Actually not that many servers need 64-bit right now. Some big database servers do but many do not. The real benefit of ARM will be just how many cores you could pack in to a server. If the ARM cores have 10x the power to performance ratio of the Atom then how many ARM cores can you pack in to server in the same thermal envelope as say a 4S Intel box? One or two hundred maybe? I see memory bandwidth get to be an issue at that point but the idea of many small cores is interesting to say the least.
You can add more ram to a 32 bit CPU than 4GB Intel created PAE to solve that issue a while ago. Most servers probably don't run tasks that require more than a 32 bit address space. Some do but most mail servers, NAS, webservers and even database servers will work just fine with a 32 bit address space. So since the ARM uses only 10% the power of an Atom imagine a server that instead of say 16 or 24 Intel cores vs one with 160 or 240 ARM cores? Of course it isn't that simple but you get the idea. Plus for all I know there is a 64bit ARM core already available.
Yes. 64 bit only gives you a performance boost if any one task needs more than four gigabytes of ram. Most applications on the desktop do not and will not for a while. In fact using 64 bit code for small programs will actually slow them down. Why waste the memory on 64 bit pointer and integers for a program that doesn't need them. Only in X86 land will you see a performance increase using 64bit mode. The reason is that the x86 is starved for registers and AMD added more registers when they created the 64 bit extension. ARM on the other hand does not have that issue.
Actually Heart monitors tend to be exercise aids not safety devices as such. Lots of people use them at the gym to make sure that they are getting heart rate up high enough to get a good work out. You can find them at Bike Nashbar and such. I doubt that a gym teacher will have the knowledge or tech to monitor a class for heart problems.
Okay. Allow to dry. Expose to UV. Soak in H2O2, Soak in Bleach. Bake at 450 for one hour. And expose to hard Gamma. There if anything lives through all that then it deserves to kill you.
I was only talking about an orbital flight and putting paying satellites into orbit. Yes for a ballistic flight fins are good enough and the reasons for not using a guidance system are all political but that doesn't mean they are not valid for the community as a whole. You might have noticed that I said that making a good enough guidance system probably wouldn't be that hard. Gyros and accelerometers have gotten pretty cheap. For vectoring the thrust you could use graphite vanes but the problem I see is testing it all with out getting lots of people upset. And yes I have seen sugar based motors. None of this is impossible but I wouldn't classify them as trivial. But if you do build one I hope you launch it from Florida so I can see it go.
You are ignoring the problem of control and guidance. A good enough guidance system could be made but then you have the issue of thrust vectoring. Fins will only get you so far so then you a thrust vectoring system. Ever notice how Tripoli seems to stay away from guidance systems? They are actually not allowed and I can think of a lot of good reasons why. You next issue would be cutting off the thrust. I would probably use a NOX hi-breed upper stage so you could control the cut off. For the real world you don't want to end up in some random orbit.
Yes it could work but it is a little more complex that you might think at least for orbital flight.
By Improved I mean: 0. lower Construction cost Not really all that important. We build so few space craft that the cost of construction is actually only a very small part of the life cost of the system. 1. lower cost for throwaway components (boosters etc...) Yes very important. 2. Lower fuel consumption per payload/passenger pound. I am not sure that is all that important in the over all cost. 3. Lower cost of servicing between missions. This is huge. And yes very important. 4. Shorter prep time for flight. Really is the same thing as number 3. 5. Larger cargo bay. Also not really needed. The shuttle's cargo bay is actually larger than is needed for most of it's missions. I higher lift weight would be nice but a true heavy lift launch system is the real solution to putting big payloads into orbit. 6. Less likely to blow up under stress. etc... Always a plus.
I would love see a new shuttle with the same payload but with increased safety and lower cost as goals. Even the current shuttles could be made cheaper to operate with some upgrades. Replace the apus with a new all electric system, Fly back boosters.
"that most of the space tech Lockheed, especially, sells is basically recycled military equipment." Not sure what you mean by that. Right now Boeing "owns" the Delta, Atlas, and SeaLaunch systems. The current Atlas has no relation to the old Atlas that was based on the Atlas ICBM from the 50s. The current Delta has no relation the old Delta that was based off the Thor IRBM from the 50s. SeaLaunch and Atlas use a lot of Russian tech and the Delta uses the first new liquid fuel rocket engine, the RS-70 developed in the US since the SSME. Boeing and Lockheed are both big military contractors so I am sure there is a good amount of miltary tech in these launchers but they are not recycled old ICBMs and IRBMS like the Titan, old Atlas, and, old Delta from the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s.
