To be pedant, those rocks are "thought" to be from Mars. What puzzles me the most is the fact that there is a number of these martian meteorites and there's a Wiki article about them and all, but I can't find anything about meteorites from Earth: I mean the escape velocity of Mars on Earth is more than enough to eject a rock into the exosphere, whence it should fall back to Earth (as a meteorite?). Ubi sunt?
SpaceX is blowing the competition away. Even the Chinese have said they can't match SpaceX's prices.
I'd like to have some reliable sources for that, because SpaceX said that the launch cost for a Falcon 9 was $35-55 million, than they revised it to $50-56 million, than they published the estimated launch cost ($54 million) for the still non-existent Falcon 9 v1.1 and stopped publishing the costs for the actual Falcon 9 v1.0. The only commercial launch so far was CRS-1: it's a Falcon 9 + Dragon mission that NASA paid approx. $133 million ($1.6 billion for 12 launches) and it carried just 15% of the advertised payload and it should be a discounted price (12 launches contract + secondary payload).
By the way, the launch cost for a Atlas V is $125 million, for a Russian Proton M (21 ton payload) $85 million, for an Indian PSLV (3 ton payload) $17 million, for an Ukrainian (3.7 ton) $14 million [1].
No, that's a link to all the open source software included in MacOSX, or are you telling me that Apple developed OpenAL, zlib and SQLite (among many others)? Not to mention that all that APSL software is GPL incompatible, DFSG incompatible and, ironically enough, BSD incompatible. Nice try though.
The sanctions against South Africa had positive effects like devaluing the rand 17 times and so making diamonds much cheaper. Sanctions against Saudi Arabia on the other hand could rise the oil price.
Masse to LEO:
Vega: ~1.5 T
Falcon 9: ~10 T
Arian 5: ~20 T
Not exactly:
Vega: 1.5 t (LEO)
Falcon 9: 8.5-9 t (LEO)
Ariane 5: 16-21 t (LEO)
Falcon 9: 3.4 t (GTO)
Ariane 5: 6.2-10.5 t (GTO)
Completely different rocket classes, hence completely different prices.
What is the cost per kilogram delivered into LEO? The Falcon 9 can deliver 13 metric tons to LEO for $54 million, or $4 million per metric ton. That PSLV rocket that you are quoting only puts 3 metric tons to LEO for the $17 million, or about $5 million (plus change) per metric ton. The $54 million is the quote on the SpaceX Falcon 9 web page if you want the source.
That link is about the still non-existent Falcon 9 v1.1, that's why I'm very dubious: it's just trash talking, smoke and mirrors. They said the Falcon 1 would have been the first reusable and cheap launch system, it wasn't; then it was the time of Falcon 5, it was never built; then NASA came to the rescue and fully funded Falcon 9, neither this time it was reusable, however they say Falcon 9 v1.1 will be: I'll believe it when I see it.
Just to point out, according to the original sheets the planned launch cost for Falcon 9 was $35-55 m for 8.5-9 t (2007), in 2010 it was already $50-56 m, now it's "under $60 million".
So being generous, i.e. SpaceX 2010 prices vs. PSLV 2012 prices:
Falcon 9 v1.0 | 8.5t-9.0t | $56 million | 6.22-7 million $/t
PSLV | 3.25 t | $17 million | 5.23 million $/t
Russian and Ukrainian launches are still cheaper. I don't know about Chinese launches, but I'd bet their cheaper as well...
It should be pointed out that SpaceX has figured out how to reduce the cost of its launches to the point that the subsidy needed for Arianespace to compete would be embarrassing and noticeable to EU members and their constituents. Keep in mind SpaceX is making their rockets so cheap that even the Chinese don't think they can underbid SpaceX.
Sources? Because India's PSLV has a flyaway cost of 17 million $ per launch and Russian launch vehicles are even cheaper. SpaceX said they were developing a reusable launch system, but until now they haven't.
Comparing apples to oranges, Ariane 5 is designed for heavier payloads. We could say that Vega (which in turn is designed for light payloads) is much cheaper than Falcon 9 (~41 million $ vs. ~60 million $).
The article is about the most common vulnerabilities on "pc's with kaspersky software installed": it is not about most secure software. This report just says that many people, who use kaspersky, do not keep updated their java and flash. Secunia rates the unpatched vulnerabilities of Windows 7 as highly critical. It's just that big companies (the most likely customers of kaspersky) don't use W7 as much as Java.
None of that matters -- if China isn't directly threatening Europe or Israel, then the US doesn't give a flying fuck what China does. China has been able to rise precisely because it's located far from those countries and thus wouldn't trigger alarm bells from the their powerful US foreign policy lobbies. As for any rising potential threat to the US itself, that doesn't matter -- the US doesn't pursue its own national security, just the national security of other nations/continents who have strong lobbies in Washington.
