What about all those architectures other than x86 that died or are irrelevant on the desktop because of the monoculture?
Yep, and Intel is the hardware equivalent of Microsoft, and the fact that Windows runs on x86 only (I am aware of the fact that NT did run on Alpha, and few more arches, but MS removed that support later) helped them a lot. In fact ARM still can't get a share on the desktop precisely due to lack of MS support.
That sadly doesn't matter. You know it likely that we will see source of windows and probably even with a permissible licence like BSD or GPL some 100 years in the future. The fact that they didn't release it at same time when devices running it were shipped isn't good. I am not saying that Google is officially evil due to that fact, but its just not good move. I have a tablet with android 2.1 BTW, and would love to update, and I did plenty of RE to do that.
"Did tech innovation suffer over the last 10 years because Microsoft wasn't broken up? 'Not really,' said Vinton Cerf, Google's chief Internet evangelist, 'It has to do with the fact that open source has become such a strong force in the software world.'""
Sure, open source is strong, but you claim that Microsoft didn't make tech innovation suffer? And what about all these small OSes that died? What about all these small firms that made competing programs and were crushed by Microsoft? Really, I am not a Google hater by any means, but I don't like that. (And I don't like that they didn't release Honeycomb source regardless of excuses they provide.)
Instead of using such app, just choose a provider that doesn't cap you. Or al least just slows down the connection speed if you are over the cap, but doesn't charge you extra. I can't forget the times my internet access was metered, back in dial-up days. Don't want that nightmare again for any price and any cap.
The delay line memory inventors would be very happy to see their technology used again.... Seriously though, such delay lines are actually used in routing to avoid storing incoming packets in memory.
More likely zoom past it. That project sure is unrealistic, but there is remote plausible situation in which it will work. Image that another star has ~95% earth like planet. If it finds it, we can really send a group of peoples one way there using similar ship. While its hard to decelerate from 0.10C, we could decelerate just the small capsule with humans inside. Of course like I said that is very very hard, because we need a way to keep these humans alive for about 50 years. (and let them reproduce). For that we will need a lot of food and oxygen. (water isn't a problem because it can be recycled).
I am sure you will be called a space nut, and I am sure I will be called such too. But yet, I agree that we need to explore the universe. Its is our only way to understand it. I am not sure that we need to worry about our rock for now, rather we need to worry about preserving it. So its not about an escape from the earth, its more about escape from the information cage we are in. We are like ants, and know our ant house very well, but nothing beyond that.
Your comment makes a lot of sense. However, we don't know the minds of sony execs. Maybe they just don't want to admit that they got a sizeable blow from these hacktivits. Maybe for them blaming criminals is better. Maybe it was a mixed attack, just like sony said, a DDOS by script kiddies followed by professional hack done by criminals that took the advantage. Dunno. One thing for sure, remember that we discussed the day on which users are supposed to boycott Sony and create riots at their stores. and how that was useless. That PSN hack sure did damage their sales and I say that like some say, they got a return, regardless of who did that. On the other hand, if I were a sony user I would probably mad at comment as the one I am writing.
So dunno, anyway, PSN isn't a life critical feature. Its just a game zone.
My senses suggest me that the theft of personal data is just a coveup story by Sony. I think some angry hacker just wiped out their servers, and backups are as usual stored on/dev/null. And so they have to rebuild the whole thing. Anyway revenge is complete regardless of whom did that. Sad that users are possibly affected as well.
No, I was going for Funny moderation. I suggested to stop using Tor, cause you know, its probably was used for trolling. Its of course just a joke, no offence.
Nope, I didn't forgot them. I believe that its just not possible to recover rocket stages because they move too fast at staging and have no means to gently touch down and do that in predefined area. It well known that even airliners have big problem to land (with wings) on surfaces they aren't designed to land (even water). In vast majority of cases not only plane can't be reused, but it is destroyed beyond recognition and kills everyone on board - recent Hudson landing is first water landing that peoples fully survived - but plane wasn't in state to be reused. Rocket stage is similar to plane in regard to empty weight and toughness. It will have a parachute, but it won't be able to slow it down to speeds where water landing won't damage it. Wings, fancy or not provide the necessary control to withstand air resistance and let it load the strongest parts of rocket/plane. That's why shuttle have wings too. The ballistic uncontrolled re-entry (and the fall of first stage) is possible only when the object in question is small and more or less round, then the toughness of material withstands the forces.
