For the vast majority of applications, it's being dealt with by the move to 64 bit. There may be some specialty devices that remain 32 bit, and therefore require a workaround, but we won't have a good idea of what those are until, oh, about 2031.
If your analysis is correct, then the patent system is more broken than I thought. Locking an idea away for 14 years to save 10 hours of work is contradictory. Perhaps if companies were forced to license their patents at reasonable rates it would make sense, but as it is now getting the patent means that the holder is the only one who can use the 10-hour solution, and everyone else has to go back to the drawing board and find a different, likely less efficient, solution. If it's a business method patent, the whole class of solutions will be patented and everyone else is out of luck.
It's also worth noting that Intel already has 25nm flash production, so they're well on their way to having that for processors as well. Even if TSMC goes to 28nm tomorrow, it would still be hard to keep ahead of Intel. This news doesn't surprise me at all.
And I suspect it will be stillborn, because Asus' PR dept does know how to do its job. $400 and good reviews? I think the Eee Pad will be the benchmark for Honeycomb.
Just some anecdotal evidence on that point: I was planning to buy a new laptop this year after Llano drops, but then I saw the Transformer... If they can even make me think about abandoning a full on laptop, I don't see where netbooks stand a chance.
That way companies wanted satellites launched will contact SpaceX, not ULA or Arianespace
NASA is not a launch services provider. Realistically, ULA is pretty much a DoD provider, but SpaceX is competing for that business now as well. The main commercial target is the Ariane 5, and at this point SpaceX seems to have them beat on cost. Ariane has flown 50-some times, though, which is attractive in a launch vehicle.
Just because someone doesn't have the same degree of response as you doesn't mean they're in denial. I, for one, am "alarmed about what is going on in fukushima right now," but I don't think that calls for cries that all nuclear power is unsafe. I think that the appropriate response is to look at it the same way as an airplane crash, take it seriously and figure out what to do differently going forward. Here's a hint: do what they did at Fukushima 4-6, not what they did at Fukushima 1-3.
It's worth noting that there are 6 reactors at Fukushima, and it's only the oldest 3 that had notable problems. The lesson here is not that nuclear is unsafe, it's that reactors built after 1974 can withstand a 9.0 earthquake and a 15m tsunami. And that we should be retiring older designs at the end of their design lifespan, instead of keeping them limping along because we can't get support to build new ones.
Not that you're wrong, but Microsoft, Comcast, AT&T, and Goldman Sachs are all American - Western - companies. There are liars and thieves everywhere, we're already fucked, and you should be careful who you do business with no matter where they are from.
Imagine if the RIAA trials had had billion dollar companies (and their comparably priced lawyers) on both sides. I suspect the judges would have had to get an education just to understand the replies.
I always assume the launch of a new rocket will be delayed by a year and a day. 2012-Q4 stated == 2014-Q1 actual. That was pretty close for the Falcon 2 (2008-Q4 v 2010-Q2), and looks like it will be close for the Taurus 2 (2011-Q2 v (currently) 2012-Q1). Of course, government projects are another ball of wax, Ares I was what, 4 years behind schedule?
GP is still right about saving overhead that's shared with the F9, as opposed to building something like the Ares V that you have to support in it's entirety. You've hit on my pet peeve about SpaceX, though, which is that they quote things based on what they are capable of, not what there's a market for.
They've been planning the 3 core configuration for a while, and their already flying the 1 core design, so I don't think the complexity of multiple engines will be a problem. The news today is 1) the upgraded engines and 2) the propellant crossfeed, which combine to double their projected capability. They've hinted at a Merlin 2 (F1 class) that could replace all 9 Merlin 1s on the Falcon 9, and provide a Saturn V class Falcon X with a cluster of 5, but there is no realistic timeframe for it yet, whereas FH could believably be ready in 2013. (They've also hinted at a 3 core Falcon X Heavy, which would be insane, but since there's not a market for it I don't think it will happen.)
What you're looking for is not a capability of the Falcon Heavy, but their Dragon spacecraft which launches on the Falcon 9. They recovered it from orbit in December, so I'll let them show it to you: Specs, Mission update. Short version is that it's your basic capsule design with water landing, they're hoping to have the next version be a rocket landing on ground, using the abort motors.
Slashdot Mirror
For the vast majority of applications, it's being dealt with by the move to 64 bit. There may be some specialty devices that remain 32 bit, and therefore require a workaround, but we won't have a good idea of what those are until, oh, about 2031.
And your luggage should end up on the moon.
Isn't that kind of the goal?
If your analysis is correct, then the patent system is more broken than I thought. Locking an idea away for 14 years to save 10 hours of work is contradictory. Perhaps if companies were forced to license their patents at reasonable rates it would make sense, but as it is now getting the patent means that the holder is the only one who can use the 10-hour solution, and everyone else has to go back to the drawing board and find a different, likely less efficient, solution. If it's a business method patent, the whole class of solutions will be patented and everyone else is out of luck.
