That assumes the signal format has error correction, or even error detection to allow rejection of bad data. DVI/HDMI has neither. Bad data on the three dedicated color channels can fuzz out to complete garbage so long as the control channel is error free. If the control channel develops errors, the two devices will drop the link.
DVI/HDMI has no error correction. It sends raw data, so there is no bleeding of errors that you might see in something like DCT compressed video. Red, green, and blue each have their own dedicated data channel, independent of the control channels. A poor cable actually will result in speckling and flaws.
You're thinking of protocols like broadcast television, where there is an amount of redundant data to allow limited recovery, and loss beyond the recovery threshold will rapidly corrupt the entire frame, as well as future back-referenced frames, and a result in a complete lack of ability to decode anything.
Google is a web search company, plain and simple. They make their money by selling ads on their search pages, and so everything they do is geared toward bringing more people to their search pages. If people use Chrome and get directed to Google search, great! If people use Firefox instead, and still get directed to Google search, well that's fantastic too. Businesses exist to make money. If a maneuver a business makes appears to be detrimental to itself, chances are they think doing so will improve their market in another area.
What are you talking about? Trained reaction time of a simple response is on the order of 150-200ms. If you actually have to think about what the response needs to be, you're looking at significantly longer. A digital autopilot with sufficient sensor data will outperform a pilot in every operating condition it is programmed for. It will be able to land much faster and more precisely than a human pilot, under varying wind conditions. The problem is the autopilot is not adaptive to operate in situations it is not programmed to. It is not "creative" to react in novel ways.
Are we going to chop them up into little bits and stuff them into those little pods? There is no habitable structure down there, just a bunch of floating receiver elements.
A large common water system connected to an external evaporative cooler would be vastly more efficient than a traditional air conditioning system. Individual blocks on the outside of each system would at best allow better optimized airflow.
Your fingers are thick and durable. Small magnets at such distance isn't much of a risk. Put them on opposite sides of your nasal septum, and you'll have significantly more risk of bruising. Do that with weaker internal tissues, drag them along, and there's a good chance you will cause internal bleeding.
There have actually been proposals for a robot that would harvest Calcium Oxide and Aluminate from the lunar soil, and combine them with subsurface water as a form of cement. It would then proceed to build sealed domes that could be used for a future base, protected from radiation and micrometeorites.
To me, that sounds like an improvement in sustainability. You're still going to require semi-regular supplies of food and more complex equipment, but a macroscale constructor would allow them a greater level of self-sufficiency.
It's one of the only technologies that can track supercavitating weapons underwater.
The other being bog standard passive sonar? Cavitation makes noise. The bubbles collapse violently with a loud pop, making a ton of noise, which is why submarines try so hard not to do so. Supercavitation makes a fuckton of noise. The idea is that you're just going so damn fast, no one can do anything about it. Most supercavitating concepts run 50-150m/s, while the speed of sound in water is 1500m/s. That's plenty far out in advance to track it acoustically just fine.
Active gated cameras aren't a new technology, they're just a variation on Fizeau's original apparatus for measuring the speed of light. This is nothing more than 1850's tech. Friggen steampunk imagers...
Of course it's not infallible. Of course they could have only appeared unarmed. If they knew for certain they weren't armed, they wouldn't have needed to bother sending SWAT. It's all a matter of finding as much information as possible about a situation before sending people into potential danger.
Singers are musicians, using their voice as their instrument. The basis of any display of musical talent is ones ability to control their instrument. When they have such a warble in their voice, when they can't hold a god damned note, they are showing themselves to be nothing more than a rank amateur. If they are intentionally adding a warble to their voice, out of some misguided belief that the variation in their voice makes them sound better or more emotional, then they are a lost cause.
Try getting that proprietary battery in another 5-10 years. There are vintage cameras operating today that are many decades old. This will not be the case in future.
So? There may be vintage film camera from decades or even a century or more old that are still in use. So what? Lenses have gotten smaller and lighter, gotten fancy things like auto-focus and image stabilization, but they haven't really gotten better. Film has improved, but you can put new film in old cameras. You can't do that with a digital camera. You get the performance of the sensor that came with the camera, and nothing more. No improved resolution, or framerate, or noise level, or light sensitivity, and the sensor is likely to burn out in 10-20 years on its own. When the new ones offer all the capability of the old ones and more, why stick with the old ones?
