A colony ship would indeed have a greater theoretical top speed, but is accelleration curve would be abysmal. It would not be going anywhere near top speed when it leaves the solar system. It would take a considerably long time to accellerate, and people could very well die of old age on board one before leaving the solar system, even with the engines on full blast.
Remember, an ion thruster produces enough thrust to wiggle a sheet of paper. You simply fire it for decades, instead of a few minutes. Give it a beefy enough power supply and gas reserve, and you could burn it for hundreds of years. That's how it shines.
It doesn't mean that the speed of the vehicle will exceed that of a metal trashcan that had gravity slingshot boosts by 2 gas giants before leaving the solar system though.
I would advise against using said gas giant gravity assists on a colony ship btw. Those things have deadly powerful radiation belts, and the torque stresses on the colony ship would exceed mechanical limits on existing materials. The ship would have to be pure unobtanium to do that.
Mars does not have sufficient mass for the "heat of crystallization" reactions necessary for a stable geomagnetic dynamo to develop. It has a partial one now, but the effects are not sufficient to create a homogenous magnetic envelope, and as such, the planet does not have a magnetosphere. Unlike venus, most of mars' atmosphere has been blasted off by solar radiation.
To make mars naturally interesting would take herculean efforts. You would have to increase the planet's mass considerably, and also replace the missing atmosphere. Inless you want to spend a few millenia dropping meteorites onto mars to bulk it up, mars will always require habitat structure type colonies.
Venus? Spray it, forget it for awhile, then when it has change sufficiently, pay it another visit.
The venusian surface is over 500C. It is so hot that there is no mantle convection, and the crust is squishy. There are no carbon compounds in the crust, and all the chemistry in the crust is high temp chemistry.
Unless you are talking things like lead sulfide, which can be made in just a few minutes in a lab, I don't know what you could be referring to.
What venus potentially offers is a geoengineering opportunity.
I have contemplated what I would do concerning venus. That planet will *never* have a natural biosphere containing more than microbes without human intervention. So, here is what I would do:
Genetically engineer atmospheric terrestrial microbes to produce long flagella out of polyaramid plastic. Poly aramid has a thermal breakdown temperature approaching that of venus's surface, but venus also has mountains. The polyaramid "snow" would slowly sequester atmospheric co2, reducing surface temps until the snow could last on the surface, then the process would rapidly accellerate.
The venusian atmosphere is mostly co2, with anhydrous sulfuric acid, nitrogen, and some trace gasses.
The sulfuric acid and co2 are the primary items of interest here: we need microbes that can use anhydrous H2SO4 as their cytoplasmic solvent instead of water, and which can produce any water they would otherwise need through photosynthetic reactions powered by a sulfur cycle metabolism. Once venus cools enough, it has sufficient mass to produce a magnetic dynamo once there is crust convection currents to power it. That means venus will become a lot more interesting, and all we have to do is drop the surface temp.
That's what the germs do; the drop the surface temp, and rain out the CO2 as white plastic fibers. The plastic has a high albedo, and reflects energy back into space, and is sufficiently nonreactive that it will stick around for very long periods. Coupled with continued biological activities, simply seeding the atmosphere with such microbes would initiate the biological transformation of the planet.
[Pedant] For one thing, the headline and the summary contradict. The headline says "not" the limit, while the summary says it will be for manned missions. [/end pedant]
But for the rest: still nonsense. Once you get people willing to go on a one-way trip, it removes a lot of other burdens for a deep space mission. For instance, using cryonics, or chemically reduced metabolism to hibernate the crew for 100+ years. The problem with current impulse technologies is that they will never get you even outside the solar system before you die of old age. (Look at the 40 years or so it has taken voyagers 1 and 2 to simply HIT the heliopause! Those things are about the size of a tall garbage can. Imagine how long something the size of a colony ship would take, at max thrust!) Using hibernation, and the pre-condition of it being one-way, and all that matters then is the robustness of the vehicle (includes software reliability), how resistant to radiation it is, how much fuel it can carry, how long it can maintain engine impulse, and how long you can keep humans in the freezer.
Who cares if it will take 10,000 years to reach the nearest goldilocks planet at current engine speeds. You have already signed off on ever seeing anyone on earth ever again anyway, and as long as your life support system doesn't fail, and you don't get cooked like a christmas goose from the interstellar medium, you will simply go to sleep, and wake up at the destination. 10,000 years later. (In what is likely to be a rusty tub by then....)
All that's needed are materials and vehicles that can meet the challenges, heavily vetted software and computer hardware, and reliable hibernation.
