Re:Seems possible to me
on
After the X Prize
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
The whole point of the X-Prize is that the vehicle should be developed for orders of magnitude less than what NASA spends. Look at how much Rutan spent on his craft! Strap it to the nose of a Delta II, and you've got yourself an orbiter!
With a few modifications, the craft should be able to be modified for reentry. Alternatively, we could for-go the wings and just return a capsule on a parafoil. That was the plan of the Big Gemini craft, and I see little reason why it wouldn't work now. Especially since we have a lot of experience with reentry shielding and parafoil recovery technology.
Re:Seems possible to me
on
After the X Prize
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The $54 million contract covers the costs to complete the preparations for the launches of four GPS satellites scheduled to occur during the 2005 fiscal year.
My Wild Ass Guess is that they'd extend maritime law to outer-space. i.e. Your craft, crew, and passengers are subject to the laws and treaties of the country which is considered your home port.
That's exactly what happened with early Jet Liners. It didn't stop air travel then, and I doubt it would stop space travel now. It would pretty much have to be a possible setback that should be expected and planned for.
The Boeing Delta II rocket (one of the smallest we have) can launch about 4.9 metric tons into LEO, and goes for about 10 million per launch (IIRC). Its safety record over the past decade is such that it could probably be man rated. Now if you figure seven astronauts at 100 kilos each (these are BIG boys with their space suits!;-)), then you've got about 700 kilos in cargo. If you can fit a useful craft in the remaining 4.2 metric tons, you'd have a very inexpensive launch solution.
Perhaps something like this could be scaled down rather than a flyable craft? Although I am kind of partial to lifting bodies. Bring on the Dynasoar!
It's worth noting that Caldera had a complete executive shakedown before it "reinvented" itself as a litigation company. Thus the current SCO is not the old SCO, but it's not the old Caldera either.
If Sun becomes a company worth less than a billion dollars (i.e. is expendable) and suffers a sudden executive shakedown, THEN you can worry.
For one, Sun had been saying that they were going to end-of-life Solaris x86 for YEARS. But when they finally did it, customers begged them to bring it back. So they (*gasp*) listened to their customers and brought them back.
All of which has nothing to do with attempting to sabotage Linux or Open Source through legal or otherwise means. Sun has often competed heavily in the business, but to say that they've been unethical and untrustworthy is a bit of a stretch. Especially when your evidence is a well known practice of ending product lines.
Actually, he was arguing the software in his blog. i.e. Kernel debugging tools, software fault recovery features, maintenance logging, etc.
Not that Sun hardware isn't part of why the machines are usually stable. I can only wish that PC hardware was designed so well. The ability for the hardware and software to specifically complement each other is something that the consumer market has never known in anything other than game consoles and (to a limited degree) Macs. Most consumer hardware consists of off-the-shelf components which make very few special allowances for the software. Thus systems that are part of the Sun hardware design must be emulated in software.
With computer components being as cheap as they are, this could change. All that's needed is a decent replacement to the PC BIOS infrastructure. Something like OpenFirmware would significantly improve the ability for the software to interface with the hardware.
My problem is that people always assume that's what Sun is going to do when they have ZERO history of pulling that sort of crap. In fact, things get very frustrating because Slashdotters first say "We want company XYZ to support Linux!" then bitch, "Did you see how company XYZ is making money off of Linux?! Evil! Death to them!"
The only loophole in this screwed up logic is if Slashdotters feel that someone is playing defender for them in their favorite spectator sport: court proceedings.
"Wow, IBM is defending themselves against a baseless lawsuit! They're protecting Linux and all that is good, true, and just!"
So Solaris is designed around high availability, easy problem diagnosis, and fault recovery. In exchange it sacrifices speed and kernel size.
Linux is built to be lean and fast, and sacrifices some high availability and problem diagnosis features to reach that goal. There are five gazillion patches if you want to make Linux something like Solaris, albeit not as integrated.