Bold words from an Anonymous Coward. The simple fact is that all this fear mongering about collapsing needs to be prefaced by the fact that were dealing with some magic material that can be woven into paper thin ribbons, tens of thousands of miles long, with a tensile strength several times that of carbon fiber. If you can build such a material, all of those safety concerns really aren't that tough to deal with. Now calling me a Space Nutter would imply I think were going to have the breakthrough tomorrow, and start building within five years. I doubt that's going to happen for another hundred, after we're all dead, and no one is left to care about your pithy insult.
Three times? No. By pure coincidence, geostationary orbit is just under one circumference, 89% of one to be exact. In a worst case scenario, that 22kmi comes crashing down, and doesn't quite wrap around the world once, while the counterweight gets flung out into space. You could actually cut the cable somewhere around 15kmi, and the remainder would be going fast enough to remain in orbit. Send some robot to spool it up to reduce the navigation hazard, and then collect it later. By necessity, such a thing would be placed on the equator, so between South America (Equador, Columbia, Northern Brazil), Sub-Saharan Africa, and Indonesia, pick two out of three to hit. You could place scuttling charges on that section of cable every couple miles, such that the cable harmlessly falls down much as long party streamers. The worst damage it would cause would be shorting out any electrical lines it managed to cross.
Why need it be risky? As with all other things, use redundancy. Redundant cables mean no single failure will drop the elevator car. Multiple parallel cars mean loss of an entire strand won't trash the whole system, and new spools can be carried up to drop another elevator. You wouldn't be traveling at orbital velocity, so re-entry wouldn't need much in the way of shielding. One rocket burst to kick the elevator clear of the falling cable, followed by parachutes, and retro-rockets for final landing would be plenty reliable for emergency use.
There have been concerns of damage done by a falling cable, but that's not an insurmountable issue. By necessity, the cable will have to be a thin, wide film. On things such films do is fall very slowly. Charges placed at periodic intervals, keyed off cable tension, could fragment the cable into sufficiently short segments that they would slow down in the atmosphere and impact with minimal damage. Have the primary station at geostationary, such that in a worst case scenario, it could survive on its own for a while. Allow the counterbalance to be scuttled. If sufficiently close to geostationary, it could be recaptured with minimal fuel costs, and used again once the new elevator is dropped.
In the future, as it is now, physical modeling will be the first step. We're nowhere near the computational power needed for direct simulation of complex shapes, and were not likely to be any time soon. That means physical tests to verify simplified computational models which can then be used to interpolate and extrapolate beyond the scope of those physical tests.
Neither. It's a computational capacity problem. The complexity and non-linearity of the equations means they cannot be feasibly solved in continuum for anything but the most simple of cases. That means you're left with an iterative, discretized version of them. In order to solve a flow directly using discrete Navier-Stokes, your computational grid must be sufficiently fine to resolve the smallest scales of turbulent mixing. Even with several decades of exponential growth in performance, we are still nowhere near what is needed to solve any real world solution with Direct Navier-Stokes (DNS).
That leaves us with generalization. Turbulence models designed to reproduce the results of physical simulations are applied, rather than direct solutions, easing the computational load for those small scales. More complex models can better model more complex flows, but in turn are more computationally intensive, giving us a sliding scale between solution quality, and solution speed.
Computer simulation was never intended to replace physical simulation, merely supplement it. Physical simulations will always be limited in the environments they can produce, the duration of testing, and the data that can be measured. Computer simulation works on inference. If the simulation matches the physical test's data points at certain test conditions, the rest of the flow field not physically measured and be considered reasonably accurate. The same simulation can be performed at different test conditions, and as long as they are bracketed by the testing, can also be considered reasonably accurate. The simulation can be performed at test conditions outside the parameters of the physical testing, extrapolating behavior with reduced accuracy.
Uranium is not damn cheap. You can find uranium oxide fairly commonly, but it only has some 0.7% of usable U-235, which much be enriched up to several percent before it can be used in a thermal reactor. The remaining uranium just acts as a moderator, slowing the neutrons down and making it more likely to achieve fission. Enrichment is extremely expensive, meaning the operation of nuclear reactors is extremely expensive. The only reason we don't use breeder reactors is over nuclear proliferation concerns.
Seeback generators are hideously inefficient for generating electricity. Their only utility comes from the fact that they are solid state, and will run for decades with no maintenance. At least use a decent heat engine like a Sterling, or if you've got enough of the stuff, a Brayton. Nuclear waste would be the gift that keeps on giving if we ran it back through breeder reactors. The waste contains huge quantities of depleted uranium (U-238) which won't run in a thermal reactor, but will burn just fine in a fast reactor.
Slashdot Mirror
That assumes the signal format has error correction, or even error detection to allow rejection of bad data. DVI/HDMI has neither. Bad data on the three dedicated color channels can fuzz out to complete garbage so long as the control channel is error free. If the control channel develops errors, the two devices will drop the link.
