Poison, not position. Some of the exhaust gases are used to "poison" the intake. This is called Flue Gas Recirculation (FGR), and to the best of my knowledge has been used in many modern cars to reduce the NOx emissions.
OT... something I've been wondering about, with regard to long-range communication with satellites: we know how to do networks now, why aren't we peppering space with small node probes that travel away from Earth
1. Nanoprobes wouldn't have a large enough transceiver dish. 2. We are. Have you heard of the NASA Deep Space Network? Every sat and probe we launch becomes part of NASA's network in space. That's why when they had communications problems with the Mars Rover, they were able to send reset commands from a probe heading elsewhere. As long as they can find a number of sats with the necessary line of sight, NASA can communicate with any probe, anywhere. Even if it's on the other side of the Sun.:-)
(No, I am not privy to the exact locations of anything. So take this with a grain of salt. We have a lot of hardware up there, but space is a big place.)
Yeah, I did read it. The part that stuck out to me was that the new sats were about 60 pounds heavier than the old ones. Now I understand that they couldn't have gotten all the new features in for only 60 pounds without modern technology. Still, I can't help but think that it could have been a lot smaller than that.
Then again, I'd like to see a day when we can create useful PongSats, for this stuff but I supposed that won't be happening anytime soon. (Especially not when you need a large tranceiver!)
As I understand, one of the jamming related problems with GPS is not by criminals/terrorists, but by the government when they see the need.
No, it's more complex than that. Yes, the government can fine tune the results to cause problems for enemies, and even turn off the unencrypted civilian bands if they so choose. However, real methods exist for sending confusing signals that will effectively jam a GPS signal. This jamming can force so called "smart bombs" to rely on internal guidance instead of GPS. The result (hopefully) is that the less precise guidance would cause the bomb or missile to miss the target.
In practical terms, it seems a bit harder than that to prevent US munitions from reaching their targets. Our guidance computers were well developed prior to the general use of GPS coordinates, and we have the capability to manually deliver ordinance wherever it may be needed. So in the end, this is about keeping the efficiency of our weapons in good order so that we have to risk fewer lives in missed targets and strafing runs.
The new civilian channel is in addition to the existing channel, so your existing equipment should work. As more of these sats go online, you can expect to see gear that provides access to the second civilian channel. (Source)
What I have to wonder, though, is what will they do with the two new military channels? It seems that all the field soldiers tend to use civilian gear because the military gear is too heavy, unfriendly, ugly, and is in short supply. I suppose it would make the missiles hit their targets better, but it would be nice to know that our entire military can use the equipment.
You know, I was about to ask the rocket scientists hanging around here (hi guys!) about how small new generation comsats were going to be. After all, there has been a tremendous increase in miniturization and technology since the original GPS sats were launched. (e.g. better microprocessors, denser batteries, more efficient solar panels, better propulsion, etc.) If we could get these sats small enough, it might be possible to deploy a GPS system for Mars in one or two launches.
On another note, the picture makes it look like the design hasn't changed much from the original NAVSTAR configuration. I assume that these satellites are merely sharing the same chassis, and have very different internals?
Well, here's a version that isn't a tired platitude. From the PRC Constitution:
Article 35. Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.
Article 41. Citizens of the People's Republic of China have the right to criticize and make suggestions to any state organ or functionary. Citizens have the right to make to relevant state organs complaints and charges against, or exposures of, violation of the law or dereliction of duty by any state organ or functionary; but fabrication or distortion of facts with the intention of libel or frame-up is prohibited. In case of complaints, charges or exposures made by citizens, the state organ concerned must deal with them in a responsible manner after ascertaining the facts. No one may suppress such complaints, charges and exposures, or retaliate against the citizens making them. Citizens who have suffered losses through infringement of their civil rights by any state organ or functionary have the right to compensation in accordance with the law.
It would sound like a good constitution (it even includes the Freedom of Religion) if they didn't literally throw it away with Articles 51 and 52:
Article 51. The exercise by citizens of the People's Republic of China of their freedoms and rights may not infringe upon the interests of the state, of society and of the collective, or upon the lawful freedoms and rights of other citizens.
Article 52. It is the duty of citizens of the People's Republic of China to safeguard the unity of the country and the unity of all its nationalities.
In other words, the freedoms that come before those paragraphs are only suffered at the state's whim. If they feel that you are in any way working against the state (e.g. the criticism they just "allowed" in Article 41) or attempting to undermine the "unity of the state" (e.g. the freedom of religion granted by Article 36) then the state will step in and run you over with a tank or throw you in jail.
So much for the constitution of the People's Repulic of China. Be very happy if you live in a country to whom rights are more than words on a sheet of paper.
It was a minor misspeak on my part. What I was trying to say was that the escape tower is attached to where the docking port is on the capsule.
6. Not pathetic, your #1, "man rated" adresses this issue.
Indeed. But as I pointed out, the Big Gemini would have had a deployable parawing, while the Lockheed capsule would have been a lifting body. Both would significantly increase the comfort and safety of the crew. (Apparently, it's not uncommon for the Russians to experience injuries upon capsule touch-down. Also, the reverse Gs of a capsule are extreme.)