What about Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, South Vietnam (R.I.P.), Singapore?
Are you kidding, trolling or are you just misinformed? Windowmaker dockapps could retrieve weather infos from remotely accessed sources ten years ago at the least, there were/are dozens of email dockapp, there are dockapps that notify when a website updates and there are even web radio dockapps. Perhaps the 2004 patent granted to surfcast is invalid, for sure the 2011 patent granted to MS is invalid and I hope that this litigation could invalidate it (at least a 2004 patent expires before a 2011 patent).
PC gaming is not gaining anything, it's just shrinking less. Console gaming revenues crumbled in the last two years, pc gaming revenues just shrunk. I'm talking about revenues, because that's what matter to companies, especially when they have to choose between developing for the new generation of consoles or for personal computers.
Neither there is scientific evidence that a wall will crumble or that an electric plant will cause an electric shock when engineers deny qualifications to buildings. Neither there is scientific evidence that you will be eaten by a shark if you dive into the sea of Tasmania, though there could be a "SHARKS no swimming" sign nearby. It's a matter of reasonable risks, often codified with technical rules, norms and laws.
There was an earthquake swarm going on for months when they said there weren't risks. In many Italian towns you cannot drive trucks, and oftentimes even cars, to the center of the city because vehicles produced vibrations can damage old buildings (and that's true), yet after months of strong vibrations they just reassured the population without considering a check-up of the many old buildings of the area, nor of the important buildings (e.g. hospitals, offices) that should work 100% in case of disasters.
If I, as an engineer, certify that a plant is safe when it may be not, I can be jailed. I can't see why the same can't apply to this case.
Slashdot Mirror
To be pedant, those rocks are "thought" to be from Mars. What puzzles me the most is the fact that there is a number of these martian meteorites and there's a Wiki article about them and all, but I can't find anything about meteorites from Earth: I mean the escape velocity of Mars on Earth is more than enough to eject a rock into the exosphere, whence it should fall back to Earth (as a meteorite?). Ubi sunt?
Well, in that case a simple diff command could be enough to check if it's running the code it's supposed to run.
Naaa, those figures are from the Symbian era, WP is a much more laughable competitor: iPhone in the third quarter of 2012 sold 26.9 million, 27.04 in the fourth quarter. Android sold more. I might concede that it is not as disastrous as it seems: it is inconceivably worse.
Sorry, I pasted the wrong link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_orbital_launch_systems . The source for the Atlas V cost is a PDF with various data estimated by the FAA. For the PSLV there are multiple sources: http://www.space.com/1777-israel-chooses-indian-pslv-launch-spy-satellite.html , http://techie-buzz.com/science/isro-pslv-launch.html etc.
SpaceX is blowing the competition away. Even the Chinese have said they can't match SpaceX's prices.
I'd like to have some reliable sources for that, because SpaceX said that the launch cost for a Falcon 9 was $35-55 million, than they revised it to $50-56 million, than they published the estimated launch cost ($54 million) for the still non-existent Falcon 9 v1.1 and stopped publishing the costs for the actual Falcon 9 v1.0. The only commercial launch so far was CRS-1: it's a Falcon 9 + Dragon mission that NASA paid approx. $133 million ($1.6 billion for 12 launches) and it carried just 15% of the advertised payload and it should be a discounted price (12 launches contract + secondary payload).
By the way, the launch cost for a Atlas V is $125 million, for a Russian Proton M (21 ton payload) $85 million, for an Indian PSLV (3 ton payload) $17 million, for an Ukrainian (3.7 ton) $14 million [1].
No, that's a link to all the open source software included in MacOSX, or are you telling me that Apple developed OpenAL, zlib and SQLite (among many others)? Not to mention that all that APSL software is GPL incompatible, DFSG incompatible and, ironically enough, BSD incompatible. Nice try though.
It's a deterrent: if none takes action they'll go on with these practices with something else (LCD, Plasma, Hard Disks... everything).
Ahem: "For comparison, the other free antivirus software, including Avast, AVG and Panda Cloud did". You know, there is not just the title.
Freiburg != Munich
The sanctions against South Africa had positive effects like devaluing the rand 17 times and so making diamonds much cheaper. Sanctions against Saudi Arabia on the other hand could rise the oil price.
Masse to LEO: Vega: ~1.5 T Falcon 9: ~10 T Arian 5: ~20 T
Not exactly:
Vega: 1.5 t (LEO)
Falcon 9: 8.5-9 t (LEO)
Ariane 5: 16-21 t (LEO)
Falcon 9: 3.4 t (GTO)
Ariane 5: 6.2-10.5 t (GTO)
Completely different rocket classes, hence completely different prices.
