This is completely trivial. You simply have to mark the VM with the architecture of its code. Then each host contains both a virtualization layer (à la vmware) and a multi-platform emulator (à la qemu). If the VM matches the architecture the host is running on, you use the virtualization layer, if it doesn't, you use the emulator.
As for moving between AMD64 and Intel 64 (for example), the VM has to emulate the few instructions that differ and virtualize the rest.
Of course, cross-architecture migration is not that useful since you have an emulation penalty. It is much simpler (and cheaper) to do everything on x64.
I agree with the importance on space exploration, if for no other reason than the fact that: - we can do it - it is interesting
But I must disagree with the whole "OMG we must settle outside Earth NOW or we will die" argument, which seems very popular around here.
First, it would be simpler not to destroy Earth. Anf if we are stupid enough to destroy Earth, it won't be long before we destroy Mars as well. So resettling only pushes the problem further.
Second, every rock in the solar system besides Earth is inhospitable. Even a big asteroid strike or a major nuclear war will not kill everyone; and it will still be easier to leave in a hole on earth that in a hole on mars.
Third, the whole asteroid scare is great movie material but has no basis in reality. It would be trivial for a moderate annual budget to track asteroids and to develop ways to deflect them. When a big one will be in view, we will have several decades to push it out of the way. Note also that large impacts are rare, and no more likely on Earth than anywhere else we might choose to live.
Finally, I think nuclear disarmament is not an impossible goal. Altough it will take a while.
You wouldn't be republican by any chance ? The whole "Why should we subsidize intellectual curiosity?" thing ?
I you admit the principle of public funding for science, then I think every areas should deserve equal support. There is no reason why we should support paleontology, particle physics, genetics, etc... but not space science.
As for your argument on low return, I think it is misguided. You can't put everything in the same basket. Most of the money has been spent on human spaceflight which IMHO has teached us nothing and hasn't gotten us any closer to the goal of affordable space travel.
I don't known what the total budget for unmanned scientific missions is, but it is not that big and the return has been enormous.
Take solar system exploration. Practically all our knowledge about the solar system comes from space probes. Just look at the wikipedia pages on the planets and major moons. Most of the information there comes from space probes.
Or take astronomy. Chandra, Compton and Spitzer revolutionized our understanding of the universe.
As for the practical usefulness, I find your comment funny because I don't think paleontology (on earth), which you don't seem to object too, has much practical applications.
Of course, I don't think we should only fund research that has a potential for practical applications, but that's another debate.
Anyway, I do think solar system research has a lot of practical uses. Mostly because a better understanding of the solar system leads to a better understanding of the earth. The problem with understanding the Earth is that there is only one. You can learn a lot if you have the opportunity to compare it with similar yet different bodies. Studying the climate of Venus for example will help us better understand Earth's climate. Just like studying the hydrocarbon cycle of Titan, the volcanism of Io, or the interaction of Mars's atmosphere with the solar wind will yield new insights.
Oh, about the ocean thing. I don't know where this myth comes from but oceanography is far from underfunded. Look at what NOAA or Scripps is doing. They have pretty solid research programs.
I'm sick of these constant attacks on "Joe Sixpack". When was the last time you were consulted on NASA's budget ? Ordinary folks have no control over this.
And what did you personally do to encourage congress to spend more of space exploration ? Probably nothing. (whining on slashdot doesn't count).
I also disagree with the idea that nobody cares. I care, and I bet a lot of people here care too. I remember the record number of visitors pathfinder's website had at the time. You are certainly not alone in finding a robot driving around Mars more exciting than a bunch of guys bicycling in orbit. But I guess having a superiority complex is fun.
This fascination for their past (Apollo) is not a good sign. They are so stuck in their old ways that at some point it might be best to turn NASA into a museum and build a new space agency.
If you want some light reading, try the paper available here. It offers some illustrations of the inertia of the agency and of the damages it causes.
Slashdot Mirror
This is completely trivial. You simply have to mark the VM with the architecture of its code. Then each host contains both a virtualization layer (à la vmware) and a multi-platform emulator (à la qemu). If the VM matches the architecture the host is running on, you use the virtualization layer, if it doesn't, you use the emulator.