Also there is another small issue, the fact that even if we could reuse the stages, they will fall far away from launch site, so you will need some quite large effor to transport them back.
So fully reusable rockets are possible if you attach wings to them, but NASA tried that for early shuttle concepts and it seems not to work well But yes, if somebody creates a rocket whose stages are fully reusable (like fuel them again and go) sure it will be the answer, even better that a spaceplane.
Want to buy a ticket for an aircraft that disposes its fuel tanks and engines during flight? How much that will cost? Besides that exactly the point. We are so used to invariant that all that we launch to space must remain there that we think of rocket weight as a dead weight. That 'dead' weight will be returned to earth and used again to launch another payload. Of course success of skylon absolutely depends on true reusability. If it will take 1/2 of an year to make the skylon fly again (like the shuttle) than sure skylon makes no sense. (But I think that maintenance cost of shuttle is much higher that it should be, and it was just a way to suck money out of government - skylon on the other hand is private - so that won't be an issue)
Really the only way to create cheap access to space is to ether create a fully reusable spaceplane or some non reaction way of sending just the payload to space (space elevator, launch loop, or something like that) In both cases you don't discard hardware.
Really, that could be it. I discovered that project about month ago, and its seems promising.
Skylon's problem is that it's too expensive to develop and not cheap enough in operation. There's no known or predicted market large enough at its predicted cost per kilo to justify the $10,000,000,000+ development cost.
In fact thats is not a big deal. The Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer that Endeavour will launch costs $1,500,000,000. Heck, the ISS costs about 100 Billion (and rising). Its all about feasibility of it. Even spaceX despite their uber low cost model already spent 0.8 Billion on their rockets.
It flies too fast at staging and has no wings, thus it bound to hit earth fast. I understand that parachutes will slow it down but not much to keep the delicate tanks from cracking or even bending.
Generally speaking, tanks are cheap, the engines are the expensive part. Being able to reuse the whole thing would be nice, but if you can only reuse the engines that's still a substantial win.
And NASA looked seriously at reusing Saturn rocket stages in the past. It hasn't really been tested yet, but no-one seems to think it's impossible.
Yet if that engine hits the water, its bound to be damaged, and so repairing it probably will cost more. A engines that jettison and land separately might be a good idea though.
Really, that could be it. I discovered that project about month ago, and its seems promising. Besides its like our last hope to have real access to space. I am also a fan of SpaceX, but I somewhat don't belive that they will be able to recover the first stage. It flies too fast at staging and has no wings, thus it bound to hit earth fast. I understand that parachutes will slow it down but not much to keep the delicate tanks from cracking or even bending. Until now it didn't even come to earth in one piece (at least that is more or less what I think they mean). Space elevator maybe? but that needs huge counterweight. How to launch one is beyond our abilities. Skylon is probably easier to built. Using an asteroid is not feasible because you need more delta-v to slow it down than to launch the same mass from earth.
Exactly. However, laws of physics are somewhat against us. Its damn hard to bring anything to Mach 25. Its not even about gravity, Heck, using plain cannon, you can reach 180km, well above edge of space. Take a look for example at skylon about which I posted in this thread. It seems more or less possible, and already there are many investors. When they complete demonstration program, they will be given a lot of cash. It about the fact that rockets are just the only proven way to access space, and we always will want a better horse, especially due to the fact that creating the 'automobile' of space is damn expensive. If one were to prove that you can build the space elevator, launch loop, a space gun or whatever, regardless of costs it would be built. Maybe a true spaceplane will be one.
The new (well anything new is well forgotten old) Skylon could really turn the space tourism in reality.
To be honest I am still sceptical of their plan, but who knows, that might succeed.
They say that only new technology they will use (and it increases performance of the engine enabling it) the precooler will be tested this June, and that they passed independent reviews by NASA and ESA.
Peoples also thought that won't be able to fly until sufficiently powerful engine (internal combustion) was developed.
Then it didn't take Wright Brothers long to create an airplane.
Slashdot Mirror
They could use some model planes that really fly...
Otherwise looks cool.
You left one out:
What about all those architectures other than x86 that died or are irrelevant on the desktop because of the monoculture?
