As the coach of a FIRST FTC (FIRST Tech Challenge - for high school kids) team I can say that FIRST is a FANTASTIC way to help your kids "Geek Out". As for building out a lab, that's the beauty of FTC. You don't need the big equipment (or money) that you do for FRC. Just some hand tools, maybe a drill and some room to design, build program and test. A large room, 15x15 is more than enough. For the 2008-2009 season FIRST is going to a new kit. Total expected cost should be about $1k.
For younger kids FIRST Lego robotics is the way to go.
Either way it's great to see the kids get involved, geek out in a social way and have lots of fun.
Try the VeX kit. It's reasonably priced, very configurable, programmable and fun. Then go look at the FIRST VeX Challenge (http://www.usfirst.org/vex/). It's a great way to get introduced into robotics.
Do the math. 30GB holds 7,500 songs. That means it's hold $7,500 worth of music. I can buy a used car for that. The 60 GB holds 15,000 or $15,000 in music "value". That's insane.
More likely that Apple wants to build their own iPhone that's iTunes capable. Isn't it funny that we're starting to think of iTunes capable vs. MP3 capable.
Apple builds the iPod/cellphone. Google provides the new nationwide infrastructure and becomes a new phone company. A truely compelling cell phone with real useful features (real email, real web, iPod, calendaring). Way cool.
iPod Shuffle (1 GB) - $129 Music for the Shuffle - $240
iPod Nano (2GB) - $249 Music for Nano - $1000
iPod (20GB) - $299 Music for iPod - $5000
iPod (60GB) - $399 Music for iPod $15,000
So I can buy a Toyota or music for my iPod. Or I can send a kid to a state college for 1 year, or music for an iPod.
Not only is $.99 a song *MUCH* too expensive, it's INSANE.
The quote "The market should decide, not a single retailer." is also insane. There is *NO* competition here. If I want to purchase a Charlie Daniels Band song, I can get ONLY FROM ONE PLACE - EPIC RECORDS regardless of who the retailer is. There's no market forces here, just greed and control.
r
Not flashy but might allow for real science
on
NASA's New Shuttle
·
· Score: 1
It's not the Enterprise or the Galactica or even the Jupiter 2, but it has the potential to get humans back on the moon, maybe Mars. That's grandure. Good for the soul. Might even get some good science in. That's good for everyone. And if it's cheap enough we might have $$ left over for robotic unmanned massions farther out.
Apple creates the devices, has iTunes. Google creates the infrastructure with all their dark fiber and WiMax - not to mention their flirting with VOIP. Cell phone companies don't really want/need iTunes and iPhones since they connect directly with your Mac or PC. They don't make $$ on the downloads. Look at what Verizon has done with it's Bluetooth enabled phones and the requirement to use Verizon's "Get It Now" to upload/download wallpaper, ringtones, pictures, etc.
While I hate to admit it, I agree with Trims. It's about teaching kids to think. Starting with functional programming, going to procedure and ending with OO takes them on a journey where they can LEARN.
Then they can write everything in P/P/R when they get a job and have to do real work.;)
I wrestle with this all the time. We did give our daughter an old laptop when she was a Sophmore in HS. That and wireless and we she would hold up in her room and we never saw her. Then the laptop broke and she's been forced to use the family PC in the family room ever since.
It makes for some distraction (TV in the same room) and some resource contention (1 desktop for 2 kids, Mom and Dad - all wanting to check mail, play games, etc.) but I like this better. If the layout of my house was better I'd probably add another desktop to relieve the contention. Time in the same room, some gentle oversight of chats/surfing and such and general interaction with the whole family is a good thing.
INVOLEMENT IN A CHILDS LIFE IS NOT CENSORSHIP. IT'S CALLED PARENTING. KIDS NEED GUIDENCE, UNDERSTANDING AND RESPECT. KNOWING THE BOUNDRIES FOR THESE IS HARD BUT DEFINES A GOOD PARENT.
Precisely. The design of using a single vehicle to carry cargo and humans into orbit turns out to be dumb, at least for now and maybe for a long time. Small (6 including flight crew of 2) reusable passenger vehicles is the best medium term solution. They don't have to big, the crew is not going be in them for long. Just enough to hold the crew, launch (airborne perhaps/eventually), dock with what ever was put up there by the BDRs and return. That's what I like about SpaceShip One. It's small and cramped but simple.