DVI/HDMI has no error correction. It sends raw data, so there is no bleeding of errors that you might see in something like DCT compressed video. Red, green, and blue each have their own dedicated data channel, independent of the control channels. A poor cable actually will result in speckling and flaws.
You're thinking of protocols like broadcast television, where there is an amount of redundant data to allow limited recovery, and loss beyond the recovery threshold will rapidly corrupt the entire frame, as well as future back-referenced frames, and a result in a complete lack of ability to decode anything.
Google is a web search company, plain and simple. They make their money by selling ads on their search pages, and so everything they do is geared toward bringing more people to their search pages. If people use Chrome and get directed to Google search, great! If people use Firefox instead, and still get directed to Google search, well that's fantastic too. Businesses exist to make money. If a maneuver a business makes appears to be detrimental to itself, chances are they think doing so will improve their market in another area.
What are you talking about? Trained reaction time of a simple response is on the order of 150-200ms. If you actually have to think about what the response needs to be, you're looking at significantly longer. A digital autopilot with sufficient sensor data will outperform a pilot in every operating condition it is programmed for. It will be able to land much faster and more precisely than a human pilot, under varying wind conditions. The problem is the autopilot is not adaptive to operate in situations it is not programmed to. It is not "creative" to react in novel ways.
Are we going to chop them up into little bits and stuff them into those little pods? There is no habitable structure down there, just a bunch of floating receiver elements.
A large common water system connected to an external evaporative cooler would be vastly more efficient than a traditional air conditioning system. Individual blocks on the outside of each system would at best allow better optimized airflow.
You mean impellers in a duct that run the length of the computer case?
Your fingers are thick and durable. Small magnets at such distance isn't much of a risk. Put them on opposite sides of your nasal septum, and you'll have significantly more risk of bruising. Do that with weaker internal tissues, drag them along, and there's a good chance you will cause internal bleeding.
That's why children's toys are large such that they cannot be swallowed, and rugged such that they cannot be broken into smaller pieces and swallowed.
There have actually been proposals for a robot that would harvest Calcium Oxide and Aluminate from the lunar soil, and combine them with subsurface water as a form of cement. It would then proceed to build sealed domes that could be used for a future base, protected from radiation and micrometeorites.
To me, that sounds like an improvement in sustainability. You're still going to require semi-regular supplies of food and more complex equipment, but a macroscale constructor would allow them a greater level of self-sufficiency.
More interesting were the plans for 'wet workshops', where the external tanks themselves would be the space station.
It's one of the only technologies that can track supercavitating weapons underwater.
The other being bog standard passive sonar? Cavitation makes noise. The bubbles collapse violently with a loud pop, making a ton of noise, which is why submarines try so hard not to do so. Supercavitation makes a fuckton of noise. The idea is that you're just going so damn fast, no one can do anything about it. Most supercavitating concepts run 50-150m/s, while the speed of sound in water is 1500m/s. That's plenty far out in advance to track it acoustically just fine.
Active gated cameras aren't a new technology, they're just a variation on Fizeau's original apparatus for measuring the speed of light. This is nothing more than 1850's tech. Friggen steampunk imagers...
Of course it's not infallible. Of course they could have only appeared unarmed. If they knew for certain they weren't armed, they wouldn't have needed to bother sending SWAT. It's all a matter of finding as much information as possible about a situation before sending people into potential danger.
Singers are musicians, using their voice as their instrument. The basis of any display of musical talent is ones ability to control their instrument. When they have such a warble in their voice, when they can't hold a god damned note, they are showing themselves to be nothing more than a rank amateur. If they are intentionally adding a warble to their voice, out of some misguided belief that the variation in their voice makes them sound better or more emotional, then they are a lost cause.
Try getting that proprietary battery in another 5-10 years. There are vintage cameras operating today that are many decades old. This will not be the case in future.
So? There may be vintage film camera from decades or even a century or more old that are still in use. So what? Lenses have gotten smaller and lighter, gotten fancy things like auto-focus and image stabilization, but they haven't really gotten better. Film has improved, but you can put new film in old cameras. You can't do that with a digital camera. You get the performance of the sensor that came with the camera, and nothing more. No improved resolution, or framerate, or noise level, or light sensitivity, and the sensor is likely to burn out in 10-20 years on its own. When the new ones offer all the capability of the old ones and more, why stick with the old ones?