Soooo.... what is the problem here? The two systems attempt two different goals. That doesn't make them better or worse, it only makes them different. Let the consumers decide what it is they want from a system.
LCD TVs and Response Time Response time is basically the amount of time it takes for a liquid crystal cell to go from active (black) to inactive (white) and back to active (black) again.
From the article on the Dell LCD:
Response Time: 16ms (Typical)
I think the problem is something else. Perhaps a bad batch of controller cards? *shrug*
Not that I'm aware of. As I understand it, gaming ability is a function of response time. i.e. A monitor with a lower response time will play games better. But LCDs inherently have a sharp image due to the way they function. Unlike a CRT which can "bleed" from pixel to pixel, an LCD consists of truly discreet pixels that are flipped on and off. As long as the monitor is properly adjusted to the video signal (check your manufacturers recommendations and look for an auto-adjust button), it should look just fine for both text and games.
Take that with a grain of salt, though. I'm not up to speed on all of the manufacturers techniques for making their monitors seem "fast" or "crisp". Some may use algorithms or circuitry that favor one use over another, or result in issues like bleed.
To be perfectly honest, I HATE LCD's. I think they look like crap compared to a nice CRT that costs a third of the price.
I'd love to know what the hell you're talking about. Modern LCDs actually look BETTER than CRTs. I should know. I just upgraded from a Trinitron to a 17" KDS LCD screen. The picture on the KDS is sharper than ANYTHING I've ever seen. The text is amazingly readable, better than any machine or LCD I've ever used.
But it's nice to know you have the confidence to pretend you know what you're talking about.
I just thought of something you might want to try. LCDs are a bit different than CRTs in that they are completely digital. Since the monitor is digital, it sometimes requires calibration when used with an analog connector. Check your manufacturers specs for the EXACT resolution AND refresh rate that they recommend. The monitor will run in other modes, but it supposedly won't do them as well.
Once you've set your resolution and refresh rate, be sure to use the auto-adjust button if your monitor has it. When I first got mine, I thought the picture looked like crap. Then I found the auto-adjust. With a push of a button, I suddenly saw the crispest text I'd ever seen in my life. Quite an improvement over CRT displays.:-)
No offense, but you need to get another monitor. I notice no "lag" between my iBook and CRTs, nor do I notice any lag on my new 17" KDS for my desktop. Having developed a few video games and GUIs, I have a fairly well trained eye. I can see the problem in the video, but I see no such problem on my systems.
Conclusion? Dell buys parts from the lowest bidder. Ergo, they are the lowest quality. Therefore, you need a better monitor.
Has anyone told you that Chicago (MS-Windows-95) almost shipped without a web browser because of that?
It DID ship without a web browser. Internet Explorer was shipped a few months later with the awesome ability to *snicker* show web pages while they were loading. Yet all downloads happened in the same browser windoe. i.e. If you clicked on a link to download, you'd then have to wait as the browser load bar told you the status of the download. If you left the page, you'd lose the downlaod.
Akamai? So you think I'm "intelligent, clever and cool", huh?;-)
As for where you live, I'm guessing Hawaii. Of course, you might just know the name from a company in Cambridge, Massachusetts, but I don't think you'd understand the usage then.:-)
Mr. President and Mr. Senator, recently a humorous clip called "This Land" has begun circulating the media. In this clip, this election has been mocked as nothing more than a childish name-calling session between the two of you. Yet the clip has only grown in popularity, suggesting that it represents the population's feelings about this election. What are your thoughts on the video, it's popularity, and how it has affected you personally?
Wild Ass Guess? They're talking out of their behinds. Not only would that be an inefficient way of bombing the US, Russian had already launched a satellite nuclear weapons platform. They had no need for the Buran to be armed, and it would have been too large of a radar target anyway. The U.S. would have simply started arming carriers with warhead-carrying Pegasus boosters, and it would have been "Goodbye Buran".