Except - the various SDV's (Shuttle Derived Vehicles) don't do that. The same rocket is used for both cargo and manned flight, they just use two of them - one for each. (Frankly a rocket that can't be trusted for people shouldn't be trusted with billion dollar cargoes.)
I don't disagree. SDV's aren't the way to go. The current orbiter design was a compromise between the Air Force and NASA. You don't have to use same lifting platform for cargo and people. In fact, using solids is just a bad idea for humans, but is, IMHO, acceptable for cargo.
Um - no. SpaceShip One isn't an orbiter any more than a R/C sail plane is a jet fighter, there's simply no reasonable comparison.
You're right, it isn't an orbital craft. But it is a step in the direction of crating a runway-to-runway orbital vehicle, probably using some heavy aircraft to act as the booster to get velocity and altitude, similar to SpaceShip One. I'm talking about getting people in LEO so they can dock with either a (real) spacecraft or ISS. In my mind this new vehicle is really just a taxi - no in flight movies or meals.;) If you can't dock right away you come home.
These (SDV) schemes are stupid - the worst of all possible worlds.
I agree with you here. A new capsule is needed now with work moving forward on new simpler/smaller orbiter. However reusing parts and subsystems from the current shuttle (shuttle == orbiter+external fuel tank+solid boosters) can make sense to reduce cost and time - especially if you use the capsule design in the short term.
Goes to what I've been thinking for years. Separate the cargo from the humans. They have vastly different and sometimes conflicting needs and the launch vehicle design to support both is much too complex. Use Big Dumb Rockets (BDRs) to lift cargo (heavy), smarter, safer ones to lift humans (light).
The idea of a runway landing orbital vehicle is nice and, IMHO a great goal. But it turns out to be harder than originally thought. The vertical, rocket assisted capsule design seems to be good compromise for the short term (5 to 10 years).
In the medium term (say 10 - 15 years), advances by companies like Scaled Composites (http://www.scaled.com/) show that runway-to-orbit-to-runway is possible, but needs more work. Eventually that's how we'll get to orbit; using small, "space planes" to take humans to meet with low earth orbiting platforms that were launched with BDRs. We're good at putting together stuff in orbit and we're good at rendezvous and docking.
None of this is new. It's based on concepts from the Apollo days. Remember Earth-orbit-rendezvous? Heck, the Russians have never left the basic capsule design.
Keep It Simple (Stupid) is especially important for manned space flight. It'll never be safe, and the American public has to accept that there is risk, but the less complicated it is the less chance of something going wrong. And the cheaper it will be
Having helped to create one of the first Internet cafes (Cybersmith) way back in 1995, getting access with a purchase seems to me to be a sane and reasonable approach.
Having helped to create one of the first Internet cafes (Cybersmith) way back in 1995, getting access with a purchase seems to me to be a sane and resonable approach.
I'd be a cabinet maker (woodworking), which is what I do now in my spare time. I make high end stuff, building a dinning set now. I even turn custom pens. I mostly use powered equipment but there is something immensely satisfying using hand tools such a good block plane or *really* sharp chisel to fashion fine wood. Very tactile.
Well, sort of. I agree he was lucky with his first break. But he was smart enough to take advantage of it. He's good at leveraging any advantage he can get (or take as the case may be).
My point is that he's had a few big success (albeit they were *very* big), but only a few. The rest either leveraged off of those successes or were supported with them. Look at XBox. How many companies could have undertook, bankrolled and supported that project?
One successful business model says you don't have to right a lot. You just have to be right once and while and win big on those times. In Microsoft's example Bill has been "right" (or successful) on Windows and Office. For all intents and purposes, those products support everything else they do.
I agree that puting digital music (or audio books or any recording for that matter) will happen on cell phones. They are in everyone's pocket (especially teens) and are moving into less industrialized contries. But I don't see them having hard drives. Memory must be flash memory. Light, no moving parts and be big (5 GB and up).
