What do you want? Some sort of pocket calculator??:)
No! I want a piece of consumer electronics. Do I need to wait for my car to boot? My DVD player? My VCR? My TV? Of course not. Nobody would tolerate it (apart from TiVO owners oddly enough, probably because they never get turned off).
It's perfectly possible for a computer with a multitasking OS to start in a couple of seconds. It's possible to make them cheaper. It's possible to make them easier to use. Yet this doesn't happen. Why? Because we only have a choice of an OS that's slow and resource hungry, a free OS that's even slower and trying to be the same, and an OS that requires even more expensive hardware, and is just as slow.
It still needs the horrible, overpriced, noisy, bluky, complicated set of bits and pieces that is a modern PC, still takes forver to start, but vendors still assume everyone wants a GUI. So, it boots to a GUI that doesn't even have a consistent look and feel.
There's no need for them to be that expensive either. A Sony Playstation costs a lot less than that, and has more than enough power for a typical home user.
The Windows PC is about as far from a home uers system as it's possible to get without also making it totally unsuitable for businesses.
In reality, the correct way to go is to step back and look at how succesful home computers worked. Take for example, the commodire 64. This had a user interface that came up in about a second, and was immediately useable. Nobody ever looked at my C64 in a confused way wondering what it does. They knew. It was obvious.
A windows PC on the other hand is a nasty complicated mess. Even the wiring needs some expertese in electronics, and then you have all the cryptic issues with drivers and operating systems. The average user doesn't want to care.
The solution is to produce a standardised simpler system. An all-in-one unit with standard components, that will plug into a TV, and starts with a BAPSIC interpreter. Apps should be loaded with a "load" command. We don't need a mouse. Those are only useful for pixel addressing. In practive they confuse the user.
I'm surprised that a comment like this comes from an MS spokesman. While there may well be that many Windows desktops, they're clearly missing the big picture if that's their target.
Even people who don't use a windows PC will be using windows. Even Linux users, if they use the web. Many sites, like Slashdot, are running through a windows server. And even if you're not interested in the net, Windows will be on a PDA, in your car, and on your set top box.
That does make sense. People may assume that the entire CD is GPL if a couple of apps are. Their IP guys probably feel a lot more comfortable this way.
Ah yes - "Be the president". He was being the president. He was sufficiently in control that he knew he had staff to deal with the situation, and there was no need to panic the children.
I think he'd be more of a asset looking at potential threats. The D0D don't need cheaper military hardware, but they do need to know how a poorer nation might go about it.
That's unfair. While I agree that Bush is a fool, many people who set up businesses fail. Some of the most successful millionaires have failed several times.
Didn't look capable sitting like an idiot in the classroom when he could of put the powers in action to stop the pentagon from being hit.
True. Any other president would have leapt into a fighter plane, parachuted onto the hijacked plane, wrestled with the terrorists, and brought the plane home.
What the hell was he supposed to do? There are other people to take action. The president is just a chief executive. Other people can make decisions without his say-so.
Democracy, in it's current implementation (And the US is meant to be a democratic republic, before anyone who get's their political knowledge from civilization tries to nitpick), is a placebo that gives the impression that people actually have some say in the matter. In reality, this isn't the case. We simply get to choose our dictators.
Anyone who actually believes ideas like "anyone can become president" has to ask themselves why the last 2 dozen presidents have all been multi-millionaires with strong party affiliations. Congress is made up of cronies of the president and the guy who came second, and the supreme court is appointed by the guy who makes the laws.
The only true democracy is a country with no political freedom. The only way for the people to get the leaders they want is to kill the ones they don't in a bloody revolution.
Yes; it would need a much better rocket then we have now. I'm sure someone will come up with a better way of slowing spacecraft down.
This is why I'm so cynical about the X-Prize. Sure, it encourages some innovation, but getting to and from orbital speeds seems like the real engineering challenge.