My guess is that some reporter heard an idea that had been batted around, and decided to take it as fact. Because Russia == The Evil(TM), you know. *rolls eyes*:-)
Well, the primary difference is that the Vulkan and Hercules configurations were more of a matter of bolting on more Zenits rather than constructing a new craft. So while the configuration never flew, it's not entirely accurate to say that it was "never built".
Even if we're talking about the Buran configuration, however, that's still 100 metric tons per flight. With that kind of booster, you could have an entire space station in two launches. The only comparable rocket is the Space Shuttle, but it's design precludes carrying more than ~23-25 metric tons. The rest of the weight is the shuttle itself.
10. HP decided that they didn't want to go down with the Itanic 9. Hear that flushing sound? That's billions of dollars being invested into a lemon. 8. HP must of realized it was a 64-bit Pinto. 7. HP's just upset that they didn't get to sit on the bow and yell, "I'm the King of Computers!" 6. HP's Itanic line is sunk. 5. "The Itanic is the most advanced chip of her kind. She's practically unsinkable!" 4. HP didn't want to be compared to Leonardo Di Caprio 3. HP Execs suddenly realized that Di Caprio dies in the end 2. Intel assured HP that the Itanic was not sinking, despite being hit by a AMDBerg 1. "My clock wiiilllll, count on and on!"
I'm aware of the Zenit strap-on boosters reuse. In addition, the Protons are still launched by Lockheed-Martin IIRC. But none of them compare to the amazing launch power of an Energia. Over a hundred metric tons could be put up in the Buran configuration. The Vulkan configuration could have done 150 metric tons. The Hercules configuration could have done a whopping 175 metric tons!!! That's only about a dozen tons shy of the current weight of the ISS! One launch!
Slashdot Mirror
The whole point of the X-Prize is that the vehicle should be developed for orders of magnitude less than what NASA spends. Look at how much Rutan spent on his craft! Strap it to the nose of a Delta II, and you've got yourself an orbiter!
With a few modifications, the craft should be able to be modified for reentry. Alternatively, we could for-go the wings and just return a capsule on a parafoil. That was the plan of the Big Gemini craft, and I see little reason why it wouldn't work now. Especially since we have a lot of experience with reentry shielding and parafoil recovery technology.
From here:
The $54 million contract covers the costs to complete the preparations for the launches of four GPS satellites scheduled to occur during the 2005 fiscal year.
My Wild Ass Guess is that they'd extend maritime law to outer-space. i.e. Your craft, crew, and passengers are subject to the laws and treaties of the country which is considered your home port.
That's exactly what happened with early Jet Liners. It didn't stop air travel then, and I doubt it would stop space travel now. It would pretty much have to be a possible setback that should be expected and planned for.
The Boeing Delta II rocket (one of the smallest we have) can launch about 4.9 metric tons into LEO, and goes for about 10 million per launch (IIRC). Its safety record over the past decade is such that it could probably be man rated. Now if you figure seven astronauts at 100 kilos each (these are BIG boys with their space suits! ;-)), then you've got about 700 kilos in cargo. If you can fit a useful craft in the remaining 4.2 metric tons, you'd have a very inexpensive launch solution.
Perhaps something like this could be scaled down rather than a flyable craft? Although I am kind of partial to lifting bodies. Bring on the Dynasoar!
It's worth noting that Caldera had a complete executive shakedown before it "reinvented" itself as a litigation company. Thus the current SCO is not the old SCO, but it's not the old Caldera either.
If Sun becomes a company worth less than a billion dollars (i.e. is expendable) and suffers a sudden executive shakedown, THEN you can worry.
All I can say to this is...
HUH?
For one, Sun had been saying that they were going to end-of-life Solaris x86 for YEARS. But when they finally did it, customers begged them to bring it back. So they (*gasp*) listened to their customers and brought them back.
All of which has nothing to do with attempting to sabotage Linux or Open Source through legal or otherwise means. Sun has often competed heavily in the business, but to say that they've been unethical and untrustworthy is a bit of a stretch. Especially when your evidence is a well known practice of ending product lines.
