While I agree with you I also think we are not ready to do that just now.
The rovers you sent (I'm european) help the whole scientific world to build solutions to that kind of problem.
Pathfinder and Spirit did/do good: they give us information on the land that will help scientist here to learn how to extract water and construction materials from this land.
If we go now we will fail because after the guy walk on Mars, what will he do next ? He'll wait for the next supply package, then for the next one, then for the next one until one fails letting him starving to death.
Let's learn how to grow plants on Mars surface, how to build and to extract water. Then we'll send a crew with plenty of things to do.
It's only kodak, the film cameras industry is not dying.
Canon, Pentax, Nikon, etc all of them are selling MUCH MORE film cameras than kodak ever did.
Probably a good idea for Kodak because I think they only really sold low quality (aimed at the average Joe) film cameras and with digital cameras all over the place, this particular category is dying.
In the high end photo market you still have film cameras and I bet they are here for a long time.
Giving a value on the Richter scale is not really meaningfull. You can have a 7 earthquake doing almost no damage if it happens far below earth surface and big damage with a 4 one near the surface in a low developped country.
It all depends on where the earthquake takes place.
You should use an estimate on the Mercalli scale. I find it more relevant.
Richter scale is all about energy released, Mercalli scale is all about damage/lost of lives which really is what matters.
Because it doesn't need to query for an address like DHCP. It first of all makes up its own address using a defined prefix and a MAC address, and then asks the router (using a method in the protocol, not something bolted on like DHCP) what network it is in. Combines the network address and the MAC address to have a unique network address.
Explain this. Quote from the FAQ: 'Auto-configuration does not cover information about further services in the network.'. I still don't see how you'll get the same services than DHCP without using DHCPv6.
In some cases, the memory used will be less as the routing tables are smaller. You don't need to have nearly so many special cases cause in IPv4 due to a lack of address space (i.e. no routing entry for that little/28 network). All you need is the route to the larger network (/80 or larger), which is split up into parts at the appropriate place.
And what about the network at the top of everything ? Sorry, doesn't work like that you don't just 'need the route to the larger network'. For explanation read the RFCs (this one is a good beginning).
IPv6 is MUCH more complex than IPv4 in every aspect. Even routing.
No, MAC addresses are put inside an IPv6 address because they allow for an easy way to automatically configure the interface without the use of a protocol such as BOOTP/DHCP. Nobody said you have to use this address. Not all types of networks use MAC addresses. I can't see your 'easy way to automatically configure the interface without the use of a protocol such as BOOTP/DHCP'. The IPv6 is not 'only' built with the MAC address... You also need network address.
I use multicast for monitoring video output of remote television transmitters over an ATM network, as well as video conferencing for board member meetings. Please don't assume that your own needs dictate everyone elses, though I do agree with you that IPv4 address space has been wasted away to some extent. Multicast is ok as long as you don't go out your own network. Multicast on Internet is not really used. It is, but it does not need the huge number of addresses we have allocated for it.
You can't change IPv4, it's just not going to happen to a protocol that has been around for what 30 years now? There are already too many transitional provisions. It's called 'evolution' and it happens everyday to every protocol. The IPv4 we use today is not the same than the IPv4 we used 15 years ago.
Cisco routers can be upgraded to the latest software, which is stable, and no, it doesn't cost a million dollars. Small branch office routers such as the 2600 series can easily accomplish IPv6. Yes but you still need 4 times the memory. So you have to upgrade memory. The 2600 series is a small router. Modifying internet backbone routers for IPv6 will cost millions dollars.
You're all afraid of change. Only when so drastic and not necessary.
The IPv4 addresses are inefficiently distributed. MIT for instance has 16.7 millions of them. IBM too.
Entire classes of addresses are reserved for things we don't REALLY use like multicast and so on.
Plus we now have NAT and CIDR that help save some addresses.
I bet we could use IPv4 for 20 more years. IPv6 is to complex, bulky and inefficient.
I studied it and the fact that MAC addresses are in it blows me away.