That is VERY doable. The automated craft can very well function as an automated telemetry probe in the interim, broadcasting data back behind it. The people on earth get hundreds or thouands of years of scientific measurement data, and the colonists get a ride. Both win. (And if the ship has problems, it can wake some of the crew temporarily as needed.)
I don't see any reason why we couldn't be sending people to other star systems, other than political ones.
In all fairness, ReactOS is still "Painfully Alpha".
However, you DO have to realize that a shit load of stuff has to be implemented for Clippy to suggest ways to commit suicide while using MS Word. (Or, just about any other use case)
that said, a surprising amount of stuff is implemented in ROS, including OpenGL, networking, and a lot of the win32 API.
A lot of programs already run on it, including driver stacks meant for windows. (that's how they test the kernel you know-- Plug blackbox windows drivers in, and see what it does. Likewise in the other direction, to make sure the drivers they are writing are implemented correctly; they plug them into a blackbox windows environment, and collect debugging data.)
ReactOS does boot real hardware. However, It is not particularly useful at the moment. (though FreeLDR is sufficiently mature that it can boot actual windows.:D)
It needs more developers, and it needs financial support. Sadly, the people that mostly show up are win32 userland application developers. It really needs kernel land developers and low level systems programmers.
I really hope they succeed sometime in my lifetime. I'd be among the first to install a beta release on real HW and take it for a spin.
I've watched that project for years. Here is the main reasons for the slow progress:
1) "why not just use WINE on linux!? OMG WTF BBQ!!"
Perhaps the people who constantly stream into the ROS IRC channel asking that question could take 30 seconds and read the *FAQ* which clearly states why. No, they have to be a fanboi, waste people's time, and demoralize developers asking repitious qestions, and generally being assholes and transferring anti microsoft fud onto a foss project. *IF* they had bothered to do so, they would know that ROS and WINE share patches. But because they didn't, they don't, and just spew inane nonsense.
2) "Like, LOLZERS, your project is like, emulating 9x or something right?"
No. It reimplements the NT kernel and win32 usermode architectures. It is actually closer to 3 projects rolled into one: an NTLDR compliant boot loader (FreeLDR), a reimplementation of the NT kernel space, and a reimplementation of the windows GUI subsystem that even works on windows as a shell replacement. Most FOSS projects deal with just ONE of those things. (GRUB for boot loading, Linux Kernel, and various WM flavors like Gnome, KDE, and pals.) Reactos has FAR fewer developers than all of those.
3) "bland ordinary C is a REQUIREMENT!? What? I can't use C++, Java, Ruby, Python, or $languageHere!? What are you, a bunch of philistines!?"
Reactos uses only standardized C. It does this for a wide assortment of reasons, including having to implement pretty much everything from the ground up, including SEH, and a number of other things. It has to run quickly, leanly, and efficiently on bare metal, because they are also writing kernel mode components. High leve languages carry too much baggage, or make improper assumptions and aren't suitable. Sorry. If you want to use your high level language to right win32 usermode applications using the published api, feel free. But ROS won't include it in the package.
4) "Dude, NOBODY in the FOSS world knows all the ins and outs of MS's platforms! We use FOSS software for a reason, you know!"
Yeah. They pretty much know that already. Why do you think they have such a shortage of developers? They don't need to be reminded of that. They are trying to change that by making an OPEN reimplementation of windows, including the kernel space. You know, so you have more choices than just the BSD kernel and the Linux kernel. You could be more constructive and maybe help them instead of snipe crass comments or something.
5) "Isn't MS windows a moving target?"
Yes. Yes it is. However, a *lot* of "features" in microsofts offerings are probably best left out anyway. They are focusing on core functionalities. That's a significantly easier target.
You used to be able to set a new default shell using a registry setting, way back in the days of yore.
Can you still do that, or has MS removed that ability?
It might be worth an experiment to place the win7 explorer.exe in a protected folder on a win8 machine, and then set it as the default shell. That should neuter metro.
I might pull the msdn evaluation copy and see if I can do that.
I kinda figured as much actually. That's the real downside to the walled garden: it's invite only at the party.
This sort of thing really is why I wish there were alternative markets and game match services for consoles. But, that will never happen as long as the status quo remains in effect.
Too bad there isn't a way to end-run the DLC problem without raising the console maker's ire. Something like incorporating a minimalist BT client inside a game update, and using a console-signed local storage container as a content store. That way the DLC is handled outside the console maker's market service. There are probably license provisions to prevent that kind of thing though.