Slashdot Mirror
As the coach of a FIRST FTC (FIRST Tech Challenge - for high school kids) team I can say that FIRST is a FANTASTIC way to help your kids "Geek Out". As for building out a lab, that's the beauty of FTC. You don't need the big equipment (or money) that you do for FRC. Just some hand tools, maybe a drill and some room to design, build program and test. A large room, 15x15 is more than enough. For the 2008-2009 season FIRST is going to a new kit. Total expected cost should be about $1k.
For younger kids FIRST Lego robotics is the way to go.
Either way it's great to see the kids get involved, geek out in a social way and have lots of fun.
I highly recommend it.
r
Try the VeX kit. It's reasonably priced, very configurable, programmable and fun. Then go look at the FIRST VeX Challenge (http://www.usfirst.org/vex/). It's a great way to get introduced into robotics.
Ron
Coach Angelbots (www.angelbots.org)
Um, no.
Do the math. 30GB holds 7,500 songs. That means it's hold $7,500 worth of music. I can buy a used car for that. The 60 GB holds 15,000 or $15,000 in music "value". That's insane.
Songs should be a nickle. A dime tops!
r
More likely that Apple wants to build their own iPhone that's iTunes capable. Isn't it funny that we're starting to think of iTunes capable vs. MP3 capable.
Clever folk those Apple people.
Just my 2 cents.
r
Apple builds the iPod/cellphone. Google provides the new nationwide infrastructure and becomes a new phone company. A truely compelling cell phone with real useful features (real email, real web, iPod, calendaring). Way cool.
r
Math according to the record companies:
iPod Shuffle (1 GB) - $129
Music for the Shuffle - $240
iPod Nano (2GB) - $249
Music for Nano - $1000
iPod (20GB) - $299
Music for iPod - $5000
iPod (60GB) - $399
Music for iPod $15,000
So I can buy a Toyota or music for my iPod.
Or I can send a kid to a state college for 1 year, or music for an iPod.
Not only is $.99 a song *MUCH* too expensive, it's INSANE.
The quote "The market should decide, not a single retailer." is also insane. There is *NO* competition here. If I want to purchase a Charlie Daniels Band song, I can get ONLY FROM ONE PLACE - EPIC RECORDS regardless of who the retailer is. There's no market forces here, just greed and control.
r
It's not the Enterprise or the Galactica or even the Jupiter 2, but it has the potential to get humans back on the moon, maybe Mars. That's grandure. Good for the soul. Might even get some good science in. That's good for everyone. And if it's cheap enough we might have $$ left over for robotic unmanned massions farther out.
Not bad.
r
If you find one, let me know. Do you know of any for Windoz XP or 2K?
r
Apple creates the devices, has iTunes. Google creates the infrastructure with all their dark fiber and WiMax - not to mention their flirting with VOIP. Cell phone companies don't really want/need iTunes and iPhones since they connect directly with your Mac or PC. They don't make $$ on the downloads. Look at what Verizon has done with it's Bluetooth enabled phones and the requirement to use Verizon's "Get It Now" to upload/download wallpaper, ringtones, pictures, etc.
r
Great piece of software. I wrote a Hypercard like engine that ran on X (in a Lisp environment) for my Master's thesis. Very cool.
All before the web.
r
While I hate to admit it, I agree with Trims. It's about teaching kids to think. Starting with functional programming, going to procedure and ending with OO takes them on a journey where they can LEARN.
;)
Then they can write everything in P/P/R when they get a job and have to do real work.
I wrestle with this all the time. We did give our daughter an old laptop when she was a Sophmore in HS. That and wireless and we she would hold up in her room and we never saw her. Then the laptop broke and she's been forced to use the family PC in the family room ever since.
It makes for some distraction (TV in the same room) and some resource contention (1 desktop for 2 kids, Mom and Dad - all wanting to check mail, play games, etc.) but I like this better. If the layout of my house was better I'd probably add another desktop to relieve the contention. Time in the same room, some gentle oversight of chats/surfing and such and general interaction with the whole family is a good thing.