Actually, he was arguing the software in his blog. i.e. Kernel debugging tools, software fault recovery features, maintenance logging, etc.
Not that Sun hardware isn't part of why the machines are usually stable. I can only wish that PC hardware was designed so well. The ability for the hardware and software to specifically complement each other is something that the consumer market has never known in anything other than game consoles and (to a limited degree) Macs. Most consumer hardware consists of off-the-shelf components which make very few special allowances for the software. Thus systems that are part of the Sun hardware design must be emulated in software.
With computer components being as cheap as they are, this could change. All that's needed is a decent replacement to the PC BIOS infrastructure. Something like OpenFirmware would significantly improve the ability for the software to interface with the hardware.
My problem is that people always assume that's what Sun is going to do when they have ZERO history of pulling that sort of crap. In fact, things get very frustrating because Slashdotters first say "We want company XYZ to support Linux!" then bitch, "Did you see how company XYZ is making money off of Linux?! Evil! Death to them!"
The only loophole in this screwed up logic is if Slashdotters feel that someone is playing defender for them in their favorite spectator sport: court proceedings.
"Wow, IBM is defending themselves against a baseless lawsuit! They're protecting Linux and all that is good, true, and just!"
Whatever.
Agreed.
To summarize this article:
So Solaris is designed around high availability, easy problem diagnosis, and fault recovery. In exchange it sacrifices speed and kernel size.
Linux is built to be lean and fast, and sacrifices some high availability and problem diagnosis features to reach that goal. There are five gazillion patches if you want to make Linux something like Solaris, albeit not as integrated.
Soooo.... what is the problem here? The two systems attempt two different goals. That doesn't make them better or worse, it only makes them different. Let the consumers decide what it is they want from a system.
The manufacturer of my monitor clearly states that I should use 75Hz at 1280x1024. (I have a Rad-7s.)
LCD TVs and Response Time Response time is basically the amount of time it takes for a liquid crystal cell to go from active (black) to inactive (white) and back to active (black) again.
From the article on the Dell LCD:
Response Time: 16ms (Typical)
I think the problem is something else. Perhaps a bad batch of controller cards? *shrug*
Depends on how much you spend
Definitely. The same was true of CRTs.
whether you're doing text or games, right?
Not that I'm aware of. As I understand it, gaming ability is a function of response time. i.e. A monitor with a lower response time will play games better. But LCDs inherently have a sharp image due to the way they function. Unlike a CRT which can "bleed" from pixel to pixel, an LCD consists of truly discreet pixels that are flipped on and off. As long as the monitor is properly adjusted to the video signal (check your manufacturers recommendations and look for an auto-adjust button), it should look just fine for both text and games.
Take that with a grain of salt, though. I'm not up to speed on all of the manufacturers techniques for making their monitors seem "fast" or "crisp". Some may use algorithms or circuitry that favor one use over another, or result in issues like bleed.
To be perfectly honest, I HATE LCD's. I think they look like crap compared to a nice CRT that costs a third of the price.
I'd love to know what the hell you're talking about. Modern LCDs actually look BETTER than CRTs. I should know. I just upgraded from a Trinitron to a 17" KDS LCD screen. The picture on the KDS is sharper than ANYTHING I've ever seen. The text is amazingly readable, better than any machine or LCD I've ever used.
But it's nice to know you have the confidence to pretend you know what you're talking about.
60Hz or 60Hz? Hmm, I bet he's using 60Hz.
The manufacturer of my LCD recommends that I run it at 75Hz, so I do. He may be running it at 60Hz when he's supposed to be running 75-80Hz.
I just thought of something you might want to try. LCDs are a bit different than CRTs in that they are completely digital. Since the monitor is digital, it sometimes requires calibration when used with an analog connector. Check your manufacturers specs for the EXACT resolution AND refresh rate that they recommend. The monitor will run in other modes, but it supposedly won't do them as well.