When you can use the free DLC to drive sales of the paid ones, of course.
But that requires your DLC to add new core functionalities for the mod makers to capitalize on, rather than just puking out spurious garbage, like a few retextured models.
BUT, if you DO offer DLC that adds new functions, the community mods that make use of those functions will drive the sales of your paid dlc. Without fail.
If that's the case, why do the MBAs of companies like Sony and Microsoft have apoplexy at the very thought of community produced content?
Usually, the answer I hear is 'licensing'-- really, it is that they can't have exclusives, if the community doesn't play that way.
As an MBA, perhaps you could better explain why they have such an insistence on exclusive content, rather than relying on the innate qualities of their platform's offings to provide distinction?
No, you are just unimaginative, and need me to spell it out for you.
So, I will.
Let's look at a game from yesteryear that had a good mod community: TES3, Morrowind.
It had 2 official expansions: Tribunal, and Bloodmoon. In addition to new play assets, both expansions added new core functionality to the scripting engine. As such, buying the expansions became a requirement to getting the better community made mod packages. You simply needed them, if you wanted to use X mod, because the mod needed those scripting functions to run.
The community created mods therefor, did not compete with the official expansions, but instead drove sales of the expansions.
The reverse DLC would for allowing the top mod community content to be "blessed", and distributed as a dlc on consoles. To improve the replay experience of the title, and to drive sales of the paid DLC packages they require.
Why don't you enable community mods with an approval process for console offerings?
Provide a mod toolset for PC use, with a submission system. Use your paid DLC packages as dependencies for core functionality, so that the community ones drive sales of the paid ones.
That solves several of your problems.
Oh, righ, the console operators don't like community dlc. That's right. Sorry. My bad.
I would think that this could greatly improve the value of console gaming as well.
Think about it: as a publisher, you get paid twice. (Once for the PC version and its deveopment tool suite, and again for the console version for testing.) The number of interesting DLC packages would be enorous. Many may even be free. It will greatly increase the desirability of your games.
"But won't it compete with our paid DLC?!"
Not if the community DLC requires it as a dependency for core functionality. Then the community DLC will actually add additional value to your paid DLC, and people will want it more.
As others pointed out, you might be able to get a naked sim if you buy it from a dedicated ATT or T-Mo store, but there are generally far fewer of those than walmarts.
Walmarts are usually on the metropolitan transit system's stop list, so getting to and from one without a vehicle may or may not be a problem.
Often, at leat in my area anyay, the maor carriers also have small cart vendor stalls in the malls that might be able to service your phones.
If you need a micro sim, the carrier store is your best bet.
But for just waking into a store and getting a naked sim? Easier said than done.
What you CAN do is buy a cheap GSM bar style phone from just about any walmart, and dump the phone and keep the sim.
Assuming you handset is not carrier locked, you can then use the cheap prepaid sim.
I used to do this the other way around when my phones would get damaged before their scheduled replacement, and limp on a bar phone until I could upgrade by putting my contract sim in the cheap feature phone.
Just drop the phone in any cellphone recycling bin, I believe most walmarts have them now, and keep the sim.
The price is quite affordable. No contest, it is wasteful, but the cell carriers do not want to sell us naked prepaid sims.
The problem is the lack of advertising, and different sales markets for plans.
T-Mo advertises their contract plans, but most people don't know jack about their pay as you go monthy no-contract plans. Most don't know you can get unlimited talk, text, and data on those plans.
While more expensive than 16euro a month, the 60$/mo pay as you go plan looks pretty compelling.
No ETF, unlimited voice, text, and data (but with a cap...), and cheaper than ATT and verizon ever thought about being. Also, those plans allow tethering.:D
Slashdot Mirror
A colony ship would indeed have a greater theoretical top speed, but is accelleration curve would be abysmal. It would not be going anywhere near top speed when it leaves the solar system. It would take a considerably long time to accellerate, and people could very well die of old age on board one before leaving the solar system, even with the engines on full blast.
Remember, an ion thruster produces enough thrust to wiggle a sheet of paper. You simply fire it for decades, instead of a few minutes. Give it a beefy enough power supply and gas reserve, and you could burn it for hundreds of years. That's how it shines.
It doesn't mean that the speed of the vehicle will exceed that of a metal trashcan that had gravity slingshot boosts by 2 gas giants before leaving the solar system though.
I would advise against using said gas giant gravity assists on a colony ship btw. Those things have deadly powerful radiation belts, and the torque stresses on the colony ship would exceed mechanical limits on existing materials. The ship would have to be pure unobtanium to do that.