Yes I fear this has all the validity of the Moller flying car. I am not saying that private enterprise can not do it better and cheaper than NASA but this is at best a pipe dream. Maybe we need a new saying for the 21st century. Renderings are cheap, hardware is real. SpaceX is far more interesting. They have flown the Falcon I to orbit and seem to have an optimistic but well thought out test program for the Dragon/Falcon 9.
Of all the the idiotic posts on Slashdot yours has managed to really tick me off. Take a look at yourself in the mirror. You don't refute a single thing in my post and then claim I have a second log in! Your post had not facts and a lot of emotional baiting. Simple solution. You think I have two accounts then report me to CmdrTaco or shut up. Put up or shut up as they say. Heck I can not even find this mythical post that you claim I have made. As too caring if people agree with me? I really don't life is too short and I am too old to care about what the kiddies on Slashdot think.
I don't have an iPhone but your way offf base. The iPhone does a great job as a media player and as a mobile computer. I do have an iPod Touch and I can tell you that the UI is really good as is a lot of the software. I tend to surf the web more with my iPod than I do my PC because I have it with me all the time. My next phone will be a smartphone. It will probably be an HTC Magic, InstinctQ or a Pre. I have has Sprint for years and really like their service and price but I would love it if they offered an iPhone.
I only have a single log in. Maybe you shouldn't accuse people without any proof. The far more likely cause is this is so obvious that more than one person posted it.
Troll? Maybe but Verizon pretty much does trash features on their phones and has stated in the past that it removed bluetooth profiles and wifi for "security" and "stability" reasons.
If Verizon really wanted a Android phone then why don't they have one? T-Mobile has had them for a while now and Sprint has announced at least one is coming. So where are they?
Actually Engadget seems to really like it. I hear that it will be "free" on T-Mobile with a two year contract. This really good be a great phone. Motorola phones are well made and usually have great call quality. The only thing wrong with them right now is that they tend to be boring.
Um Verizon could have them. If Verizon gets them they will. 1. Limit BlueTooth functions. 2. Put their own UI on them. 3. Remove wifi. 4. Force you to use the new Verizon app store. 5. have some really creepy guy always following around. Sprint has the Pre and the new Pixie from Palm. My wife has a Pre and loves it. PS we get really good service and Sprint has never crippled their phones. Sprint is getting the HTC Hero with Android and the Samsung InstinctQ with Android. TMobile has a bunch of Android phones. And I hear AT&T is getting some Android phones and they already have the Nokia E71 for the S60 fans and the of course the iPhone.
If you really like Verizon just wait a bit. I hear they are going to get the Pre around May....
"I am sure the families of Chernobyl victims are with you on that one." Yes and I am sure the families of the Titanic still think that cruise ships are unsafe as well..... "The problem is your thinking (as most Americans always do) about yourself, and your country, and not the global picture. Yes American run and owned nuclear plants (without Homer Simpson in them) are run nicely, but other countries have their own "guidelines" for running things, and do not always comply with "American" standards."
Wow so we Americans are wrong to think that Germany is capable of running a nuclear power plant as well as we can. How closed minded of us to think of other nations as being our equal! Please we are talking about Germany here. I could be wrong but I do think that Germany is democratic enough and educated enough that they could run a nuclear power plant just as safely as we do in the US.
Actually the US and Canada have large reserves of Uranium and Thorium. And the US has not claimed that the oil in Iraq is ours.
So you sprinkle your post with a Chernobyl reference that is nothing but a mindless emotional ploy. You make an anti US rant about how people in the US shouldn't assume that people in other nations are capable of running a nuclear power plant as the US is. And sprinkle the end with an "Evil US warmonger" ploy. Nice and silly, thanks for the amusement.
Actually I have read that in the EU that a lot of home heating is electric vs natural gas in the US. Also Germany is a lot farther north than most of the US so they probably don't have a lot of AC even in summer. I would bet Germany's power use per season is closer to Maine than say Southern California.
They also didn't specify any catalyst. The fuel sources could be anything from grain alcohol to lighter fluid and you could get a big enough bang to kill several people and blow a hole in an airplane. The fuels would be common and very easy to get anywhere so tracking them or even purchasing them would be trivial. I really wouldn't be knocking others education in Chemistry at this point when your seems to be limited to reading a Wikipedia article and not understanding it.
There are but you stated that you could not make a bomb using H2O2. Alcohol, gas, and other hydrocarbons really have a high energy content. The bang you would get is bigger that you think.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually not that many servers need 64-bit right now.
Some big database servers do but many do not.
The real benefit of ARM will be just how many cores you could pack in to a server. If the ARM cores have 10x the power to performance ratio of the Atom then how many ARM cores can you pack in to server in the same thermal envelope as say a 4S Intel box? One or two hundred maybe? I see memory bandwidth get to be an issue at that point but the idea of many small cores is interesting to say the least.