8. KISS. Remind me, please, why would I need wings in orbit?
You don't. But if the point of the capsule is to achieve reentry, then wings are nice to have. The problem is that wings can be heavy (although not as heavy as most suggest; that's a problem with the Space Shuttle's size) which is where a lifting body or parawing make an excellent compromise.
it's simply reimplementation of the Russian system from 2 decades ago.
I wish everyone would stop saying this. Except for the ground landing, the capsule technology is a reimplementation of OUR technology from the 60's.
Oh, and as for "more powerfull than any rocket ever designed"...I would be be surprised (but impressed also) if this would be more powerfull than Energia Vulkan...
I already addressed that. The real-world performance of the Energia will be significantly outdone by this new rocket. (125 vs. 100 tonnes) The drawing board performance of better configured vehicles (4 SRBs & Roketdyne Engines vs. Energia w/8 Zenits) would still put this new rocket in the lead. Check the performance on the Zenit boosters sometime and you'll notice that their performance is significantly less than the SRBs used in the Shuttle System. (1,773,000 lbf vs. 3,300,000 lbf)
Numbers have been thrown all over the place. There are 5 SSME boosters, each capable of 400,000 lbf of thrust, plus 2 SRBs each capable of 3,300,000 lbf of thrust. (In comparison, the Saturn V J-2s were capable of 200,000 lbfs of thrust and the Saturn V F-1s were capable of 1,500,000 lbf.) The target mass to LEO is 125 metric tonnes, more than the 100 metric tonnes the Energia was capable of. In theory, the Energia was capable of 150-175 metric tonnes in the Hercules configuration. However, this configuration was NEVER BUILT. Also, looking at the power ratings on this new rocket I have to wonder if the 125 tonne figure isn't conservative. (i.e. Able to support an engine flame out.) Certainly, a four SRB configuration of the craft *could* be developed which would easily bring the craft in line with the Energia Hercule, perhaps even beyond its capacity. Plus the SSME engines could be replaced with the more powerful Rocketdyne engines from the Delta IV Heavy.
In other words, this craft will outperform any other rocket that has been built, and can outperform in any planned rocket upgrades.
OpenGL has an analog of 'Retained mode' - it's called a 'Display List' and the games are already using that.
Display Lists and Retained Mode are NOT the same thing. Display Lists are merely collections of polygons that you can render all at once. (And it *can* save bandwidth depending on the driver implementation.) Retained mode, OTOH, is a complete scenegraph that allows for the entire world to be maintained in the DirectX API.
Yet DESPITE THAT they are running low on bandwidth on an 8xAGP. Furthermore, if DirectX magically solved the AGP bandwidth bottleneck then no games would be written in OpenGL - and nobody would be driving people into using PCI-Express.
I don't think you actually understand how a scenegraph works. A scenegraph is nothing more than a memory structure. The graphics card cannot (and will not) understand it. So what the Scenegraph API does everytime it's told to render, is that it flattens the graph into polygonal draw commands to send to the graphics card. So there's no bandwidth savings on the AGP transfer side, but there WOULD be massive savings on the network side.
OpenGL wouldn't work (too much data to sort through), but DirectX Retained Mode should work fine. If you transfer all the data once, then only transmit the changes, you should be able to reduce the bandwidth considerably. Of course, that would change the ability of the program to make sudden and significant changes to the environment, but it would work.
That is, if DirectX had a network mode like OpenGL/GLX. Last I knew, no such thing existed.:-/
I did read a large part of the discussion.... I grant you planes are harder but how much do you need to know to drive a car for example?
You're either lying or fooling yourself. The car analogy was discussed IN DETAIL in the thread. We discussed that to drive a car, you have to understand the keyed ignition, the tramission shifter, the accelerator, the brake, the fuel gauge, and the speedometer just to pull out of the drive! If you plan on driving for more than a short period, you also need to understand the fuel tank, the gasoline octanes (so you don't overpay), the range of your vehicle (so you don't get stranded), the mantenence schedule (so you don't send a piston through the empty oil pan), the rules of the road, headlights for darkness, etc, etc, etc. There is a LOT to driving a car! We just don't think about it because a) we grew up with them b) we had special training before we were allowed to use them.
Two posts stick out in my mind from the thread. One is from a fellow who's never driven or used a car. To him, even using the key in an ignition is a foreign concept. The other post was from a fellow who's sister dragged the Windows/system folder into the trash can then complained she didn't want to understand it, she just wanted to use it! (He likened this to smashing your foot on the accelerator and driving around at 60MPH in first gear. Apt analogy. It's good to understand things.)
Now lets look at computing. Every OS is different...very very different for some. The amount you need to know is incredible because things that should work don't.
Again, if you'd paid attention, you'd know that I already said that the current complexity shouldn't be so. I likened computers today to the early days of cars when you had to manually crank the car, all cars were manual, you had to top off the battery yourself, flush the radiator, change the transmission fluid, rotate the tires, and perform a wide range of emergency repairs. Cars didn't get truly easy to manage until the 80's and 90's.
