Exactly. 15k RPM drives tended to be small diameter for structural reasons and to allow a shorter arm stroke. As a consequence, their linear velocity, and thus sequential throughput, was not all that much better than for 3.5" 7.2k RPM drives. The only reason to pay for their extremely high cost per GB was for low latency operations. For low latency operations, you're so much better off just buying SSDs. That's a disadvantage that rotating storage will simply never overcome. This technology will only see usage in bulk archival storage.
The difficulty is getting one sensitive enough to handle bits a tiny fraction the size current hard drives use, and sufficiently high speed to do it on a platter spinning at several thousand RPM.
Screw that. I want a big honking external power brick that's half the size of my console, and needs to be suspended in mid-air to ensure it gets properly cooled and doesn't overheat, just so I can claim to have a sort-of smallish console.
There is nothing preventing you from capturing the currently available version now, storing it, and then releasing it to public domain 95 years from now when the copyright expires. Even with the DMCA, once the content is no longer copyrighted, the anti-circumvention clauses are void. What will prevent you from doing so is the fact that the public domain is for all intents and purposes, gone. Nothing will ever enter it again, as we will simply continue to extend copyright duration to protect those original Disney videos and characters.
If we had a nearly loss less compression algorithm, or better methods of dealing with such artifacts that would be nice, but for now it is not like digital is perfect fidelity.
You mean something like Huffman? The problem is that lossless at ~2.5:1 compression, you're already pushing the throughput limits of bluray, and you might get one half-hour TV episode per DVD.
You might get significantly higher efficiency off of a monochromatic light source at 700nm, but then were talking about something to capture energy from the Sun, so that bit of data is irrelevant. Your average plant is going to convert 9% or so of its captured light into chemical storage, but then nearly half of that gets reused in its own metabolic processes.
Now that 5%-9% value is the important one to be concerned about when you're going to reprocess that biomass directly into energy. In this case, they break down that biomass, extract the PS1 electron pump, and use a Zinc-oxide framework to capture those electrons, and feed it to a harvesting circuit. Now there are three problems with this setup. First, you're going to be limited in the amount of projected surface area you can cover in the protein complex, and thus the percentage of light you can collect, of course this same restriction exists in plants. Second, proteins break down. In a plant, you've got the various metabolic processes available to construct and replace damaged sections of photo-active surface, while in this you need to get up on your roof and replace the surface.
Third and most important, plants use a phospholipid bilayer to separate two volumes, across which the PS1 electron pump operates. This layer is nearly impermeable to ions, allowing those ionic gradients built up by the pumps to drive further machinery for work. In contrast, this PS1-derived solar cell just relies on happy chance that the pump is oriented properly, and the electrons are not just pumped back out into the electrolytic medium and recombined. That is the primary reason this is only able to capture 0.1% of the available light, rather than the nearly 30% that stage is capable of in plants. Such recombination has always been the limiting factor of all such dye-sensitive solar cells.
Fine. In Star Trek miracle land, it's already a utopia where we don't use money, so you're just going to freely give that power back into the grid, so it can be transferred to somewhere that will use it.
OK Miss Positive Pauline. Photosynthesis in plants only operates at a couple percent efficiency in the first place. Commercially available thermal and photovoltaic systems are already several times that, but still need immense tracts of land to make a significant dent in our electrical demands.
You've got to be joking. A +5 Insightful for that? The Moon has no meaningful atmosphere. That means all those friction problems with magnetic launch systems no longer apply. You use a linear motor to get you up to whatever speed you need to be going, and then just coast the rest of the way. At our current utility costs, you would be looking at a couple $/kg to put something into Lunar transfer orbit, and maybe a few dozen $/kg for enough fuel for a LEO insertion burn, although that could be cut down significantly with aerobraking.
At our current technology, there really isn't much of worth on the Moon for use on Earth. There is huge worth as a materials source for anything you might want to do in space.
If that were the case, no one would ever bother making movies. Movies absolutely make money (enough of them to keep the studios in business anyway). They just use all sorts of legal and accounting loopholes to make it appear that they don't make money, so they can get by with as little taxes as possible, and screw over as many contracted employees as they can.
Oh yeah, because the rising cost of healthcare is something that will make the masses happier.
Now lemme see... Who tried to fix that recently? Oh yeah, that was Obama's big push. The democrats got behind that.