Mars does not have sufficient mass for the "heat of crystallization" reactions necessary for a stable geomagnetic dynamo to develop. It has a partial one now, but the effects are not sufficient to create a homogenous magnetic envelope, and as such, the planet does not have a magnetosphere. Unlike venus, most of mars' atmosphere has been blasted off by solar radiation.
To make mars naturally interesting would take herculean efforts. You would have to increase the planet's mass considerably, and also replace the missing atmosphere. Inless you want to spend a few millenia dropping meteorites onto mars to bulk it up, mars will always require habitat structure type colonies.
Venus? Spray it, forget it for awhile, then when it has change sufficiently, pay it another visit.
Much cheaper.
What minerals would those be?
The venusian surface is over 500C. It is so hot that there is no mantle convection, and the crust is squishy. There are no carbon compounds in the crust, and all the chemistry in the crust is high temp chemistry.
Unless you are talking things like lead sulfide, which can be made in just a few minutes in a lab, I don't know what you could be referring to.
What venus potentially offers is a geoengineering opportunity.
I have contemplated what I would do concerning venus. That planet will *never* have a natural biosphere containing more than microbes without human intervention. So, here is what I would do:
Genetically engineer atmospheric terrestrial microbes to produce long flagella out of polyaramid plastic. Poly aramid has a thermal breakdown temperature approaching that of venus's surface, but venus also has mountains. The polyaramid "snow" would slowly sequester atmospheric co2, reducing surface temps until the snow could last on the surface, then the process would rapidly accellerate.
The venusian atmosphere is mostly co2, with anhydrous sulfuric acid, nitrogen, and some trace gasses.
The sulfuric acid and co2 are the primary items of interest here: we need microbes that can use anhydrous H2SO4 as their cytoplasmic solvent instead of water, and which can produce any water they would otherwise need through photosynthetic reactions powered by a sulfur cycle metabolism. Once venus cools enough, it has sufficient mass to produce a magnetic dynamo once there is crust convection currents to power it. That means venus will become a lot more interesting, and all we have to do is drop the surface temp.
That's what the germs do; the drop the surface temp, and rain out the CO2 as white plastic fibers. The plastic has a high albedo, and reflects energy back into space, and is sufficiently nonreactive that it will stick around for very long periods. Coupled with continued biological activities, simply seeding the atmosphere with such microbes would initiate the biological transformation of the planet.
[Pedant]
For one thing, the headline and the summary contradict. The headline says "not" the limit, while the summary says it will be for manned missions.
[/end pedant]
But for the rest: still nonsense. Once you get people willing to go on a one-way trip, it removes a lot of other burdens for a deep space mission. For instance, using cryonics, or chemically reduced metabolism to hibernate the crew for 100+ years. The problem with current impulse technologies is that they will never get you even outside the solar system before you die of old age. (Look at the 40 years or so it has taken voyagers 1 and 2 to simply HIT the heliopause! Those things are about the size of a tall garbage can. Imagine how long something the size of a colony ship would take, at max thrust!) Using hibernation, and the pre-condition of it being one-way, and all that matters then is the robustness of the vehicle (includes software reliability), how resistant to radiation it is, how much fuel it can carry, how long it can maintain engine impulse, and how long you can keep humans in the freezer.
Who cares if it will take 10,000 years to reach the nearest goldilocks planet at current engine speeds. You have already signed off on ever seeing anyone on earth ever again anyway, and as long as your life support system doesn't fail, and you don't get cooked like a christmas goose from the interstellar medium, you will simply go to sleep, and wake up at the destination. 10,000 years later. (In what is likely to be a rusty tub by then....)
All that's needed are materials and vehicles that can meet the challenges, heavily vetted software and computer hardware, and reliable hibernation.
That is VERY doable. The automated craft can very well function as an automated telemetry probe in the interim, broadcasting data back behind it. The people on earth get hundreds or thouands of years of scientific measurement data, and the colonists get a ride. Both win. (And if the ship has problems, it can wake some of the crew temporarily as needed.)
I don't see any reason why we couldn't be sending people to other star systems, other than political ones.
You must have had a 486 DX50. (No, not a DX2/50, I mean a DX50.)
It ran internally at 50mhz, at a 1x multiplier. Old dos games expecting a 33mhz bus clock would go at warpspeed! :D
(The DX2/50 used a 2x multiplier, and had a bus speed of 25mhz. It was a lot cheaper than a real DX50.)