Again, all I'm asking is that users have a basic knowledge of the metrics their using when they operate their computer. You don't bake cookies without knowing your metrics, and you sure as hell shouldn't be operating a computer without knowing them. And this comes from a guy who pissed off the Linux community by calling for a simpler interface! I even delivered a scathing rebuttal to a fellow who thinks new Linux users need to "read the manual first".
Basic knowledge is a very easy thing to come by. The extents that people will go through to EXPLICITLY not learn basic knowledge about a computer ("I don't want to understand it, I just want to use it!") is just astounding.
But I think you already realise all this and simply don't care. As far as you're concerned people who don't like it can get stuffed.
Just so AMAZINGLY easy to smack that reply button and flame, isn't it?
When Disney chief Robert Iger recently brought up the concept of shortening the window between theatrical release and DVD, he was fiercely criticised by the National Association of Theatre Owners.
The cycle is WAY shorter than it used to be. I remember back in the Bad Old Days(TM) when you would have to wait until a year after the movie left the theaters to see in on VHS. And that was only if the movie studio felt that the movie would do well resold on tape.
Now we barely have to wait 3-4 months after its initial release before it appears in stores on DVD! It's so quick anymore, that sometimes it feels like it's on DVD as soon as it's out of the theater. I realize that for some people that may seem slow, but for those of us who remember, that's one hell of a fast turnaround!:-)
Love you too. Especially when you're one of those people who reply before understanding my point. e.g. If you fly an airplane, you had better damn well understand you fuel, range, altimeter, angle of attack, ailerons, rudder, and many other concepts required for flynig a plane. If you fail to understand these things, then you WILL DIE when you crash the plane.
BTW, I love how you accuse me of requiring users to be engineers when I EXPLICITLY said that I'm not (note the NOT and the NOT) looking for these people to be coders, but to understand the basic metrics (e.g. Kilobyte, Megabyte, etc.) of the machine that they're using. Of course, if you'd taken the time to read the wonderful discussion we had on this, you'd know that already. Then again, it's much eaiser to smack that Reply button and flame someone isn't it?
Invisible Woman: "Don't even THINK about it!" Human Torch: "Never do."
I am of the generation that didn't grow up with computers. They existed when I was a child (1950s), but there weren't many at all, and almost no one had ever seen or used one.
But you know what? I got off my ass and learned
So, you're the little old lady from Pasadena?;-)
Seriously, there are exceptions to every rule, and you're one of them. With most of the older generation, the problem isn't that they don't want to learn. The problem is that they are set in their ways and just don't feel a compelling need to use computers. My own mother is an amazing example of this, and she programmed BASIC on VAXen and PCs! If they had a highly compelling reason, I'm sure most of your generation would learn, though. Unfortunately, what compels the younger generation does little to compel the older generation.:-)
I run into just as many clueless 20-somethings who don't understand the first thing about the technology.... It is more likely that person is not interested in learning, *period*.
That's a completely different problem that you REALLY don't want to get me started on. Growing up home schooled gave me a rather unique perspective on my own generation.;-)
Nope, those performance problems are very real - rendering the page takes anything from 3 to 10 seconds depending on the complexity (with a page of/. comments being the 10second one).
Sound familar. There seem to be a lot of kinks still getting worked out of Windows 64.
If you're running the 64bit version, try installing the "regular" Windows JVM. If you're running the 32bit version, try upgrading to the 64bit version.
Have you tried any other Java GUI programs? If so, have you experienced any performance problems? (ANY performance issues should be a red flag. An AMD 3000+ is more than powerful enough.) Either way, I think the problem is a bit more complex than it being a Java program.
FYI, I'm running ICEBrowser on Windows XP SP2 32bit edition. Page loads are sub-second, and the rendering errors are pretty minor. However, I did run it on my Mac OS X 10.2 machine (which has EXTREMELY poor Java graphics performance, something Apple fixed in later versions) and it does feel a bit sluggish there. It speeds up substantially after a few minutes of use, though. Slashdot page load time is about 4-5 seconds on my Mac.
Once again your assumption is incorrect and outright inflamatory.
Yeah, sorry about that. But your post was in a long chain of highly inflamatory and outright assinine posts. The fact that you're posting as AC, mentioned your mother, and didn't give many details didn't add to your credibility. I'll bite my tongue in the future.
And you are again ignoring the information I provided. From the link I provided:
Just-in-time (JIT) compilers are essentially fast traditional compilers that translate the Java technology bytecodes into native machine code on the fly. A JIT running on the end user's machine actually executes the bytecodes and compiles each method the first time it is executed.
So is Java interpreted? Yes and no. The slowest VMs interpret. Most VMs JIT. The fastest VMs use a hybrid mode.
BTW, you misunderstand your quote. The "compiled" they are referring to is the translation of source to bytecode. Compiling from bytecode to native code is a separate step handled independently by the JIT.
Emphasis is mine, and I even e-mailed Sun for an answer. I ended up with the exact same page I linked to above as the answer to my email.