You do realize that the whole reason healthcare costs are so high is because of lawsuits, right? Malpractice insurance rates are so high in some areas, you simply won't find certain types of doctors there. They simply can't charge enough for their services for their medical practice to remain solvent. Socialized health care won't make any difference without fixing the cause of the costs being so high. Of course that would mean putting a lot of lawyers out of a job, and lawyers tend to be Democrats...
How did Obama have anything to do with any of that? SpaceX managed their first orbital launch in 2008 when Bush was still in office. SpaceShipOne hit space back in 2004, had been in full time development since 2001, and began initial planning way back in 1994 and the early days of Clinton. Obama was still a state legislator in 2004, and wasn't even in politics in 1994. Bush announced the cancellation of the Shuttle program, several years before Obama took office. Bush announced the replacement Ares launch system, derived from existing Shuttle parts, as a means to go to the Moon and Mars. Again, this was several years before Obama took office.
Bush's eight years are up, Obama is voted in, and what happens? The Ares launch system is cancelled, but now we have the Shuttle Launch System, which is going to take us to Mars. It's the same god damned thing! It just has a different name, and now its Obama's space program.
The 7.62x51 NATO round will go straight through a tree, however the 5.56x45 NATO round used in most western assault rifles is aft-weighted and unstable, meaning as soon as it hits something, it tumbles, fragments, and generally causes a mess of things similar to hollow points.
The standard 5.56 NATO round has the same behavior, but that only works because the spinning dynamically stabilizes it in flight. I doubt the 30Hz update rate on this round is sufficiently rapid to control an aerodynamically unstable shape.
If you want to use the literal meaning of "missile", it would include all bullets, rockets, arrows, javelin, and any other form of projectile weapon. If you want to use the literal meaning of "missile", it must be guided and powered.
Slashdot Mirror
A 3-axis accelerometer cannot be used as a gyro. You need at least two, separated by a decent distance.
Exactly. 15k RPM drives tended to be small diameter for structural reasons and to allow a shorter arm stroke. As a consequence, their linear velocity, and thus sequential throughput, was not all that much better than for 3.5" 7.2k RPM drives. The only reason to pay for their extremely high cost per GB was for low latency operations. For low latency operations, you're so much better off just buying SSDs. That's a disadvantage that rotating storage will simply never overcome. This technology will only see usage in bulk archival storage.
The difficulty is getting one sensitive enough to handle bits a tiny fraction the size current hard drives use, and sufficiently high speed to do it on a platter spinning at several thousand RPM.
They can read the content in their laboratory test samples. They just don't know how to read the content when its spun up to several thousand RPM.
Screw that. I want a big honking external power brick that's half the size of my console, and needs to be suspended in mid-air to ensure it gets properly cooled and doesn't overheat, just so I can claim to have a sort-of smallish console.
If they work as intended, then everything is great. The concern is for the event of a crash or some other form of containment breach.
There is nothing preventing you from capturing the currently available version now, storing it, and then releasing it to public domain 95 years from now when the copyright expires. Even with the DMCA, once the content is no longer copyrighted, the anti-circumvention clauses are void. What will prevent you from doing so is the fact that the public domain is for all intents and purposes, gone. Nothing will ever enter it again, as we will simply continue to extend copyright duration to protect those original Disney videos and characters.
That would be... for DVD resolution and framerate.
If we had a nearly loss less compression algorithm, or better methods of dealing with such artifacts that would be nice, but for now it is not like digital is perfect fidelity.
You mean something like Huffman? The problem is that lossless at ~2.5:1 compression, you're already pushing the throughput limits of bluray, and you might get one half-hour TV episode per DVD.
You might get significantly higher efficiency off of a monochromatic light source at 700nm, but then were talking about something to capture energy from the Sun, so that bit of data is irrelevant. Your average plant is going to convert 9% or so of its captured light into chemical storage, but then nearly half of that gets reused in its own metabolic processes.
Now that 5%-9% value is the important one to be concerned about when you're going to reprocess that biomass directly into energy. In this case, they break down that biomass, extract the PS1 electron pump, and use a Zinc-oxide framework to capture those electrons, and feed it to a harvesting circuit. Now there are three problems with this setup. First, you're going to be limited in the amount of projected surface area you can cover in the protein complex, and thus the percentage of light you can collect, of course this same restriction exists in plants. Second, proteins break down. In a plant, you've got the various metabolic processes available to construct and replace damaged sections of photo-active surface, while in this you need to get up on your roof and replace the surface.