Not really. The Chinese reportedly used thick sheets of (admittedly chemically treated) oak on some of their early unmanned launches.
I didn't believe you at first. But I looked, and was surprised to find they did. (Personally, I would have thought Halloumi cheese, which seems to be totally impervious heat, but perhaps they can't get hold of it in China).
I think it's a safe bet that Rutan won't be using such tiles on SpaceShipTwo.... A properly designed ablative heatshield is much easier to remove and replace than shuttle tiles are to maintain. You just unbolt the old one, slap on the new one and you're ready to go... with tiles you have to check they're all in place, check they're all secure, and make sure there are no bumps larger than about a millimeter over the entire underside. That's a huge job, and one of the reasons why the shuttle takes so long to turn around.
I suspect nobody will never use those tiles again. In hindsight, they were probably a mistake. They were also one of the many reasons the Shuttle was so late. They were still sticking them on after it was delivered. The problem, apparently, was that they break as soon as you look at them.
Presumably they could avoid any shielding at all if they could slow down enough before re-entry, and just hover down on a rocket.
The problem is that it's an arbitrary height. Of course it can be done. You just need a good enough rocket and a light enough plane. Why 100km though? Only because it's a round number. 80km or 130km would be every bit as logical as the boundary to space. The rules would have it that anything that gets to 99999 metres is a plane, but anything that gets to 100001 metres is a spaceship. Are those 2 metres really important? Only according to the rules.
Charles Lindbergh is famous. That's because he achieved something. Do you know who was the first person to make a flight of 100 miles, or 1000 miles? He's probably not in the record books. Lindbergh wouldn't have been if he flew from New York to Anchorage. The Atlantic was a natural barrier.
Oh, come on! The reason it survived re-entry is because it wasn't fast enough to cause any problems. Sure, it made it into space, but that really is semantics. Space doesn't suddenly start at 100km. Most people would consider it to be in space if it got there and stayed there in orbit. This is a velocity thing more than an altitude thing. If it got to 40000km/h then it would be a spacecraft.
Maybe for another $10 million they would have been able to provide something that could stay in space, but that wasn't their goal (and even then it would still be cheap).
It would be very cheap. But getting it to stay there is difficult. Getting it back again is also pretty tough.
What is your definition of a spacecraft?
Don't know about the grandparent, but I'd say it's a vessel that goes up and stays in orbit indefinitely (or at least for a couple of orbits), and if it's "manned", I'll add that it should be able to return the occupants safely.
proper re-entry from near orbital speeds (which are required for any useful flights other than just oooh-isn't-it-pretty quick hops)
This is probably the main engineering problem. Manoeuvering and life support have some engineering issues, but essentially, it's thrusters and CO2 scrubbers. Not exactly rocket science. Well, it is, but you get the idea...
Heat shields on the other hand do a very tough job. The protective tiles on the Space Shuttle, for example, are expensive, and very fragile. Ablative heatshields are a possibility, but they do add to the per flight cost.
This just an altitude record. Not a space flight! There's only so much you can do in suborbital. If you just want to get up there to launch a satellite, then you might as well simply use a big missile, and put the effort into recovering the lower stages.
When they manage to get to 3 times that altitude, then its time to be impressed.
Slashdot Mirror
Bill? The MSX was invented by Kazuhiko Nishi. MS just provided BASIC. They provided the language for a lot of computers in the early days.
What do you want? Some sort of pocket calculator?? :)
No! I want a piece of consumer electronics. Do I need to wait for my car to boot? My DVD player? My VCR? My TV? Of course not. Nobody would tolerate it (apart from TiVO owners oddly enough, probably because they never get turned off).
It's perfectly possible for a computer with a multitasking OS to start in a couple of seconds. It's possible to make them cheaper. It's possible to make them easier to use. Yet this doesn't happen. Why? Because we only have a choice of an OS that's slow and resource hungry, a free OS that's even slower and trying to be the same, and an OS that requires even more expensive hardware, and is just as slow.
