such as Galileo, have been impaired or lost from solar arrays and antennas that were supposed to fold out, but instead jammed.
And then they want detachable segments! That probably means electrical connectors (unless they put a radio transciever in each segment, which makes it a networking nightmare). On every design project I've ever been on, connectors have been the single largest pain in the ass (picking a microcontroller or transistor is easy compared to picking a connector). And not only is it a connector, it has to attach/detach (in vacuum) under the supervision of a robotic (read dumb) brain.
I don't mean to put the snake projects down -- they just have so many compounded difficulties.
There is one way the snake beats everything else hands down: redundancy, both of operations and repair. Most spacecraft can't keep several full sets of spare parts in a bucket! When you're 100 million miles from home, that might overshadow the other shortcomings.
Why doesn't the implied warranty of merchantibility apply to software? It's no different from any other product. For instance, if I advertise a gadget as being able to receive and display TV stations, and it is actually an empty box with a gray glass window on the front, I can be successfully sued for false advertising.
How about fighting fire with fire? The next time the software company orders something, include a bomb in the shipment. Just disclaim it:
The Company makes no representation that the product is safe. The Company is not responsible for ensuring that the product does not contain dynamite. Furthermore, if the product should contain dynamite, the Company shall not be responsible for it exploding when the package is opened.
Paper hyperlinks are really unfair to the search engine companies, especially ones that use linking to calculate relevance. It's gonna be an expensive nightmare for Google to subscribe to all those newspapers, not to mention scanning and OCRing all of them. And it's gonna be a public relations nightmare when the little old ladies hear that "sombody's putting spiders on all the newspapers". The horror!
It doesn't take a genius to realize that Netpliance was always planning to sell the service and to go there and ask them to change their entire business model to satisfy a bunch of geeks who are not part of their target audience is ludicrous.
Actually, the long term contract profits are probably larger than the profit to be made from selling Linux X terminals. Since their LCD supply is currently constrained, they will sell to the most immediately profitable market. Netpliance probably is not obsessed with the service market -- they are just going where the money is right now.
Later on, as the high-profit market saturates and the supply isn't as tight, it'll make sense to start selling to the smaller margin markets (geeks, corporate thin clients, and so forth).
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see power as a problem in space: since the snake weighs nothing, it only has to act against its measly momentum (until the astronauts hold a snake race ;-). A simple latching mechanism, maybe with a spring to continuously exert force, would hold joints stiff for grasping. Solar cells, along with small batteries, would probably be sufficient. And if they're working in darkness, they can just use temporary mirrors.
But I do see control as a problem. True robotics, especially in space, has a miserable track record. Even apparently simple things are actually very difficult, as Deep Space 1 pointing its camera in the wrong direction demonstrate. The snake will need to perform complex folding and grasping motions using a dozen joints. Designing that control system will be formidable. (The space shuttles' vaunted "robotic" arm is no more robotic than a bulldozer. It is a waldo (remote-controlled hand) driven by a human operator at a joystick.)
If the snake is anything like the prototypes they showed, it will have lots of bearings. Vacuum welding will be a minor challenge, and thermal expansion could be a major concern. Many missions, such as Galileo, have been impaired or lost from solar arrays and antennas that were supposed to fold out, but instead jammed.
And then they want detachable segments! That probably means electrical connectors (unless they put a radio transciever in each segment, which makes it a networking nightmare). On every design project I've ever been on, connectors have been the single largest pain in the ass (picking a microcontroller or transistor is easy compared to picking a connector). And not only is it a connector, it has to attach/detach (in vacuum) under the supervision of a robotic (read dumb) brain.
I don't mean to put the snake projects down -- they just have so many compounded difficulties.
There is one way the snake beats everything else hands down: redundancy, both of operations and repair. Most spacecraft can't keep several full sets of spare parts in a bucket! When you're 100 million miles from home, that might overshadow the other shortcomings.
Wait! DoubleClick obviously can't be infringing the 1click patent. Or am I thinking of the wrong patent?
Why doesn't the implied warranty of merchantibility apply to software? It's no different from any other product. For instance, if I advertise a gadget as being able to receive and display TV stations, and it is actually an empty box with a gray glass window on the front, I can be successfully sued for false advertising.
How about fighting fire with fire? The next time the software company orders something, include a bomb in the shipment. Just disclaim it:
Paper hyperlinks are really unfair to the search engine companies, especially ones that use linking to calculate relevance. It's gonna be an expensive nightmare for Google to subscribe to all those newspapers, not to mention scanning and OCRing all of them. And it's gonna be a public relations nightmare when the little old ladies hear that "sombody's putting spiders on all the newspapers". The horror!
Actually, the long term contract profits are probably larger than the profit to be made from selling Linux X terminals. Since their LCD supply is currently constrained, they will sell to the most immediately profitable market. Netpliance probably is not obsessed with the service market -- they are just going where the money is right now.
Later on, as the high-profit market saturates and the supply isn't as tight, it'll make sense to start selling to the smaller margin markets (geeks, corporate thin clients, and so forth).