That's because you're coming off as a newb, so you're getting a newb's page. Now myself and other Java experts have already explained what JIT is and how HotSpot operates. I even sent you to a technical document explaining the HotSpot engine in detail.
If you wish to be thick, that's your problem. But you're going to have a hard time working with Java programmers should the situation arise. Good day.
And it's not so much a matter of how it works as how to operate it. You can't effectively operate a computer without understanding things like storage measurements.
I don't have to understand how the electric motor in my blender works to make a smoothie.
No, but you do have to understand what blend, puree, high, low, and off mean. You also need to know how to measure the milk, ice, and flavoring. Which requires an understanding a units, doesn't it? Just like the units on a hard drive!
I don't have to understand plasma dynamics or scan lines or pixels to watch TV.
Nor do you need to understand head movement, staged pipelines, wait states, or memory refresh cycles to operate you computer. But you *do* need to understand the power button, channels, volume, video source, audio in/out, RCA cabling, and a variety of other details to operate your TV. You probably even need to understand measurements to make sure your TV will fit your home! (There's those pesky units again!)
If something like 61% of computer users are confused by even the most basic computer jargon, then the users aren't broken - the computers and software are broken.
No, the users are broken enough. The problem is that you have a generation that didn't grow up with computers. They're the ones having problems. (Remember, baby boomers outnumber the baby busters.)
It was the same problem with cars. Have you ever seen an old lady driving *really* slowly down the road? Ever wonder why they do that? It's because they didn't grow up with cars. Since they didn't experience the concept early on, they had difficulties with it later in life. For example, my mother had the hardest time teaching my grandmother to drive years ago. My grandmother kept wanting to look out the side window, because that was what she was used to doing!
That's because backslashes work in Internet Explorer. Try it sometime. Type "http:\\www.google.com" and see where it takes you. It also works in Mozilla.
True, but a computer is a device, not a tradecraft.
Ahem. Wordprocessing, spreadsheets, web research, photo processing, graphics design, etc. All are tradecrafts that employ a computer.
Furthermore, unlike a device like a car or pocket calculator, it is a platform for entertainment and productivity, and it is far more complex than both and truly requires an additional vocabulary to operate it efficiently.
I addressed the vocabulary for a car here. It's not like a car is simpler, we just grow up understanding it.
Think about evertyhing you must put in place to properly secure a Windows PC, for example.
This is where I agree with you. The computer is currently too complex because of unnecessary management issues. This is akin to the early age of cars where you needed to understand a LOT about how it operated in order to start it and keep it running. Today, there is very little management. You still have to understand a lot of terms, but the management side has been reduced to regular use plus occasional oil changes. Many vehicle owners will never have to change their tires, flush their coolant, top off their battery, or touch their transmission fluids. Computers aren't there yet, and won't be until we can knock Microsoft off the top of the food chain.:-) (And NO, Linux in its current form won't solve the problem either.)
How many words specific to a washing machine do you need to know to operate one?
Washing Machine: Hot cycle, Cold cycle, Permanent Press, Colors, Whites, Dry Clean Only, Gentle, Cotton, Polyester, etc, etc, etc.
I hate to say it, but those things are damned hard to operate properly.
? Most of us drive every day, yet many don't know the jargon for the parts of what a car does.
Car: Accelerator/Gas, Brake, Shift, Gear, Mile(KM), Miles(KM) per Hour, bucket seats, overdrive, fuel efficiency, gallons, gas tank, windshield, wipers, wiper fluid, oil/lubricant, glove compartment, tire rotation, coolant, etc, etc, etc.
And yes, you need to know these things to operate it.
We just want to turn the key and go somewhere.
If you think about that for a moment, you'll realize that you won't get very far. Plus you have to understand what a keyed ignition is first, not to mention the steering wheel, the gas, the brake, the shifter...;-)
I'm not talking about ceding total control of the organization to IT, but allowing IT input into HR decisionmaking. If everyone in the company is my "customer" and I have to make them all happy in order for good "total customer service" to happen, then the head of IT ought to have the capability to hire/fire/promote all of these people. It's only fair.
Oh. Well then, accounting should also have a say in hiring. (Including tech people.) As should the mail room. Not to mention the cafeteria staff. And let's not forget the janitorial staff! It's very important that people who understand how to properly read the recycling labels are chosen! After all, it's only fair.
Either train them, get them a "seeing eye dog" IT monkey to follow them everywhere and do things for them, or fire them.
I agree. Has your department taken proactive action to see that all the employees are properly trained or have the support they need?
And, yes, I believe I could manage a risk portfolio. If I can figure out how to manage IT security risk, I can figure out how to manage a company's financial risk position. It's not really that different, just apply a the same types of reasoning and information gathering to a different set of scenario parameters and information.
Oh, good Lord. If that were true, you'd be out making all the money you need, not stuck with "idiot users" in a job you obviously hate. BTW, here are the computations for Modern Portfolio Theory. Knock yourself out. I hope you know where to get the data from and how to adjust the frontier for a variety of inputs, investment styles, tax limitations, bonds, and mutual fund products. (Not that you're likely to know what an investment product is. They're all stocks, right?)