Nope.
I want to forgo cost for a computer that can turn on in seconds, and give me a user interface. That's all you get in Linux after abut a minute anyway.
Yes, but Linux is even worse.
It still needs the horrible, overpriced, noisy, bluky, complicated set of bits and pieces that is a modern PC, still takes forver to start, but vendors still assume everyone wants a GUI. So, it boots to a GUI that doesn't even have a consistent look and feel.
There's no need for them to be that expensive either. A Sony Playstation costs a lot less than that, and has more than enough power for a typical home user.
You type "LOAD"
Exactly.
People instinctively knew how to deal with it. There was only one input device. They typed stuff. They just had to learn what to type.
A user confronted with a GUI doesn't have a clue what they're meant to type and don't think of moving the mouse unless they already know what it does.
The Windows PC is about as far from a home uers system as it's possible to get without also making it totally unsuitable for businesses.
In reality, the correct way to go is to step back and look at how succesful home computers worked. Take for example, the commodire 64. This had a user interface that came up in about a second, and was immediately useable. Nobody ever looked at my C64 in a confused way wondering what it does. They knew. It was obvious.
A windows PC on the other hand is a nasty complicated mess. Even the wiring needs some expertese in electronics, and then you have all the cryptic issues with drivers and operating systems. The average user doesn't want to care.
The solution is to produce a standardised simpler system. An all-in-one unit with standard components, that will plug into a TV, and starts with a BAPSIC interpreter. Apps should be loaded with a "load" command. We don't need a mouse. Those are only useful for pixel addressing. In practive they confuse the user.
I'm surprised that a comment like this comes from an MS spokesman. While there may well be that many Windows desktops, they're clearly missing the big picture if that's their target.
Even people who don't use a windows PC will be using windows. Even Linux users, if they use the web. Many sites, like Slashdot, are running through a windows server. And even if you're not interested in the net, Windows will be on a PDA, in your car, and on your set top box.
That does make sense. People may assume that the entire CD is GPL if a couple of apps are. Their IP guys probably feel a lot more comfortable this way.
Aren't you getting your memes muddled?
Ah yes - "Be the president". He was being the president. He was sufficiently in control that he knew he had staff to deal with the situation, and there was no need to panic the children.
Well, sure, but did you come up with the question? This Kiwi did. The answer is obvious. The question is the hard bit.
:)
I think he'd be more of a asset looking at potential threats. The D0D don't need cheaper military hardware, but they do need to know how a poorer nation might go about it.
Wow! Talk about missing the point!
So why then is Bush such a failed businessman?
That's unfair. While I agree that Bush is a fool, many people who set up businesses fail. Some of the most successful millionaires have failed several times.
Didn't look capable sitting like an idiot in the classroom when he could of put the powers in action to stop the pentagon from being hit.
True. Any other president would have leapt into a fighter plane, parachuted onto the hijacked plane, wrestled with the terrorists, and brought the plane home.
What the hell was he supposed to do? There are other people to take action. The president is just a chief executive. Other people can make decisions without his say-so.
Democracy, in it's current implementation (And the US is meant to be a democratic republic, before anyone who get's their political knowledge from civilization tries to nitpick), is a placebo that gives the impression that people actually have some say in the matter. In reality, this isn't the case. We simply get to choose our dictators.
Anyone who actually believes ideas like "anyone can become president" has to ask themselves why the last 2 dozen presidents have all been multi-millionaires with strong party affiliations. Congress is made up of cronies of the president and the guy who came second, and the supreme court is appointed by the guy who makes the laws.
The only true democracy is a country with no political freedom. The only way for the people to get the leaders they want is to kill the ones they don't in a bloody revolution.
Yes; it would need a much better rocket then we have now. I'm sure someone will come up with a better way of slowing spacecraft down.