Aren't the IP addresses a logical layer that prevents problems when you change a NIC ? If each time you change your NIC you have to change you address I foresee lots of trouble here.
And 128 bits addresses, okay, but entire classes are already wasted (multicast, network IDs, etc) and in the long term we could run into the same problems !
Anyway its too expensive and slow for the moment. Nobody wants to pay 1 million dollars for the last Cisco router with IPv6 where the one we bought last year for another million is working just fine.
Why not just add an extension to IPv4 if we really need these addresses ? I know it has a lot of flaws but hey, why change EVERYTHING ?
The Mars Express Orbiter will: image the entire surface at high resolution (10 m/pixel) and selected areas at super resolution (2 m/pixel) produce a map of the mineral composition of the surface at 100 m resolution map the composition of the atmosphere and determine its global circulation determine the structure of the sub-surface to a depth of a few kilometres determine the effect of the atmosphere on the surface determine the interaction of the atmosphere with the solar wind
Slashdot Mirror
Hum... Quake ?
I sure wouldn't try a rocket jump in real life, would you ?
While I agree with you I also think we are not ready to do that just now.
The rovers you sent (I'm european) help the whole scientific world to build solutions to that kind of problem.
Pathfinder and Spirit did/do good: they give us information on the land that will help scientist here to learn how to extract water and construction materials from this land.
If we go now we will fail because after the guy walk on Mars, what will he do next ? He'll wait for the next supply package, then for the next one, then for the next one until one fails letting him starving to death.
Let's learn how to grow plants on Mars surface, how to build and to extract water. Then we'll send a crew with plenty of things to do.
Obviously, you need to get a life.
Get a life !
Google.
You mean km/h.
kph? What's this?
Who is the insensitive clod now, insensitive clod?
... someone hacks in the system and makes the local police think that you are doing 150 mph with your 2 CV?
Yes, only the headline says that. But hey, you know, 95% of the people here don't RTFA.
It basically says this record was achieved on the south-west part of the track called 'Atlantique' which is a 300 km long commercial track.
Wrong.
300 km/h is TGV 'cruise speed'. It usually goes well up to 350 km/h with passengers aboard.
Also the TGV has another record since in 1990 two TGV trains crossed each others at a relative speed of 777 km/h.
Let's talk about hair dryer.
It wasn't on a test track.
La rame 325 au passage du kilometre 166 de la branche sud-ouest de la ligne atlantique, quelques secondes avant d'atteindre 515,3 km/h.
... of the world's fastest train, 430kph...
French TGV does 515 km/h.
Unfortunately, and IIRC, you have to pay the $12B BEFORE.
You don't have the same amount of money pal.
With a blank check, like in the sixties, NASA astronauts could play golf on Mars by 2012.
It's only kodak, the film cameras industry is not dying.
Canon, Pentax, Nikon, etc all of them are selling MUCH MORE film cameras than kodak ever did.
Probably a good idea for Kodak because I think they only really sold low quality (aimed at the average Joe) film cameras and with digital cameras all over the place, this particular category is dying.
In the high end photo market you still have film cameras and I bet they are here for a long time.
Who the hell said the above post is 'Flamebait' ?
I'm fed up with misuse of the moderation system.
Go and burn my karma you lamer.
That's what a like with slashdot, you always find someone that knows more about a precise topic.
Thanks for all this information, this ShakeMap is an impressive piece of software.
Too bad I don't have moderator points today, I would have give a couple of them to this post.
Giving a value on the Richter scale is not really meaningfull. You can have a 7 earthquake doing almost no damage if it happens far below earth surface and big damage with a 4 one near the surface in a low developped country.
It all depends on where the earthquake takes place.
You should use an estimate on the Mercalli scale. I find it more relevant.
Richter scale is all about energy released, Mercalli scale is all about damage/lost of lives which really is what matters.
Because it doesn't need to query for an address like DHCP. It first of all makes up its own address using a defined prefix and a MAC address, and then asks the router (using a method in the protocol, not something bolted on like DHCP) what network it is in. Combines the network address and the MAC address to have a unique network address.