Slashdot Mirror
Poison, not position. Some of the exhaust gases are used to "poison" the intake. This is called Flue Gas Recirculation (FGR), and to the best of my knowledge has been used in many modern cars to reduce the NOx emissions.
OT... something I've been wondering about, with regard to long-range communication with satellites: we know how to do networks now, why aren't we peppering space with small node probes that travel away from Earth
:-)
1. Nanoprobes wouldn't have a large enough transceiver dish.
2. We are. Have you heard of the NASA Deep Space Network? Every sat and probe we launch becomes part of NASA's network in space. That's why when they had communications problems with the Mars Rover, they were able to send reset commands from a probe heading elsewhere. As long as they can find a number of sats with the necessary line of sight, NASA can communicate with any probe, anywhere. Even if it's on the other side of the Sun.
(No, I am not privy to the exact locations of anything. So take this with a grain of salt. We have a lot of hardware up there, but space is a big place.)
Yeah, I did read it. The part that stuck out to me was that the new sats were about 60 pounds heavier than the old ones. Now I understand that they couldn't have gotten all the new features in for only 60 pounds without modern technology. Still, I can't help but think that it could have been a lot smaller than that.
Then again, I'd like to see a day when we can create useful PongSats, for this stuff but I supposed that won't be happening anytime soon. (Especially not when you need a large tranceiver!)
As I understand, one of the jamming related problems with GPS is not by criminals/terrorists, but by the government when they see the need.
No, it's more complex than that. Yes, the government can fine tune the results to cause problems for enemies, and even turn off the unencrypted civilian bands if they so choose. However, real methods exist for sending confusing signals that will effectively jam a GPS signal. This jamming can force so called "smart bombs" to rely on internal guidance instead of GPS. The result (hopefully) is that the less precise guidance would cause the bomb or missile to miss the target.
In practical terms, it seems a bit harder than that to prevent US munitions from reaching their targets. Our guidance computers were well developed prior to the general use of GPS coordinates, and we have the capability to manually deliver ordinance wherever it may be needed. So in the end, this is about keeping the efficiency of our weapons in good order so that we have to risk fewer lives in missed targets and strafing runs.
The new civilian channel is in addition to the existing channel, so your existing equipment should work. As more of these sats go online, you can expect to see gear that provides access to the second civilian channel. (Source)
What I have to wonder, though, is what will they do with the two new military channels? It seems that all the field soldiers tend to use civilian gear because the military gear is too heavy, unfriendly, ugly, and is in short supply. I suppose it would make the missiles hit their targets better, but it would be nice to know that our entire military can use the equipment.
You know, I was about to ask the rocket scientists hanging around here (hi guys!) about how small new generation comsats were going to be. After all, there has been a tremendous increase in miniturization and technology since the original GPS sats were launched. (e.g. better microprocessors, denser batteries, more efficient solar panels, better propulsion, etc.) If we could get these sats small enough, it might be possible to deploy a GPS system for Mars in one or two launches.
Then I saw the borg cube that assimilated the Willy Wonka Chocolate Factory (Mirror) Excuse me while I pick my jaw up off the floor.
On another note, the picture makes it look like the design hasn't changed much from the original NAVSTAR configuration. I assume that these satellites are merely sharing the same chassis, and have very different internals?
It would sound like a good constitution (it even includes the Freedom of Religion) if they didn't literally throw it away with Articles 51 and 52:
In other words, the freedoms that come before those paragraphs are only suffered at the state's whim. If they feel that you are in any way working against the state (e.g. the criticism they just "allowed" in Article 41) or attempting to undermine the "unity of the state" (e.g. the freedom of religion granted by Article 36) then the state will step in and run you over with a tank or throw you in jail.
So much for the constitution of the People's Repulic of China. Be very happy if you live in a country to whom rights are more than words on a sheet of paper.
4. Doubles? I don't see how's that possible...
It was a minor misspeak on my part. What I was trying to say was that the escape tower is attached to where the docking port is on the capsule.
6. Not pathetic, your #1, "man rated" adresses this issue.
Indeed. But as I pointed out, the Big Gemini would have had a deployable parawing, while the Lockheed capsule would have been a lifting body. Both would significantly increase the comfort and safety of the crew. (Apparently, it's not uncommon for the Russians to experience injuries upon capsule touch-down. Also, the reverse Gs of a capsule are extreme.)
8. KISS. Remind me, please, why would I need wings in orbit?
You don't. But if the point of the capsule is to achieve reentry, then wings are nice to have. The problem is that wings can be heavy (although not as heavy as most suggest; that's a problem with the Space Shuttle's size) which is where a lifting body or parawing make an excellent compromise.
it's simply reimplementation of the Russian system from 2 decades ago.
I wish everyone would stop saying this. Except for the ground landing, the capsule technology is a reimplementation of OUR technology from the 60's.
Oh, and as for "more powerfull than any rocket ever designed"...I would be be surprised (but impressed also) if this would be more powerfull than Energia Vulkan...