This is why I'm so cynical about the X-Prize. Sure, it encourages some innovation, but getting to and from orbital speeds seems like the real engineering challenge.
Not really. The Chinese reportedly used thick sheets of (admittedly chemically treated) oak on some of their early unmanned launches.
I didn't believe you at first. But I looked, and was surprised to find they did. (Personally, I would have thought Halloumi cheese, which seems to be totally impervious heat, but perhaps they can't get hold of it in China).
I think it's a safe bet that Rutan won't be using such tiles on SpaceShipTwo.... A properly designed ablative heatshield is much easier to remove and replace than shuttle tiles are to maintain. You just unbolt the old one, slap on the new one and you're ready to go... with tiles you have to check they're all in place, check they're all secure, and make sure there are no bumps larger than about a millimeter over the entire underside. That's a huge job, and one of the reasons why the shuttle takes so long to turn around.
I suspect nobody will never use those tiles again. In hindsight, they were probably a mistake. They were also one of the many reasons the Shuttle was so late. They were still sticking them on after it was delivered. The problem, apparently, was that they break as soon as you look at them.
Presumably they could avoid any shielding at all if they could slow down enough before re-entry, and just hover down on a rocket.
The problem is that it's an arbitrary height. Of course it can be done. You just need a good enough rocket and a light enough plane. Why 100km though? Only because it's a round number. 80km or 130km would be every bit as logical as the boundary to space. The rules would have it that anything that gets to 99999 metres is a plane, but anything that gets to 100001 metres is a spaceship. Are those 2 metres really important? Only according to the rules.
Charles Lindbergh is famous. That's because he achieved something. Do you know who was the first person to make a flight of 100 miles, or 1000 miles? He's probably not in the record books. Lindbergh wouldn't have been if he flew from New York to Anchorage. The Atlantic was a natural barrier.
It made it to space, it survived re-entry.
Oh, come on! The reason it survived re-entry is because it wasn't fast enough to cause any problems. Sure, it made it into space, but that really is semantics. Space doesn't suddenly start at 100km. Most people would consider it to be in space if it got there and stayed there in orbit. This is a velocity thing more than an altitude thing. If it got to 40000km/h then it would be a spacecraft.
Maybe for another $10 million they would have been able to provide something that could stay in space, but that wasn't their goal (and even then it would still be cheap).
It would be very cheap. But getting it to stay there is difficult. Getting it back again is also pretty tough.
What is your definition of a spacecraft?
Don't know about the grandparent, but I'd say it's a vessel that goes up and stays in orbit indefinitely (or at least for a couple of orbits), and if it's "manned", I'll add that it should be able to return the occupants safely.
proper re-entry from near orbital speeds (which are required for any useful flights other than just oooh-isn't-it-pretty quick hops)
This is probably the main engineering problem. Manoeuvering and life support have some engineering issues, but essentially, it's thrusters and CO2 scrubbers. Not exactly rocket science. Well, it is, but you get the idea...
Heat shields on the other hand do a very tough job. The protective tiles on the Space Shuttle, for example, are expensive, and very fragile. Ablative heatshields are a possibility, but they do add to the per flight cost.
This just an altitude record. Not a space flight! There's only so much you can do in suborbital. If you just want to get up there to launch a satellite, then you might as well simply use a big missile, and put the effort into recovering the lower stages.
When they manage to get to 3 times that altitude, then its time to be impressed.
I love the jargon they come up with to claim they have "features". Here's what they actually mean:
SRS - "Small rectangular sticker". This is a small sticker in a rectangular shape with the letters "SRS" on it.
WOW - "Works Over Water". this has been especially designed so that if you try to use it over a body of water it will still work.
TruBass - Much like TruCalling; If the bass dies it repeats the following day.
The moral - don't be fooled by marketing hype.
True artists create art because they feel compelled to do so, not to make money. It is who they are.
Indeed they will.
Why will they publish?