/28 network). All you need is the route to the larger network (/80 or larger), which is split up into parts at the appropriate place.
Explain this. Quote from the FAQ: 'Auto-configuration does not cover information about further services in the network.'. I still don't see how you'll get the same services than DHCP without using DHCPv6.
In some cases, the memory used will be less as the routing tables are smaller. You don't need to have nearly so many special cases cause in IPv4 due to a lack of address space (i.e. no routing entry for that little
And what about the network at the top of everything ? Sorry, doesn't work like that you don't just 'need the route to the larger network'. For explanation read the RFCs (this one is a good beginning).
IPv6 is MUCH more complex than IPv4 in every aspect. Even routing.
No, MAC addresses are put inside an IPv6 address because they allow for an easy way to automatically configure the interface without the use of a protocol such as BOOTP/DHCP. Nobody said you have to use this address. Not all types of networks use MAC addresses.
I can't see your 'easy way to automatically configure the interface without the use of a protocol such as BOOTP/DHCP'. The IPv6 is not 'only' built with the MAC address... You also need network address.
I use multicast for monitoring video output of remote television transmitters over an ATM network, as well as video conferencing for board member meetings. Please don't assume that your own needs dictate everyone elses, though I do agree with you that IPv4 address space has been wasted away to some extent.
Multicast is ok as long as you don't go out your own network. Multicast on Internet is not really used. It is, but it does not need the huge number of addresses we have allocated for it.
You can't change IPv4, it's just not going to happen to a protocol that has been around for what 30 years now? There are already too many transitional provisions.
It's called 'evolution' and it happens everyday to every protocol. The IPv4 we use today is not the same than the IPv4 we used 15 years ago.
Cisco routers can be upgraded to the latest software, which is stable, and no, it doesn't cost a million dollars. Small branch office routers such as the 2600 series can easily accomplish IPv6.
Yes but you still need 4 times the memory. So you have to upgrade memory. The 2600 series is a small router. Modifying internet backbone routers for IPv6 will cost millions dollars.
You're all afraid of change.
Only when so drastic and not necessary.
I'm not sure at all.
The IPv4 addresses are inefficiently distributed. MIT for instance has 16.7 millions of them. IBM too.
Entire classes of addresses are reserved for things we don't REALLY use like multicast and so on.
Plus we now have NAT and CIDR that help save some addresses.
I bet we could use IPv4 for 20 more years. IPv6 is to complex, bulky and inefficient.
I studied it and the fact that MAC addresses are in it blows me away.
Aren't the IP addresses a logical layer that prevents problems when you change a NIC ? If each time you change your NIC you have to change you address I foresee lots of trouble here.
And 128 bits addresses, okay, but entire classes are already wasted (multicast, network IDs, etc) and in the long term we could run into the same problems !
Anyway its too expensive and slow for the moment. Nobody wants to pay 1 million dollars for the last Cisco router with IPv6 where the one we bought last year for another million is working just fine.
Why not just add an extension to IPv4 if we really need these addresses ? I know it has a lot of flaws but hey, why change EVERYTHING ?
Why not just roll off the alternate ramp and start exploring?
The mission has plenty of time and the way behind the rover is a little less large than the way in the front.
It's better to take 3 days checking everything and trying to clear the best way than rushing and losing the rover.
And also remember that during these 3 days they can still continue scientific experiments thanks to the cameras.
Looks like recent news from China may finally help the return to the moon...
Beagle2 was only 'the lander' of Mars Express.
On the website we can read:
The Mars Express Orbiter will:
image the entire surface at high resolution (10 m/pixel) and selected areas at super resolution (2 m/pixel)
produce a map of the mineral composition of the surface at 100 m resolution
map the composition of the atmosphere and determine its global circulation
determine the structure of the sub-surface to a depth of a few kilometres
determine the effect of the atmosphere on the surface
determine the interaction of the atmosphere with the solar wind
All of that sounds really cool.
I was expecting a touch wheel on the back and the screen on the front. Tricky to use but certainly smaller.