:-)
Once you've set your resolution and refresh rate, be sure to use the auto-adjust button if your monitor has it. When I first got mine, I thought the picture looked like crap. Then I found the auto-adjust. With a push of a button, I suddenly saw the crispest text I'd ever seen in my life. Quite an improvement over CRT displays.
No offense, but you need to get another monitor. I notice no "lag" between my iBook and CRTs, nor do I notice any lag on my new 17" KDS for my desktop. Having developed a few video games and GUIs, I have a fairly well trained eye. I can see the problem in the video, but I see no such problem on my systems.
Conclusion? Dell buys parts from the lowest bidder. Ergo, they are the lowest quality. Therefore, you need a better monitor.
Sorry.
Has anyone told you that Chicago (MS-Windows-95) almost shipped without a web browser because of that?
It DID ship without a web browser. Internet Explorer was shipped a few months later with the awesome ability to *snicker* show web pages while they were loading. Yet all downloads happened in the same browser windoe. i.e. If you clicked on a link to download, you'd then have to wait as the browser load bar told you the status of the download. If you left the page, you'd lose the downlaod.
Akamai? So you think I'm "intelligent, clever and cool", huh? ;-)
:-)
As for where you live, I'm guessing Hawaii. Of course, you might just know the name from a company in Cambridge, Massachusetts, but I don't think you'd understand the usage then.
Mr. President and Mr. Senator, recently a humorous clip called "This Land" has begun circulating the media. In this clip, this election has been mocked as nothing more than a childish name-calling session between the two of you. Yet the clip has only grown in popularity, suggesting that it represents the population's feelings about this election. What are your thoughts on the video, it's popularity, and how it has affected you personally?
Wild Ass Guess? They're talking out of their behinds. Not only would that be an inefficient way of bombing the US, Russian had already launched a satellite nuclear weapons platform. They had no need for the Buran to be armed, and it would have been too large of a radar target anyway. The U.S. would have simply started arming carriers with warhead-carrying Pegasus boosters, and it would have been "Goodbye Buran".
:-)
My guess is that some reporter heard an idea that had been batted around, and decided to take it as fact. Because Russia == The Evil(TM), you know. *rolls eyes*
Horrible, simply horrible.
;-)
Well, I'm glad someone got the point. Every seen Dave's top ten?
Well, the primary difference is that the Vulkan and Hercules configurations were more of a matter of bolting on more Zenits rather than constructing a new craft. So while the configuration never flew, it's not entirely accurate to say that it was "never built".
Even if we're talking about the Buran configuration, however, that's still 100 metric tons per flight. With that kind of booster, you could have an entire space station in two launches. The only comparable rocket is the Space Shuttle, but it's design precludes carrying more than ~23-25 metric tons. The rest of the weight is the shuttle itself.
Top 10 Itanic jokes:
:-D
10. HP decided that they didn't want to go down with the Itanic
9. Hear that flushing sound? That's billions of dollars being invested into a lemon.
8. HP must of realized it was a 64-bit Pinto.
7. HP's just upset that they didn't get to sit on the bow and yell, "I'm the King of Computers!"
6. HP's Itanic line is sunk.
5. "The Itanic is the most advanced chip of her kind. She's practically unsinkable!"
4. HP didn't want to be compared to Leonardo Di Caprio
3. HP Execs suddenly realized that Di Caprio dies in the end
2. Intel assured HP that the Itanic was not sinking, despite being hit by a AMDBerg
1. "My clock wiiilllll, count on and on!"
Sorry, I just couldn't resist.
I'm aware of the Zenit strap-on boosters reuse. In addition, the Protons are still launched by Lockheed-Martin IIRC. But none of them compare to the amazing launch power of an Energia. Over a hundred metric tons could be put up in the Buran configuration. The Vulkan configuration could have done 150 metric tons. The Hercules configuration could have done a whopping 175 metric tons!!! That's only about a dozen tons shy of the current weight of the ISS! One launch!
Wow.