Third and most important, plants use a phospholipid bilayer to separate two volumes, across which the PS1 electron pump operates. This layer is nearly impermeable to ions, allowing those ionic gradients built up by the pumps to drive further machinery for work. In contrast, this PS1-derived solar cell just relies on happy chance that the pump is oriented properly, and the electrons are not just pumped back out into the electrolytic medium and recombined. That is the primary reason this is only able to capture 0.1% of the available light, rather than the nearly 30% that stage is capable of in plants. Such recombination has always been the limiting factor of all such dye-sensitive solar cells.
Fine. In Star Trek miracle land, it's already a utopia where we don't use money, so you're just going to freely give that power back into the grid, so it can be transferred to somewhere that will use it.
Of course in Star Trek miracle land, you'd have 47% efficient cells thus generating about 40 KW. I donno what I'd do with 40 KW laying around
Sell it back into the power grid for use in high density apartment buildings, and higher density manufacturing industry.
OK Miss Positive Pauline. Photosynthesis in plants only operates at a couple percent efficiency in the first place. Commercially available thermal and photovoltaic systems are already several times that, but still need immense tracts of land to make a significant dent in our electrical demands.
Wireless signals under water are awe full.
You mean sonar?
People just liked it better that way...
You've got to be joking. A +5 Insightful for that? The Moon has no meaningful atmosphere. That means all those friction problems with magnetic launch systems no longer apply. You use a linear motor to get you up to whatever speed you need to be going, and then just coast the rest of the way. At our current utility costs, you would be looking at a couple $/kg to put something into Lunar transfer orbit, and maybe a few dozen $/kg for enough fuel for a LEO insertion burn, although that could be cut down significantly with aerobraking.
At our current technology, there really isn't much of worth on the Moon for use on Earth. There is huge worth as a materials source for anything you might want to do in space.
If that were the case, no one would ever bother making movies. Movies absolutely make money (enough of them to keep the studios in business anyway). They just use all sorts of legal and accounting loopholes to make it appear that they don't make money, so they can get by with as little taxes as possible, and screw over as many contracted employees as they can.
Oh yeah, because the rising cost of healthcare is something that will make the masses happier. Now lemme see... Who tried to fix that recently? Oh yeah, that was Obama's big push. The democrats got behind that.
You do realize that the whole reason healthcare costs are so high is because of lawsuits, right? Malpractice insurance rates are so high in some areas, you simply won't find certain types of doctors there. They simply can't charge enough for their services for their medical practice to remain solvent. Socialized health care won't make any difference without fixing the cause of the costs being so high. Of course that would mean putting a lot of lawyers out of a job, and lawyers tend to be Democrats...
Do you really expect me to do coordinate substitution in my head while spinning around in an orbiting space station?
How did Obama have anything to do with any of that? SpaceX managed their first orbital launch in 2008 when Bush was still in office. SpaceShipOne hit space back in 2004, had been in full time development since 2001, and began initial planning way back in 1994 and the early days of Clinton. Obama was still a state legislator in 2004, and wasn't even in politics in 1994. Bush announced the cancellation of the Shuttle program, several years before Obama took office. Bush announced the replacement Ares launch system, derived from existing Shuttle parts, as a means to go to the Moon and Mars. Again, this was several years before Obama took office.
Bush's eight years are up, Obama is voted in, and what happens? The Ares launch system is cancelled, but now we have the Shuttle Launch System, which is going to take us to Mars. It's the same god damned thing! It just has a different name, and now its Obama's space program.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_abbreviations#Postal_abbreviations
If not WV, what would be more common? "WVa" really isn't that much different.
The 7.62x51 NATO round will go straight through a tree, however the 5.56x45 NATO round used in most western assault rifles is aft-weighted and unstable, meaning as soon as it hits something, it tumbles, fragments, and generally causes a mess of things similar to hollow points.
The standard 5.56 NATO round has the same behavior, but that only works because the spinning dynamically stabilizes it in flight. I doubt the 30Hz update rate on this round is sufficiently rapid to control an aerodynamically unstable shape.
Yes, the second definition was supposed to be the military meaning, not the literal one.
If you want to use the literal meaning of "missile", it would include all bullets, rockets, arrows, javelin, and any other form of projectile weapon. If you want to use the literal meaning of "missile", it must be guided and powered .