I dunno, but I could see it being exploited for the additional registers, and doing a floating point op at the same time as an executing loop.
It might have also been useful when doing software blitting on non accellerated cards.
In all fairness, ReactOS is still "Painfully Alpha".
However, you DO have to realize that a shit load of stuff has to be implemented for Clippy to suggest ways to commit suicide while using MS Word. (Or, just about any other use case)
that said, a surprising amount of stuff is implemented in ROS, including OpenGL, networking, and a lot of the win32 API.
A lot of programs already run on it, including driver stacks meant for windows. (that's how they test the kernel you know-- Plug blackbox windows drivers in, and see what it does. Likewise in the other direction, to make sure the drivers they are writing are implemented correctly; they plug them into a blackbox windows environment, and collect debugging data.)
ReactOS does boot real hardware. However, It is not particularly useful at the moment. (though FreeLDR is sufficiently mature that it can boot actual windows. :D)
It needs more developers, and it needs financial support. Sadly, the people that mostly show up are win32 userland application developers. It really needs kernel land developers and low level systems programmers.
I really hope they succeed sometime in my lifetime. I'd be among the first to install a beta release on real HW and take it for a spin.
I have a 64bit acer POS that I turn on maybe... once every 3 months.... that I can do horrible experiments on.
I may do that this weekend.
A common misconception. OSX is the FreeBSD kernel, not the Linux kernel.
Related, cousins maybe, but not "a form of linux."
I've watched that project for years. Here is the main reasons for the slow progress:
1) "why not just use WINE on linux!? OMG WTF BBQ!!"
Perhaps the people who constantly stream into the ROS IRC channel asking that question could take 30 seconds and read the *FAQ* which clearly states why. No, they have to be a fanboi, waste people's time, and demoralize developers asking repitious qestions, and generally being assholes and transferring anti microsoft fud onto a foss project. *IF* they had bothered to do so, they would know that ROS and WINE share patches. But because they didn't, they don't, and just spew inane nonsense.
2) "Like, LOLZERS, your project is like, emulating 9x or something right?"
No. It reimplements the NT kernel and win32 usermode architectures. It is actually closer to 3 projects rolled into one: an NTLDR compliant boot loader (FreeLDR), a reimplementation of the NT kernel space, and a reimplementation of the windows GUI subsystem that even works on windows as a shell replacement. Most FOSS projects deal with just ONE of those things. (GRUB for boot loading, Linux Kernel, and various WM flavors like Gnome, KDE, and pals.) Reactos has FAR fewer developers than all of those.
3) "bland ordinary C is a REQUIREMENT!? What? I can't use C++, Java, Ruby, Python, or $languageHere!? What are you, a bunch of philistines!?"
Reactos uses only standardized C. It does this for a wide assortment of reasons, including having to implement pretty much everything from the ground up, including SEH, and a number of other things. It has to run quickly, leanly, and efficiently on bare metal, because they are also writing kernel mode components. High leve languages carry too much baggage, or make improper assumptions and aren't suitable. Sorry. If you want to use your high level language to right win32 usermode applications using the published api, feel free. But ROS won't include it in the package.
4) "Dude, NOBODY in the FOSS world knows all the ins and outs of MS's platforms! We use FOSS software for a reason, you know!"
Yeah. They pretty much know that already. Why do you think they have such a shortage of developers? They don't need to be reminded of that. They are trying to change that by making an OPEN reimplementation of windows, including the kernel space. You know, so you have more choices than just the BSD kernel and the Linux kernel. You could be more constructive and maybe help them instead of snipe crass comments or something.
5) "Isn't MS windows a moving target?"
Yes. Yes it is. However, a *lot* of "features" in microsofts offerings are probably best left out anyway. They are focusing on core functionalities. That's a significantly easier target.
..... except when the drivers for your devices came only in the win2k flavor of WDM, or 9x flavor VXD.
NT flavored WDM drivers did terrible, terrible things to ME.
You used to be able to set a new default shell using a registry setting, way back in the days of yore.
Can you still do that, or has MS removed that ability?
It might be worth an experiment to place the win7 explorer.exe in a protected folder on a win8 machine, and then set it as the default shell. That should neuter metro.
I might pull the msdn evaluation copy and see if I can do that.
I kinda figured as much actually. That's the real downside to the walled garden: it's invite only at the party.
This sort of thing really is why I wish there were alternative markets and game match services for consoles. But, that will never happen as long as the status quo remains in effect.