What is the cost per kilogram delivered into LEO? The Falcon 9 can deliver 13 metric tons to LEO for $54 million, or $4 million per metric ton. That PSLV rocket that you are quoting only puts 3 metric tons to LEO for the $17 million, or about $5 million (plus change) per metric ton. The $54 million is the quote on the SpaceX Falcon 9 web page if you want the source.
That link is about the still non-existent Falcon 9 v1.1, that's why I'm very dubious: it's just trash talking, smoke and mirrors. They said the Falcon 1 would have been the first reusable and cheap launch system, it wasn't; then it was the time of Falcon 5, it was never built; then NASA came to the rescue and fully funded Falcon 9, neither this time it was reusable, however they say Falcon 9 v1.1 will be: I'll believe it when I see it.
Just to point out, according to the original sheets the planned launch cost for Falcon 9 was $35-55 m for 8.5-9 t (2007), in 2010 it was already $50-56 m, now it's "under $60 million".
So being generous, i.e. SpaceX 2010 prices vs. PSLV 2012 prices:
Falcon 9 v1.0 | 8.5t-9.0t | $56 million | 6.22-7 million $/t
PSLV | 3.25 t | $17 million | 5.23 million $/t
Russian and Ukrainian launches are still cheaper. I don't know about Chinese launches, but I'd bet their cheaper as well...
What has win9x to do with Windows 2000?
It should be pointed out that SpaceX has figured out how to reduce the cost of its launches to the point that the subsidy needed for Arianespace to compete would be embarrassing and noticeable to EU members and their constituents. Keep in mind SpaceX is making their rockets so cheap that even the Chinese don't think they can underbid SpaceX.
Sources? Because India's PSLV has a flyaway cost of 17 million $ per launch and Russian launch vehicles are even cheaper. SpaceX said they were developing a reusable launch system, but until now they haven't.
Comparing apples to oranges, Ariane 5 is designed for heavier payloads. We could say that Vega (which in turn is designed for light payloads) is much cheaper than Falcon 9 (~41 million $ vs. ~60 million $).
My Sony cd/dvd player dvp-s535d still works and I bought it 12 years ago.
Secunia: "the most severe unpatched Secunia advisory affecting Microsoft Windows 7, with all vendor patches applied, is rated Highly critical". Kudos to MS for making (some of us believe they made) a secure OS.
The article is about the most common vulnerabilities on "pc's with kaspersky software installed": it is not about most secure software. This report just says that many people, who use kaspersky, do not keep updated their java and flash. Secunia rates the unpatched vulnerabilities of Windows 7 as highly critical. It's just that big companies (the most likely customers of kaspersky) don't use W7 as much as Java.
None of that matters -- if China isn't directly threatening Europe or Israel, then the US doesn't give a flying fuck what China does. China has been able to rise precisely because it's located far from those countries and thus wouldn't trigger alarm bells from the their powerful US foreign policy lobbies. As for any rising potential threat to the US itself, that doesn't matter -- the US doesn't pursue its own national security, just the national security of other nations/continents who have strong lobbies in Washington.
What about Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, South Vietnam (R.I.P.), Singapore?
Are you kidding, trolling or are you just misinformed? Windowmaker dockapps could retrieve weather infos from remotely accessed sources ten years ago at the least, there were/are dozens of email dockapp, there are dockapps that notify when a website updates and there are even web radio dockapps. Perhaps the 2004 patent granted to surfcast is invalid, for sure the 2011 patent granted to MS is invalid and I hope that this litigation could invalidate it (at least a 2004 patent expires before a 2011 patent).
Dunno, I used dockapps on windowmaker well before they granted the patent to Microsoft.
PC gaming is not gaining anything, it's just shrinking less. Console gaming revenues crumbled in the last two years, pc gaming revenues just shrunk. I'm talking about revenues, because that's what matter to companies, especially when they have to choose between developing for the new generation of consoles or for personal computers.
Neither there is scientific evidence that a wall will crumble or that an electric plant will cause an electric shock when engineers deny qualifications to buildings. Neither there is scientific evidence that you will be eaten by a shark if you dive into the sea of Tasmania, though there could be a "SHARKS no swimming" sign nearby. It's a matter of reasonable risks, often codified with technical rules, norms and laws.
There was an earthquake swarm going on for months when they said there weren't risks. In many Italian towns you cannot drive trucks, and oftentimes even cars, to the center of the city because vehicles produced vibrations can damage old buildings (and that's true), yet after months of strong vibrations they just reassured the population without considering a check-up of the many old buildings of the area, nor of the important buildings (e.g. hospitals, offices) that should work 100% in case of disasters.
If I, as an engineer, certify that a plant is safe when it may be not, I can be jailed. I can't see why the same can't apply to this case.
Don't amass millions of quasi-slaves then.
Einstein was wrong about this one, if it is in fact an authentic Einstein quote. Can someone please verify for me?
Given the fact that Einstein never defined "quite childish" the Bible like TFA asserts, you may have a point.