As for moving between AMD64 and Intel 64 (for example), the VM has to emulate the few instructions that differ and virtualize the rest.
Of course, cross-architecture migration is not that useful since you have an emulation penalty. It is much simpler (and cheaper) to do everything on x64.
Apparently, the rocket exploded 2 minutes into the flight. Better luck next time. However I was impressed by the abort capability. That's pretty cool.
Any phone/pda with windows mobile and a usb/cf port will do.
You just need:
- A USB/CF VGA card
- Microsoft Office PowerPoint Mobile
I agree with the importance on space exploration, if for no other reason than the fact that:
- we can do it
- it is interesting
But I must disagree with the whole "OMG we must settle outside Earth NOW or we will die" argument, which seems very popular around here.
First, it would be simpler not to destroy Earth. Anf if we are stupid enough to destroy Earth, it won't be long before we destroy Mars as well. So resettling only pushes the problem further.
Second, every rock in the solar system besides Earth is inhospitable. Even a big asteroid strike or a major nuclear war will not kill everyone; and it will still be easier to leave in a hole on earth that in a hole on mars.
Third, the whole asteroid scare is great movie material but has no basis in reality. It would be trivial for a moderate annual budget to track asteroids and to develop ways to deflect them. When a big one will be in view, we will have several decades to push it out of the way. Note also that large impacts are rare, and no more likely on Earth than anywhere else we might choose to live.
Finally, I think nuclear disarmament is not an impossible goal. Altough it will take a while.
You wouldn't be republican by any chance ? The whole "Why should we subsidize intellectual curiosity?" thing ?
I you admit the principle of public funding for science, then I think every areas should deserve equal support. There is no reason why we should support paleontology, particle physics, genetics, etc... but not space science.
As for your argument on low return, I think it is misguided. You can't put everything in the same basket. Most of the money has been spent on human spaceflight which IMHO has teached us nothing and hasn't gotten us any closer to the goal of affordable space travel.
I don't known what the total budget for unmanned scientific missions is, but it is not that big and the return has been enormous.
Take solar system exploration. Practically all our knowledge about the solar system comes from space probes. Just look at the wikipedia pages on the planets and major moons. Most of the information there comes from space probes.
Or take astronomy. Chandra, Compton and Spitzer revolutionized our understanding of the universe.
As for the practical usefulness, I find your comment funny because I don't think paleontology (on earth), which you don't seem to object too, has much practical applications.
Of course, I don't think we should only fund research that has a potential for practical applications, but that's another debate.
Anyway, I do think solar system research has a lot of practical uses. Mostly because a better understanding of the solar system leads to a better understanding of the earth. The problem with understanding the Earth is that there is only one. You can learn a lot if you have the opportunity to compare it with similar yet different bodies. Studying the climate of Venus for example will help us better understand Earth's climate. Just like studying the hydrocarbon cycle of Titan, the volcanism of Io, or the interaction of Mars's atmosphere with the solar wind will yield new insights.
Oh, about the ocean thing. I don't know where this myth comes from but oceanography is far from underfunded. Look at what NOAA or Scripps is doing. They have pretty solid research programs.
I'm sick of these constant attacks on "Joe Sixpack". When was the last time you were consulted on NASA's budget ? Ordinary folks have no control over this.
And what did you personally do to encourage congress to spend more of space exploration ? Probably nothing. (whining on slashdot doesn't count).
I also disagree with the idea that nobody cares. I care, and I bet a lot of people here care too. I remember the record number of visitors pathfinder's website had at the time. You are certainly not alone in finding a robot driving around Mars more exciting than a bunch of guys bicycling in orbit. But I guess having a superiority complex is fun.
This robot is for sissies. That's what we need: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyJ4Kn_-6nw&feature=related.
What I hope now is that after two months on the surface they will finally get around to use the AFM (and not just for a test). WTF is taking so long ?
This fascination for their past (Apollo) is not a good sign. They are so stuck in their old ways that at some point it might be best to turn NASA into a museum and build a new space agency.
If you want some light reading, try the paper available here. It offers some illustrations of the inertia of the agency and of the damages it causes.