Bold words from an Anonymous Coward. The simple fact is that all this fear mongering about collapsing needs to be prefaced by the fact that were dealing with some magic material that can be woven into paper thin ribbons, tens of thousands of miles long, with a tensile strength several times that of carbon fiber. If you can build such a material, all of those safety concerns really aren't that tough to deal with. Now calling me a Space Nutter would imply I think were going to have the breakthrough tomorrow, and start building within five years. I doubt that's going to happen for another hundred, after we're all dead, and no one is left to care about your pithy insult.
Three times? No. By pure coincidence, geostationary orbit is just under one circumference, 89% of one to be exact. In a worst case scenario, that 22kmi comes crashing down, and doesn't quite wrap around the world once, while the counterweight gets flung out into space. You could actually cut the cable somewhere around 15kmi, and the remainder would be going fast enough to remain in orbit. Send some robot to spool it up to reduce the navigation hazard, and then collect it later. By necessity, such a thing would be placed on the equator, so between South America (Equador, Columbia, Northern Brazil), Sub-Saharan Africa, and Indonesia, pick two out of three to hit. You could place scuttling charges on that section of cable every couple miles, such that the cable harmlessly falls down much as long party streamers. The worst damage it would cause would be shorting out any electrical lines it managed to cross.
Why need it be risky? As with all other things, use redundancy. Redundant cables mean no single failure will drop the elevator car. Multiple parallel cars mean loss of an entire strand won't trash the whole system, and new spools can be carried up to drop another elevator. You wouldn't be traveling at orbital velocity, so re-entry wouldn't need much in the way of shielding. One rocket burst to kick the elevator clear of the falling cable, followed by parachutes, and retro-rockets for final landing would be plenty reliable for emergency use.
There have been concerns of damage done by a falling cable, but that's not an insurmountable issue. By necessity, the cable will have to be a thin, wide film. On things such films do is fall very slowly. Charges placed at periodic intervals, keyed off cable tension, could fragment the cable into sufficiently short segments that they would slow down in the atmosphere and impact with minimal damage. Have the primary station at geostationary, such that in a worst case scenario, it could survive on its own for a while. Allow the counterbalance to be scuttled. If sufficiently close to geostationary, it could be recaptured with minimal fuel costs, and used again once the new elevator is dropped.
or to pry the diamonds from the hands of the diamond cartel.
If you're not too picky on origin, it's easier to grow artificial ones.
In the future, as it is now, physical modeling will be the first step. We're nowhere near the computational power needed for direct simulation of complex shapes, and were not likely to be any time soon. That means physical tests to verify simplified computational models which can then be used to interpolate and extrapolate beyond the scope of those physical tests.
Neither. It's a computational capacity problem. The complexity and non-linearity of the equations means they cannot be feasibly solved in continuum for anything but the most simple of cases. That means you're left with an iterative, discretized version of them. In order to solve a flow directly using discrete Navier-Stokes, your computational grid must be sufficiently fine to resolve the smallest scales of turbulent mixing. Even with several decades of exponential growth in performance, we are still nowhere near what is needed to solve any real world solution with Direct Navier-Stokes (DNS).
That leaves us with generalization. Turbulence models designed to reproduce the results of physical simulations are applied, rather than direct solutions, easing the computational load for those small scales. More complex models can better model more complex flows, but in turn are more computationally intensive, giving us a sliding scale between solution quality, and solution speed.
Computer simulation was never intended to replace physical simulation, merely supplement it. Physical simulations will always be limited in the environments they can produce, the duration of testing, and the data that can be measured. Computer simulation works on inference. If the simulation matches the physical test's data points at certain test conditions, the rest of the flow field not physically measured and be considered reasonably accurate. The same simulation can be performed at different test conditions, and as long as they are bracketed by the testing, can also be considered reasonably accurate. The simulation can be performed at test conditions outside the parameters of the physical testing, extrapolating behavior with reduced accuracy.
Uranium is not damn cheap. You can find uranium oxide fairly commonly, but it only has some 0.7% of usable U-235, which much be enriched up to several percent before it can be used in a thermal reactor. The remaining uranium just acts as a moderator, slowing the neutrons down and making it more likely to achieve fission. Enrichment is extremely expensive, meaning the operation of nuclear reactors is extremely expensive. The only reason we don't use breeder reactors is over nuclear proliferation concerns.
Seeback generators are hideously inefficient for generating electricity. Their only utility comes from the fact that they are solid state, and will run for decades with no maintenance. At least use a decent heat engine like a Sterling, or if you've got enough of the stuff, a Brayton. Nuclear waste would be the gift that keeps on giving if we ran it back through breeder reactors. The waste contains huge quantities of depleted uranium (U-238) which won't run in a thermal reactor, but will burn just fine in a fast reactor.