I still don't understand why they would do that, it absolutely slaughters performance to return to the launch site. You're much better off landing downrange, and then refueling it and sending it back if need be.
They're a piece of shit, the fuel is MUCH more expensive than gasoline or electric and the energy density is horrible, and the fuel cells don't last, and there's no distribution network either.
Hydrogen fuel cells have been around for about 50 years, and they're still not in any major way practical. Sure it demoes well as a technology, but it's impractical in the real world.
Electric cars are actually practical, they're real world tech, you can buy them, and get in and routinely drive them.
Don't forget, electric vehicles are used routinely in industry.
Hydrogen vehicles... no. (except for space rockets).
Actually, in that precise scene they were pushing it back in only because they weren't allowed to have running vehicles in the garage section, but the voice-over implied that they'd run out of power.
The thing is, we're at peak oil now, and we're going to be peak coal in only about 20 years, so the cost is going up anyway, we either build out now, or later; and you may have noticed we've been held hostage by gas suppliers for example.
Your figure for how many wind turbines is also completely deceptive. The point of wind turbines is that they can be sited on farm land, and don't take up any significant land area; you can farm underneath without problems. The wind we have in the UK is actually enough to power the whole of Europe.
On the contrary your completely logic free, ad hominen post just demonstrates that you're only an ignorant animal that reacts to arguments you don't like only with insults. You lose.
No you route between a few *different* frequencies with basically no delay. You only need a few frequencies to avoid interference, just colour the space so no two bubbles of transmission volume are the same frequency. (Having a few different frequencies is how cell phones work for much the same reasons.)
You've also obviously not understood the point about contention ratios; hosts are only sending for a fraction of the time, they don't need full capacity all the time. In fact most of the time they don't need any.
So if I've got an 11 Mbit/s access point, I can give ~11Mbit/s access to (say) 5-50 users and they won't notice too much difference. Essentially ALL internet access is (in reality) a contended service. You can get uncontended, it's just much more expensive.
You don't need one per desk, you need one per n users, where n is the designed contention ratio.
So the total bandwidth winds out to be per volume, but you can design in how much bandwidth you want to support.
The thing about latency is that there's virtually no minimum, some routing techniques give 1 or just a few bits of delay at whatever speed you're using (say 16 bits at 100 Mbit/s, which is well under a microsecond per hop); you don't necessarily have to wait for receiving the whole packet before routing it on.
I don't necessarily agree about the latency thing, individual nodes can have access to two different frequencies and can be listening and transmitting at the same time, with very low delays indeed.
And the problem about having too many nodes trying to use the same internet access point, all you're saying is that you don't have enough access points. But then so what? No network, not even wired networks, can survive oversubscription of any one node.
Actually, it's counterintuitive. In the old days radios used to "shout" and then you can only get one sender on each frequency.
Modern kit adjusts the loudness (intensity) of the radio so that it just reaches the next node, and then they route it on.
Provided the environment is at least somewhat lossy, then there's no finite bandwidth- the more nodes you have, the more bandwidth you have, in proportion.
It's a bit like when people talk to each other in a classroom, there's lots of information exchanged, whereas they all have to shut up when the teacher talks to the whole class and there's far less exchanged in total (although it's hopefully more important). That's also pretty much how cell phones work.
b) Van Allen belts = really nasty radiation that the beanstalk would have to go right through (the shielding is too heavy until you can launch about a thousand tonnes, which would be horrifically expensive to build). Think: continuous dental x-ray for a day or two.
I'm in the UK, my ISP seems to be intercepting DNS traffic as well, I get bogus DNS results even when I try to use other DNS servers.
At least, that's what happened for one site I was trying to access (which didn't have any child porn), but accessing the same DNS servers from websites or via a proxy gave different DNS addresses...
Really, really annoying.
In the end I hardwired that one site in my hosts file, and it worked fine. So that's always a workaround for this lying-in-the-DNS bollocks. OTOH if you really are looking at illegal stuff like child porn they would be able to packet trace you- so you'd still be screwed.
Slashdot Mirror
I still don't understand why they would do that, it absolutely slaughters performance to return to the launch site. You're much better off landing downrange, and then refueling it and sending it back if need be.
Actually windows 7 has at least folded ping and ping6 into one command, you add a flag to the ping command if you specifically want to use IPv6.
The *definition* of tie is that the winner cannot be determined because it's too close to call, as here..
>Cheney's old company made a sickening haul and nobody seemed to do more than bat an eye at this corruption
FTFY
I'm gonna wait for the autobiography ;-)
Yup, and a Mac is more expensive than a PC, and the PC does more and is faster. Which one is more presitigous and desirable to own?
It's like that, only with cars.
They're a piece of shit, the fuel is MUCH more expensive than gasoline or electric and the energy density is horrible, and the fuel cells don't last, and there's no distribution network either.