INVOLEMENT IN A CHILDS LIFE IS NOT CENSORSHIP. IT'S CALLED PARENTING. KIDS NEED GUIDENCE, UNDERSTANDING AND RESPECT. KNOWING THE BOUNDRIES FOR THESE IS HARD BUT DEFINES A GOOD PARENT.
r
"It couldn't hurt."
r
Precisely. The design of using a single vehicle to carry cargo and humans into orbit turns out to be dumb, at least for now and maybe for a long time. Small (6 including flight crew of 2) reusable passenger vehicles is the best medium term solution. They don't have to big, the crew is not going be in them for long. Just enough to hold the crew, launch (airborne perhaps/eventually), dock with what ever was put up there by the BDRs and return. That's what I like about SpaceShip One. It's small and cramped but simple.
I don't disagree. SDV's aren't the way to go. The current orbiter design was a compromise between the Air Force and NASA. You don't have to use same lifting platform for cargo and people. In fact, using solids is just a bad idea for humans, but is, IMHO, acceptable for cargo.
Um - no. SpaceShip One isn't an orbiter any more than a R/C sail plane is a jet fighter, there's simply no reasonable comparison.
You're right, it isn't an orbital craft. But it is a step in the direction of crating a runway-to-runway orbital vehicle, probably using some heavy aircraft to act as the booster to get velocity and altitude, similar to SpaceShip One. I'm talking about getting people in LEO so they can dock with either a (real) spacecraft or ISS. In my mind this new vehicle is really just a taxi - no in flight movies or meals. ;) If you can't dock right away you come home.
These (SDV) schemes are stupid - the worst of all possible worlds.
I agree with you here. A new capsule is needed now with work moving forward on new simpler/smaller orbiter. However reusing parts and subsystems from the current shuttle (shuttle == orbiter+external fuel tank+solid boosters) can make sense to reduce cost and time - especially if you use the capsule design in the short term.
Goes to what I've been thinking for years. Separate the cargo from the humans. They have vastly different and sometimes conflicting needs and the launch vehicle design to support both is much too complex. Use Big Dumb Rockets (BDRs) to lift cargo (heavy), smarter, safer ones to lift humans (light).
The idea of a runway landing orbital vehicle is nice and, IMHO a great goal. But it turns out to be harder than originally thought. The vertical, rocket assisted capsule design seems to be good compromise for the short term (5 to 10 years).
In the medium term (say 10 - 15 years), advances by companies like Scaled Composites (http://www.scaled.com/) show that runway-to-orbit-to-runway is possible, but needs more work. Eventually that's how we'll get to orbit; using small, "space planes" to take humans to meet with low earth orbiting platforms that were launched with BDRs. We're good at putting together stuff in orbit and we're good at rendezvous and docking.
None of this is new. It's based on concepts from the Apollo days. Remember Earth-orbit-rendezvous? Heck, the Russians have never left the basic capsule design.
Keep It Simple (Stupid) is especially important for manned space flight. It'll never be safe, and the American public has to accept that there is risk, but the less complicated it is the less chance of something going wrong. And the cheaper it will be
Having helped to create one of the first Internet cafes (Cybersmith) way back in 1995, getting access with a purchase seems to me to be a sane and reasonable approach.
r
Having helped to create one of the first Internet cafes (Cybersmith) way back in 1995, getting access with a purchase seems to me to be a sane and resonable approach.
r
Thirty six years to the day after the first manned lunar landing.
One small step for man...
Rest well Jimmy.
r
I'd be a cabinet maker (woodworking), which is what I do now in my spare time. I make high end stuff, building a dinning set now. I even turn custom pens. I mostly use powered equipment but there is something immensely satisfying using hand tools such a good block plane or *really* sharp chisel to fashion fine wood. Very tactile.
r
What she said.
r
Well, sort of. I agree he was lucky with his first break. But he was smart enough to take advantage of it. He's good at leveraging any advantage he can get (or take as the case may be).
My point is that he's had a few big success (albeit they were *very* big), but only a few. The rest either leveraged off of those successes or were supported with them. Look at XBox. How many companies could have undertook, bankrolled and supported that project?
r
One successful business model says you don't have to right a lot. You just have to be right once and while and win big on those times. In Microsoft's example Bill has been "right" (or successful) on Windows and Office. For all intents and purposes, those products support everything else they do.
r
I agree that puting digital music (or audio books or any recording for that matter) will happen on cell phones. They are in everyone's pocket (especially teens) and are moving into less industrialized contries. But I don't see them having hard drives. Memory must be flash memory. Light, no moving parts and be big (5 GB and up).
r