I already addressed that. The real-world performance of the Energia will be significantly outdone by this new rocket. (125 vs. 100 tonnes) The drawing board performance of better configured vehicles (4 SRBs & Roketdyne Engines vs. Energia w/8 Zenits) would still put this new rocket in the lead. Check the performance on the Zenit boosters sometime and you'll notice that their performance is significantly less than the SRBs used in the Shuttle System. (1,773,000 lbf vs. 3,300,000 lbf)
Numbers have been thrown all over the place. There are 5 SSME boosters, each capable of 400,000 lbf of thrust, plus 2 SRBs each capable of 3,300,000 lbf of thrust. (In comparison, the Saturn V J-2s were capable of 200,000 lbfs of thrust and the Saturn V F-1s were capable of 1,500,000 lbf.) The target mass to LEO is 125 metric tonnes, more than the 100 metric tonnes the Energia was capable of. In theory, the Energia was capable of 150-175 metric tonnes in the Hercules configuration. However, this configuration was NEVER BUILT. Also, looking at the power ratings on this new rocket I have to wonder if the 125 tonne figure isn't conservative. (i.e. Able to support an engine flame out.) Certainly, a four SRB configuration of the craft *could* be developed which would easily bring the craft in line with the Energia Hercule, perhaps even beyond its capacity. Plus the SSME engines could be replaced with the more powerful Rocketdyne engines from the Delta IV Heavy.
In other words, this craft will outperform any other rocket that has been built, and can outperform in any planned rocket upgrades.
OpenGL has an analog of 'Retained mode' - it's called a 'Display List' and the games are already using that.
Display Lists and Retained Mode are NOT the same thing. Display Lists are merely collections of polygons that you can render all at once. (And it *can* save bandwidth depending on the driver implementation.) Retained mode, OTOH, is a complete scenegraph that allows for the entire world to be maintained in the DirectX API.
Yet DESPITE THAT they are running low on bandwidth on an 8xAGP. Furthermore, if DirectX magically solved the AGP bandwidth bottleneck then no games would be written in OpenGL - and nobody would be driving people into using PCI-Express.
I don't think you actually understand how a scenegraph works. A scenegraph is nothing more than a memory structure. The graphics card cannot (and will not) understand it. So what the Scenegraph API does everytime it's told to render, is that it flattens the graph into polygonal draw commands to send to the graphics card. So there's no bandwidth savings on the AGP transfer side, but there WOULD be massive savings on the network side.
OpenGL wouldn't work (too much data to sort through), but DirectX Retained Mode should work fine. If you transfer all the data once, then only transmit the changes, you should be able to reduce the bandwidth considerably. Of course, that would change the ability of the program to make sudden and significant changes to the environment, but it would work.
:-/
That is, if DirectX had a network mode like OpenGL/GLX. Last I knew, no such thing existed.
No I just don't browse at -1.
I post at +2, nearly all my posts on the subject are rated +5, and the two examples I gave are at +1 and +0 respectively. You've just proven my point.
I see no reason to continue this discussion. You're obviously not serious about it, and are just looking to flame. Enjoy talking to yourself.
I did read a large part of the discussion. ... I grant you planes are harder but how much do you need to know to drive a car for example?
You're either lying or fooling yourself. The car analogy was discussed IN DETAIL in the thread. We discussed that to drive a car, you have to understand the keyed ignition, the tramission shifter, the accelerator, the brake, the fuel gauge, and the speedometer just to pull out of the drive! If you plan on driving for more than a short period, you also need to understand the fuel tank, the gasoline octanes (so you don't overpay), the range of your vehicle (so you don't get stranded), the mantenence schedule (so you don't send a piston through the empty oil pan), the rules of the road, headlights for darkness, etc, etc, etc. There is a LOT to driving a car! We just don't think about it because a) we grew up with them b) we had special training before we were allowed to use them.
Two posts stick out in my mind from the thread. One is from a fellow who's never driven or used a car. To him, even using the key in an ignition is a foreign concept. The other post was from a fellow who's sister dragged the Windows/system folder into the trash can then complained she didn't want to understand it, she just wanted to use it! (He likened this to smashing your foot on the accelerator and driving around at 60MPH in first gear. Apt analogy. It's good to understand things.)
Now lets look at computing. Every OS is different...very very different for some. The amount you need to know is incredible because things that should work don't.
Again, if you'd paid attention, you'd know that I already said that the current complexity shouldn't be so. I likened computers today to the early days of cars when you had to manually crank the car, all cars were manual, you had to top off the battery yourself, flush the radiator, change the transmission fluid, rotate the tires, and perform a wide range of emergency repairs. Cars didn't get truly easy to manage until the 80's and 90's.
Again, all I'm asking is that users have a basic knowledge of the metrics their using when they operate their computer. You don't bake cookies without knowing your metrics, and you sure as hell shouldn't be operating a computer without knowing them. And this comes from a guy who pissed off the Linux community by calling for a simpler interface! I even delivered a scathing rebuttal to a fellow who thinks new Linux users need to "read the manual first".