Hydrogen fuel cells have been around for about 50 years, and they're still not in any major way practical. Sure it demoes well as a technology, but it's impractical in the real world.
Electric cars are actually practical, they're real world tech, you can buy them, and get in and routinely drive them.
Don't forget, electric vehicles are used routinely in industry.
Hydrogen vehicles... no. (except for space rockets).
Actually, in that precise scene they were pushing it back in only because they weren't allowed to have running vehicles in the garage section, but the voice-over implied that they'd run out of power.
How IRONic!
Nahhh. I'm pretty sure it's Lithium ION batteries. Pretty funny, spell checkers can't handle it when you misspell it to another English word.
They had hydroelectricity back in 1899 in a few places though.
Now eternal september is upon the face of the net, and all is woe (hand wring).
The thing is, we're at peak oil now, and we're going to be peak coal in only about 20 years, so the cost is going up anyway, we either build out now, or later; and you may have noticed we've been held hostage by gas suppliers for example.
Your figure for how many wind turbines is also completely deceptive. The point of wind turbines is that they can be sited on farm land, and don't take up any significant land area; you can farm underneath without problems. The wind we have in the UK is actually enough to power the whole of Europe.
On the contrary your completely logic free, ad hominen post just demonstrates that you're only an ignorant animal that reacts to arguments you don't like only with insults. You lose.
Imagine that there was some kind of natural disaster like a disease that killed everyone that didn't have the genes for child cancer?
That's what has happened with other diseases.
I want to know when the print edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica will have this feature!
Oh wait. Never.
And that's why this is a bad idea. The Britannica did just fine for centuries without it.
The oak tree published that you should use Fibonacci sequence arrangements in what journal exactly?
Prior art has to be published.
5 year payoff is generally considered a good investment (It's an APR of 14% per annum)
12 year payoff is usually considered a fairly bad investment (It's an APR of 5% per annum)
And your money is at risk in both cases...
Sure, a 10:1 contention ratio is doubtless more appropriate, that's one wireless access point for every 10 desks.
Minimal graph colouring is difficult, but non minimal isn't hard.
And as to your last point, if you need more net or peak bandwidth, you just add more or better capable wireless points. It's largely the same.
No you route between a few *different* frequencies with basically no delay. You only need a few frequencies to avoid interference, just colour the space so no two bubbles of transmission volume are the same frequency. (Having a few different frequencies is how cell phones work for much the same reasons.)
You've also obviously not understood the point about contention ratios; hosts are only sending for a fraction of the time, they don't need full capacity all the time. In fact most of the time they don't need any.
So if I've got an 11 Mbit/s access point, I can give ~11Mbit/s access to (say) 5-50 users and they won't notice too much difference. Essentially ALL internet access is (in reality) a contended service. You can get uncontended, it's just much more expensive.
You don't need one per desk, you need one per n users, where n is the designed contention ratio.
So the total bandwidth winds out to be per volume, but you can design in how much bandwidth you want to support.
The thing about latency is that there's virtually no minimum, some routing techniques give 1 or just a few bits of delay at whatever speed you're using (say 16 bits at 100 Mbit/s, which is well under a microsecond per hop); you don't necessarily have to wait for receiving the whole packet before routing it on.
I don't necessarily agree about the latency thing, individual nodes can have access to two different frequencies and can be listening and transmitting at the same time, with very low delays indeed.
And the problem about having too many nodes trying to use the same internet access point, all you're saying is that you don't have enough access points. But then so what? No network, not even wired networks, can survive oversubscription of any one node.
Actually, it's counterintuitive. In the old days radios used to "shout" and then you can only get one sender on each frequency.
Modern kit adjusts the loudness (intensity) of the radio so that it just reaches the next node, and then they route it on.
Provided the environment is at least somewhat lossy, then there's no finite bandwidth- the more nodes you have, the more bandwidth you have, in proportion.
It's a bit like when people talk to each other in a classroom, there's lots of information exchanged, whereas they all have to shut up when the teacher talks to the whole class and there's far less exchanged in total (although it's hopefully more important). That's also pretty much how cell phones work.
How about no?
a) no carbon nanotubes = you don't go
b) Van Allen belts = really nasty radiation that the beanstalk would have to go right through (the shielding is too heavy until you can launch about a thousand tonnes, which would be horrifically expensive to build). Think: continuous dental x-ray for a day or two.
I'm in the UK, my ISP seems to be intercepting DNS traffic as well, I get bogus DNS results even when I try to use other DNS servers.
At least, that's what happened for one site I was trying to access (which didn't have any child porn), but accessing the same DNS servers from websites or via a proxy gave different DNS addresses...
Really, really annoying.
In the end I hardwired that one site in my hosts file, and it worked fine. So that's always a workaround for this lying-in-the-DNS bollocks. OTOH if you really are looking at illegal stuff like child porn they would be able to packet trace you- so you'd still be screwed.