Yep, and Intel is the hardware equivalent of Microsoft, and the fact that Windows runs on x86 only (I am aware of the fact that NT did run on Alpha, and few more arches, but MS removed that support later) helped them a lot.
In fact ARM still can't get a share on the desktop precisely due to lack of MS support.
That sadly doesn't matter.
You know it likely that we will see source of windows and probably even with a permissible licence like BSD or GPL some 100 years in the future.
The fact that they didn't release it at same time when devices running it were shipped isn't good.
I am not saying that Google is officially evil due to that fact, but its just not good move.
I have a tablet with android 2.1 BTW, and would love to update, and I did plenty of RE to do that.
"Did tech innovation suffer over the last 10 years because Microsoft wasn't broken up? 'Not really,' said Vinton Cerf, Google's chief Internet evangelist, 'It has to do with the fact that open source has become such a strong force in the software world.'""
Sure, open source is strong, but you claim that Microsoft didn't make tech innovation suffer?
And what about all these small OSes that died?
What about all these small firms that made competing programs and were crushed by Microsoft?
Really, I am not a Google hater by any means, but I don't like that.
(And I don't like that they didn't release Honeycomb source regardless of excuses they provide.)
Instead of using such app, just choose a provider that doesn't cap you.
Or al least just slows down the connection speed if you are over the cap, but doesn't charge you extra.
I can't forget the times my internet access was metered, back in dial-up days. Don't want that nightmare again for any price and any cap.
The delay line memory inventors would be very happy to see their technology used again....
Seriously though, such delay lines are actually used in routing to avoid storing incoming packets in memory.
Bytecode mostly, because it runs in dalvik
More likely zoom past it.
That project sure is unrealistic, but there is remote plausible situation in which it will work.
Image that another star has ~95% earth like planet. If it finds it, we can really send a group of peoples one way there using similar ship.
While its hard to decelerate from 0.10C, we could decelerate just the small capsule with humans inside.
Of course like I said that is very very hard, because we need a way to keep these humans alive for about 50 years.
(and let them reproduce). For that we will need a lot of food and oxygen.
(water isn't a problem because it can be recycled).
I am sure you will be called a space nut, and I am sure I will be called such too.
But yet, I agree that we need to explore the universe. Its is our only way to understand it.
I am not sure that we need to worry about our rock for now, rather we need to worry about preserving it.
So its not about an escape from the earth, its more about escape from the information cage we are in.
We are like ants, and know our ant house very well, but nothing beyond that.
You are right probably.
Your comment makes a lot of sense.
However, we don't know the minds of sony execs.
Maybe they just don't want to admit that they got a sizeable blow from these hacktivits.
Maybe for them blaming criminals is better.
Maybe it was a mixed attack, just like sony said, a DDOS by script kiddies followed by professional hack done by criminals that took the advantage.
Dunno.
One thing for sure, remember that we discussed the day on which users are supposed to boycott Sony and create riots at their stores.
and how that was useless.
That PSN hack sure did damage their sales and I say that like some say, they got a return, regardless of who did that.
On the other hand, if I were a sony user I would probably mad at comment as the one I am writing.
So dunno, anyway, PSN isn't a life critical feature. Its just a game zone.
My senses suggest me that the theft of personal data is just a coveup story by Sony. /dev/null.
I think some angry hacker just wiped out their servers, and backups are as usual stored on
And so they have to rebuild the whole thing.
Anyway revenge is complete regardless of whom did that.
Sad that users are possibly affected as well.
No, I was going for Funny moderation.
I suggested to stop using Tor, cause you know, its probably was used for trolling.
Its of course just a joke, no offence.
Just stop trolling :-)
Nope, I didn't forgot them.
I believe that its just not possible to recover rocket stages because they move too fast at staging and have no means to gently touch down and do that in predefined area.
It well known that even airliners have big problem to land (with wings) on surfaces they aren't designed to land (even water). In vast majority of cases not only plane can't be reused, but it is destroyed beyond recognition and kills everyone on board - recent Hudson landing is first water landing that peoples fully survived - but plane wasn't in state to be reused.
Rocket stage is similar to plane in regard to empty weight and toughness. It will have a parachute, but it won't be able to slow it down to speeds where water landing won't damage it.
Wings, fancy or not provide the necessary control to withstand air resistance and let it load the strongest parts of rocket/plane.