Basic knowledge is a very easy thing to come by. The extents that people will go through to EXPLICITLY not learn basic knowledge about a computer ("I don't want to understand it, I just want to use it!") is just astounding.
But I think you already realise all this and simply don't care. As far as you're concerned people who don't like it can get stuffed.
Just so AMAZINGLY easy to smack that reply button and flame, isn't it?
he was fiercely criticised by the National Association of Theatre Owners.
:-P
You know, he should be really careful about pissing off NATO. Otherwise he may find a nuke landing square on his doorstep!
(Thank you, thank you! I'll be here all night. Wait, no I won't. I'm going to bed.)
When Disney chief Robert Iger recently brought up the concept of shortening the window between theatrical release and DVD, he was fiercely criticised by the National Association of Theatre Owners.
:-)
The cycle is WAY shorter than it used to be. I remember back in the Bad Old Days(TM) when you would have to wait until a year after the movie left the theaters to see in on VHS. And that was only if the movie studio felt that the movie would do well resold on tape.
Now we barely have to wait 3-4 months after its initial release before it appears in stores on DVD! It's so quick anymore, that sometimes it feels like it's on DVD as soon as it's out of the theater. I realize that for some people that may seem slow, but for those of us who remember, that's one hell of a fast turnaround!
Love you too. Especially when you're one of those people who reply before understanding my point. e.g. If you fly an airplane, you had better damn well understand you fuel, range, altimeter, angle of attack, ailerons, rudder, and many other concepts required for flynig a plane. If you fail to understand these things, then you WILL DIE when you crash the plane.
BTW, I love how you accuse me of requiring users to be engineers when I EXPLICITLY said that I'm not (note the NOT and the NOT) looking for these people to be coders, but to understand the basic metrics (e.g. Kilobyte, Megabyte, etc.) of the machine that they're using. Of course, if you'd taken the time to read the wonderful discussion we had on this, you'd know that already. Then again, it's much eaiser to smack that Reply button and flame someone isn't it?
Invisible Woman: "Don't even THINK about it!"
Human Torch: "Never do."
FLAME ON!
I am of the generation that didn't grow up with computers. They existed when I was a child (1950s), but there weren't many at all, and almost no one had ever seen or used one.
;-)
:-)
... It is more likely that person is not interested in learning, *period*.
;-)
But you know what? I got off my ass and learned
So, you're the little old lady from Pasadena?
Seriously, there are exceptions to every rule, and you're one of them. With most of the older generation, the problem isn't that they don't want to learn. The problem is that they are set in their ways and just don't feel a compelling need to use computers. My own mother is an amazing example of this, and she programmed BASIC on VAXen and PCs! If they had a highly compelling reason, I'm sure most of your generation would learn, though. Unfortunately, what compels the younger generation does little to compel the older generation.
I run into just as many clueless 20-somethings who don't understand the first thing about the technology.
That's a completely different problem that you REALLY don't want to get me started on. Growing up home schooled gave me a rather unique perspective on my own generation.
Nope, those performance problems are very real - rendering the page takes anything from 3 to 10 seconds depending on the complexity (with a page of /. comments being the 10second one).
Sound familar. There seem to be a lot of kinks still getting worked out of Windows 64.
If you're running the 64bit version, try installing the "regular" Windows JVM. If you're running the 32bit version, try upgrading to the 64bit version.
Have you tried any other Java GUI programs? If so, have you experienced any performance problems? (ANY performance issues should be a red flag. An AMD 3000+ is more than powerful enough.) Either way, I think the problem is a bit more complex than it being a Java program.
FYI, I'm running ICEBrowser on Windows XP SP2 32bit edition. Page loads are sub-second, and the rendering errors are pretty minor. However, I did run it on my Mac OS X 10.2 machine (which has EXTREMELY poor Java graphics performance, something Apple fixed in later versions) and it does feel a bit sluggish there. It speeds up substantially after a few minutes of use, though. Slashdot page load time is about 4-5 seconds on my Mac.
Once again your assumption is incorrect and outright inflamatory.
Yeah, sorry about that. But your post was in a long chain of highly inflamatory and outright assinine posts. The fact that you're posting as AC, mentioned your mother, and didn't give many details didn't add to your credibility. I'll bite my tongue in the future.
And you are again ignoring the information I provided. From the link I provided:
Just-in-time (JIT) compilers are essentially fast traditional compilers that translate the Java technology bytecodes into native machine code on the fly. A JIT running on the end user's machine actually executes the bytecodes and compiles each method the first time it is executed.
So is Java interpreted? Yes and no. The slowest VMs interpret. Most VMs JIT. The fastest VMs use a hybrid mode.
BTW, you misunderstand your quote. The "compiled" they are referring to is the translation of source to bytecode. Compiling from bytecode to native code is a separate step handled independently by the JIT.
Emphasis is mine, and I even e-mailed Sun for an answer. I ended up with the exact same page I linked to above as the answer to my email.
That's because you're coming off as a newb, so you're getting a newb's page. Now myself and other Java experts have already explained what JIT is and how HotSpot operates. I even sent you to a technical document explaining the HotSpot engine in detail.