Too bad there isn't a way to end-run the DLC problem without raising the console maker's ire. Something like incorporating a minimalist BT client inside a game update, and using a console-signed local storage container as a content store. That way the DLC is handled outside the console maker's market service. There are probably license provisions to prevent that kind of thing though.
He did, but the continuum set it right again. He's currently being punished by having his powers suspended, and being forced to work at the DMV.
(It was the less horrible punishment they offered. The other was signing autographs at a startrek convention.)
It just needs to get back to 1985, where it will be hip and edgy again!
When you can use the free DLC to drive sales of the paid ones, of course.
But that requires your DLC to add new core functionalities for the mod makers to capitalize on, rather than just puking out spurious garbage, like a few retextured models.
BUT, if you DO offer DLC that adds new functions, the community mods that make use of those functions will drive the sales of your paid dlc. Without fail.
If that's the case, why do the MBAs of companies like Sony and Microsoft have apoplexy at the very thought of community produced content?
Usually, the answer I hear is 'licensing'-- really, it is that they can't have exclusives, if the community doesn't play that way.
As an MBA, perhaps you could better explain why they have such an insistence on exclusive content, rather than relying on the innate qualities of their platform's offings to provide distinction?
No, you are just unimaginative, and need me to spell it out for you.
So, I will.
Let's look at a game from yesteryear that had a good mod community: TES3, Morrowind.
It had 2 official expansions: Tribunal, and Bloodmoon. In addition to new play assets, both expansions added new core functionality to the scripting engine. As such, buying the expansions became a requirement to getting the better community made mod packages. You simply needed them, if you wanted to use X mod, because the mod needed those scripting functions to run.
The community created mods therefor, did not compete with the official expansions, but instead drove sales of the expansions.
The reverse DLC would for allowing the top mod community content to be "blessed", and distributed as a dlc on consoles. To improve the replay experience of the title, and to drive sales of the paid DLC packages they require.
You can't buy that kind of advertisement.
So, as a consumer:
Why don't you enable community mods with an approval process for console offerings?
Provide a mod toolset for PC use, with a submission system. Use your paid DLC packages as dependencies for core functionality, so that the community ones drive sales of the paid ones.
That solves several of your problems.
Oh, righ, the console operators don't like community dlc. That's right. Sorry. My bad.
I would think that this could greatly improve the value of console gaming as well.
Think about it: as a publisher, you get paid twice. (Once for the PC version and its deveopment tool suite, and again for the console version for testing.) The number of interesting DLC packages would be enorous. Many may even be free. It will greatly increase the desirability of your games.
"But won't it compete with our paid DLC?!"
Not if the community DLC requires it as a dependency for core functionality. Then the community DLC will actually add additional value to your paid DLC, and people will want it more.
So, why aren't you guys doing it?
As others pointed out, you might be able to get a naked sim if you buy it from a dedicated ATT or T-Mo store, but there are generally far fewer of those than walmarts.
Walmarts are usually on the metropolitan transit system's stop list, so getting to and from one without a vehicle may or may not be a problem.
Often, at leat in my area anyay, the maor carriers also have small cart vendor stalls in the malls that might be able to service your phones.
If you need a micro sim, the carrier store is your best bet.
But for just waking into a store and getting a naked sim? Easier said than done.
You can't buy naked SIMs in the US.
What you CAN do is buy a cheap GSM bar style phone from just about any walmart, and dump the phone and keep the sim.
Assuming you handset is not carrier locked, you can then use the cheap prepaid sim.
I used to do this the other way around when my phones would get damaged before their scheduled replacement, and limp on a bar phone until I could upgrade by putting my contract sim in the cheap feature phone.
Just drop the phone in any cellphone recycling bin, I believe most walmarts have them now, and keep the sim.
The price is quite affordable. No contest, it is wasteful, but the cell carriers do not want to sell us naked prepaid sims.
The problem is the lack of advertising, and different sales markets for plans.
T-Mo advertises their contract plans, but most people don't know jack about their pay as you go monthy no-contract plans. Most don't know you can get unlimited talk, text, and data on those plans.
While more expensive than 16euro a month, the 60$/mo pay as you go plan looks pretty compelling.
T-mobile prepaid and pay as you go plans
No ETF, unlimited voice, text, and data (but with a cap...), and cheaper than ATT and verizon ever thought about being. Also, those plans allow tethering. :D
No! Its Palmula! Palmula Handerson!
I see this, and immediately think about all the fun pranks you could do dressing it up as a dalek, and zooming around london.