That's why shuttle have wings too.
The ballistic uncontrolled re-entry (and the fall of first stage) is possible only when the object in question is small and more or less round, then the toughness of material withstands the forces.
Also there is another small issue, the fact that even if we could reuse the stages, they will fall far away from launch site, so you will need
some quite large effor to transport them back.
So fully reusable rockets are possible if you attach wings to them, but NASA tried that for early shuttle concepts and it seems not to work well
But yes, if somebody creates a rocket whose stages are fully reusable (like fuel them again and go) sure it will be the answer, even better that a spaceplane.
Want to buy a ticket for an aircraft that disposes its fuel tanks and engines during flight?
How much that will cost?
Besides that exactly the point. We are so used to invariant that all that we launch to space must remain there that we think of rocket weight as a dead weight.
That 'dead' weight will be returned to earth and used again to launch another payload.
Of course success of skylon absolutely depends on true reusability. If it will take 1/2 of an year to make the skylon fly again (like the shuttle) than sure skylon makes no sense.
(But I think that maintenance cost of shuttle is much higher that it should be, and it was just a way to suck money out of government - skylon on the other hand is private - so that won't be an issue)
Really the only way to create cheap access to space is to ether create a fully reusable spaceplane or some non reaction way of sending just the payload to space
(space elevator, launch loop, or something like that)
In both cases you don't discard hardware.
Interesting.
Can it detect hot chicks?
Really, that could be it. I discovered that project about month ago, and its seems promising.
Skylon's problem is that it's too expensive to develop and not cheap enough in operation. There's no known or predicted market large enough at its predicted cost per kilo to justify the $10,000,000,000+ development cost.
In fact thats is not a big deal. The Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer that Endeavour will launch costs $1,500,000,000. Heck, the ISS costs about 100 Billion (and rising). Its all about feasibility of it.
Even spaceX despite their uber low cost model already spent 0.8 Billion on their rockets.
It flies too fast at staging and has no wings, thus it bound to hit earth fast. I understand that parachutes will slow it down but not
much to keep the delicate tanks from cracking or even bending.
Generally speaking, tanks are cheap, the engines are the expensive part. Being able to reuse the whole thing would be nice, but if you can only reuse the engines that's still a substantial win.
And NASA looked seriously at reusing Saturn rocket stages in the past. It hasn't really been tested yet, but no-one seems to think it's impossible.
Yet if that engine hits the water, its bound to be damaged, and so repairing it probably will cost more.
A engines that jettison and land separately might be a good idea though.
I would for sure.
Really, that could be it. I discovered that project about month ago, and its seems promising.
Besides its like our last hope to have real access to space.
I am also a fan of SpaceX, but I somewhat don't belive that they will be able to recover the first stage.
It flies too fast at staging and has no wings, thus it bound to hit earth fast. I understand that parachutes will slow it down but not
much to keep the delicate tanks from cracking or even bending.
Until now it didn't even come to earth in one piece (at least that is more or less what I think they mean).
Space elevator maybe? but that needs huge counterweight. How to launch one is beyond our abilities. Skylon is probably easier to built.
Using an asteroid is not feasible because you need more delta-v to slow it down than to launch the same mass from earth.
Exactly.
However, laws of physics are somewhat against us. Its damn hard to bring anything to Mach 25.
Its not even about gravity, Heck, using plain cannon, you can reach 180km, well above edge of space.
Take a look for example at skylon about which I posted in this thread.
It seems more or less possible, and already there are many investors. When they complete demonstration program, they will be given a lot of cash.
It about the fact that rockets are just the only proven way to access space, and we always will want a better horse, especially due to the fact that creating the 'automobile' of space is damn expensive.
If one were to prove that you can build the space elevator, launch loop, a space gun or whatever, regardless of costs it would be built.
Maybe a true spaceplane will be one.
The new (well anything new is well forgotten old) Skylon could really turn the space tourism in reality.
To be honest I am still sceptical of their plan, but who knows, that might succeed.
They say that only new technology they will use (and it increases performance of the engine enabling it) the precooler will be tested this June, and that they passed independent reviews by NASA and ESA.
Peoples also thought that won't be able to fly until sufficiently powerful engine (internal combustion) was developed.
Then it didn't take Wright Brothers long to create an airplane.