If you wish to be thick, that's your problem. But you're going to have a hard time working with Java programmers should the situation arise. Good day.
I don't have to understand how my car works to drive it.
Why yes, yes you do.
And it's not so much a matter of how it works as how to operate it. You can't effectively operate a computer without understanding things like storage measurements.
I don't have to understand how the electric motor in my blender works to make a smoothie.
No, but you do have to understand what blend, puree, high, low, and off mean. You also need to know how to measure the milk, ice, and flavoring. Which requires an understanding a units, doesn't it? Just like the units on a hard drive!
I don't have to understand plasma dynamics or scan lines or pixels to watch TV.
Nor do you need to understand head movement, staged pipelines, wait states, or memory refresh cycles to operate you computer. But you *do* need to understand the power button, channels, volume, video source, audio in/out, RCA cabling, and a variety of other details to operate your TV. You probably even need to understand measurements to make sure your TV will fit your home! (There's those pesky units again!)
If something like 61% of computer users are confused by even the most basic computer jargon, then the users aren't broken - the computers and software are broken.
No, the users are broken enough. The problem is that you have a generation that didn't grow up with computers. They're the ones having problems. (Remember, baby boomers outnumber the baby busters.)
It was the same problem with cars. Have you ever seen an old lady driving *really* slowly down the road? Ever wonder why they do that? It's because they didn't grow up with cars. Since they didn't experience the concept early on, they had difficulties with it later in life. For example, my mother had the hardest time teaching my grandmother to drive years ago. My grandmother kept wanting to look out the side window, because that was what she was used to doing!
That's because backslashes work in Internet Explorer. Try it sometime. Type "http:\\www.google.com" and see where it takes you. It also works in Mozilla.
*Whoosh* goes the point.
True, but a computer is a device, not a tradecraft.
:-) (And NO, Linux in its current form won't solve the problem either.)
Ahem. Wordprocessing, spreadsheets, web research, photo processing, graphics design, etc. All are tradecrafts that employ a computer.
Furthermore, unlike a device like a car or pocket calculator, it is a platform for entertainment and productivity, and it is far more complex than both and truly requires an additional vocabulary to operate it efficiently.
I addressed the vocabulary for a car here. It's not like a car is simpler, we just grow up understanding it.
Think about evertyhing you must put in place to properly secure a Windows PC, for example.
This is where I agree with you. The computer is currently too complex because of unnecessary management issues. This is akin to the early age of cars where you needed to understand a LOT about how it operated in order to start it and keep it running. Today, there is very little management. You still have to understand a lot of terms, but the management side has been reduced to regular use plus occasional oil changes. Many vehicle owners will never have to change their tires, flush their coolant, top off their battery, or touch their transmission fluids. Computers aren't there yet, and won't be until we can knock Microsoft off the top of the food chain.
How many words specific to a washing machine do you need to know to operate one?
;-)
Washing Machine: Hot cycle, Cold cycle, Permanent Press, Colors, Whites, Dry Clean Only, Gentle, Cotton, Polyester, etc, etc, etc.
I hate to say it, but those things are damned hard to operate properly.
? Most of us drive every day, yet many don't know the jargon for the parts of what a car does.
Car: Accelerator/Gas, Brake, Shift, Gear, Mile(KM), Miles(KM) per Hour, bucket seats, overdrive, fuel efficiency, gallons, gas tank, windshield, wipers, wiper fluid, oil/lubricant, glove compartment, tire rotation, coolant, etc, etc, etc.
And yes, you need to know these things to operate it.
We just want to turn the key and go somewhere.
If you think about that for a moment, you'll realize that you won't get very far. Plus you have to understand what a keyed ignition is first, not to mention the steering wheel, the gas, the brake, the shifter...
I'm not talking about ceding total control of the organization to IT, but allowing IT input into HR decisionmaking. If everyone in the company is my "customer" and I have to make them all happy in order for good "total customer service" to happen, then the head of IT ought to have the capability to hire/fire/promote all of these people. It's only fair.
Oh. Well then, accounting should also have a say in hiring. (Including tech people.) As should the mail room. Not to mention the cafeteria staff. And let's not forget the janitorial staff! It's very important that people who understand how to properly read the recycling labels are chosen! After all, it's only fair.
Either train them, get them a "seeing eye dog" IT monkey to follow them everywhere and do things for them, or fire them.
I agree. Has your department taken proactive action to see that all the employees are properly trained or have the support they need?
And, yes, I believe I could manage a risk portfolio. If I can figure out how to manage IT security risk, I can figure out how to manage a company's financial risk position. It's not really that different, just apply a the same types of reasoning and information gathering to a different set of scenario parameters and information.
Oh, good Lord. If that were true, you'd be out making all the money you need, not stuck with "idiot users" in a job you obviously hate. BTW, here are the computations for Modern Portfolio Theory. Knock yourself out. I hope you know where to get the data from and how to adjust the frontier for a variety of inputs, investment styles, tax limitations, bonds, and mutual fund products. (Not that you're likely to know what an investment product is. They're all stocks, right?)