Are you sure you posted this on the right story? It's hard to tell from the content.
Funny, I was just thinking that everyone has to learn a new language to communicate after they get married.
It's also worth noting that Intel already has 25nm flash production, so they're well on their way to having that for processors as well. Even if TSMC goes to 28nm tomorrow, it would still be hard to keep ahead of Intel. This news doesn't surprise me at all.
Just to provide a little more emphasis to your point, here's how it currently works:
Then the Air Force goes to ULA and buys an Atlas 5 or a Delta 4, since those are the only rockets they have still in service.
I think someone in the DoD is a little concerned about having painted themselves into a corner
And I suspect it will be stillborn, because Asus' PR dept does know how to do its job. $400 and good reviews? I think the Eee Pad will be the benchmark for Honeycomb.
Just some anecdotal evidence on that point: I was planning to buy a new laptop this year after Llano drops, but then I saw the Transformer... If they can even make me think about abandoning a full on laptop, I don't see where netbooks stand a chance.
Speaking of which: http://twitter.com/#!/Voyager2
Look, I'm not real happy about supporting MS against I4I either, but, well: "The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. Nothing less, nothing more."
Just because they happen to be right doesn't mean I have to like them.
How, exactly, does one play an RTS with a controller? I can't even begin to imagine it.
Minor correction:
That way companies wanted satellites launched will contact SpaceX, not ULA or Arianespace
NASA is not a launch services provider. Realistically, ULA is pretty much a DoD provider, but SpaceX is competing for that business now as well. The main commercial target is the Ariane 5, and at this point SpaceX seems to have them beat on cost. Ariane has flown 50-some times, though, which is attractive in a launch vehicle.
Ah, damn. I was going off the BBC article, and didn't know that point.
Just because someone doesn't have the same degree of response as you doesn't mean they're in denial. I, for one, am "alarmed about what is going on in fukushima right now," but I don't think that calls for cries that all nuclear power is unsafe. I think that the appropriate response is to look at it the same way as an airplane crash, take it seriously and figure out what to do differently going forward. Here's a hint: do what they did at Fukushima 4-6, not what they did at Fukushima 1-3.
It's worth noting that there are 6 reactors at Fukushima, and it's only the oldest 3 that had notable problems. The lesson here is not that nuclear is unsafe, it's that reactors built after 1974 can withstand a 9.0 earthquake and a 15m tsunami. And that we should be retiring older designs at the end of their design lifespan, instead of keeping them limping along because we can't get support to build new ones.
A good pedigree is a reasonable first estimate of education.
Not that you're wrong, but Microsoft, Comcast, AT&T, and Goldman Sachs are all American - Western - companies. There are liars and thieves everywhere, we're already fucked, and you should be careful who you do business with no matter where they are from.
I had to see this after I'd already commented, didn't I. I've even got mod points and everything!
Imagine if the RIAA trials had had billion dollar companies (and their comparably priced lawyers) on both sides. I suspect the judges would have had to get an education just to understand the replies.
I always assume the launch of a new rocket will be delayed by a year and a day. 2012-Q4 stated == 2014-Q1 actual. That was pretty close for the Falcon 2 (2008-Q4 v 2010-Q2), and looks like it will be close for the Taurus 2 (2011-Q2 v (currently) 2012-Q1). Of course, government projects are another ball of wax, Ares I was what, 4 years behind schedule?
GP is still right about saving overhead that's shared with the F9, as opposed to building something like the Ares V that you have to support in it's entirety. You've hit on my pet peeve about SpaceX, though, which is that they quote things based on what they are capable of, not what there's a market for.
They've been planning the 3 core configuration for a while, and their already flying the 1 core design, so I don't think the complexity of multiple engines will be a problem. The news today is 1) the upgraded engines and 2) the propellant crossfeed, which combine to double their projected capability. They've hinted at a Merlin 2 (F1 class) that could replace all 9 Merlin 1s on the Falcon 9, and provide a Saturn V class Falcon X with a cluster of 5, but there is no realistic timeframe for it yet, whereas FH could believably be ready in 2013. (They've also hinted at a 3 core Falcon X Heavy, which would be insane, but since there's not a market for it I don't think it will happen.)
And then they promptly refused to fund it.
What you're looking for is not a capability of the Falcon Heavy, but their Dragon spacecraft which launches on the Falcon 9. They recovered it from orbit in December, so I'll let them show it to you: Specs, Mission update. Short version is that it's your basic capsule design with water landing, they're hoping to have the next version be a rocket landing on ground, using the abort motors.