You can add more ram to a 32 bit CPU than 4GB Intel created PAE to solve that issue a while ago. Most servers probably don't run tasks that require more than a 32 bit address space. Some do but most mail servers, NAS, webservers and even database servers will work just fine with a 32 bit address space.
So since the ARM uses only 10% the power of an Atom imagine a server that instead of say 16 or 24 Intel cores vs one with 160 or 240 ARM cores?
Of course it isn't that simple but you get the idea. Plus for all I know there is a 64bit ARM core already available.
Yes. 64 bit only gives you a performance boost if any one task needs more than four gigabytes of ram. Most applications on the desktop do not and will not for a while.
In fact using 64 bit code for small programs will actually slow them down. Why waste the memory on 64 bit pointer and integers for a program that doesn't need them.
Only in X86 land will you see a performance increase using 64bit mode. The reason is that the x86 is starved for registers and AMD added more registers when they created the 64 bit extension.
ARM on the other hand does not have that issue.
Actually Heart monitors tend to be exercise aids not safety devices as such.
Lots of people use them at the gym to make sure that they are getting heart rate up high enough to get a good work out. You can find them at Bike Nashbar and such.
I doubt that a gym teacher will have the knowledge or tech to monitor a class for heart problems.
Okay.
Allow to dry.
Expose to UV.
Soak in H2O2,
Soak in Bleach.
Bake at 450 for one hour.
And expose to hard Gamma.
There if anything lives through all that then it deserves to kill you.
I was only talking about an orbital flight and putting paying satellites into orbit. Yes for a ballistic flight fins are good enough and the reasons for not using a guidance system are all political but that doesn't mean they are not valid for the community as a whole.
You might have noticed that I said that making a good enough guidance system probably wouldn't be that hard. Gyros and accelerometers have gotten pretty cheap. For vectoring the thrust you could use graphite vanes but the problem I see is testing it all with out getting lots of people upset. And yes I have seen sugar based motors.
None of this is impossible but I wouldn't classify them as trivial. But if you do build one I hope you launch it from Florida so I can see it go.
Probably removing and dipping the shower head in some bleach every now and then will also help.
You are ignoring the problem of control and guidance. A good enough guidance system could be made but then you have the issue of thrust vectoring. Fins will only get you so far so then you a thrust vectoring system. Ever notice how Tripoli seems to stay away from guidance systems? They are actually not allowed and I can think of a lot of good reasons why.
You next issue would be cutting off the thrust. I would probably use a NOX hi-breed upper stage so you could control the cut off. For the real world you don't want to end up in some random orbit.
Yes it could work but it is a little more complex that you might think at least for orbital flight.
Okay I will bite.
By Improved I mean:
0. lower Construction cost
Not really all that important. We build so few space craft that the cost of construction is actually only a very small part of the life cost of the system.
1. lower cost for throwaway components (boosters etc...)
Yes very important.
2. Lower fuel consumption per payload/passenger pound.
I am not sure that is all that important in the over all cost.
3. Lower cost of servicing between missions.
This is huge. And yes very important.
4. Shorter prep time for flight.
Really is the same thing as number 3.
5. Larger cargo bay.
Also not really needed. The shuttle's cargo bay is actually larger than is needed for most of it's missions. I higher lift weight would be nice but a true heavy lift launch system is the real solution to putting big payloads into orbit.
6. Less likely to blow up under stress. etc...
Always a plus.
I would love see a new shuttle with the same payload but with increased safety and lower cost as goals. Even the current shuttles could be made cheaper to operate with some upgrades.
Replace the apus with a new all electric system,
Fly back boosters.
"that most of the space tech Lockheed, especially, sells is basically recycled military equipment."
Not sure what you mean by that. Right now Boeing "owns" the Delta, Atlas, and SeaLaunch systems.
The current Atlas has no relation to the old Atlas that was based on the Atlas ICBM from the 50s.
The current Delta has no relation the old Delta that was based off the Thor IRBM from the 50s.
SeaLaunch and Atlas use a lot of Russian tech and the Delta uses the first new liquid fuel rocket engine, the RS-70 developed in the US since the SSME.
Boeing and Lockheed are both big military contractors so I am sure there is a good amount of miltary tech in these launchers but they are not recycled old ICBMs and IRBMS like the Titan, old Atlas, and, old Delta from the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s.
Yes I fear this has all the validity of the Moller flying car. I am not saying that private enterprise can not do it better and cheaper than NASA but this is at best a pipe dream.
Maybe we need a new saying for the 21st century. Renderings are cheap, hardware is real.
SpaceX is far more interesting. They have flown the Falcon I to orbit and seem to have an optimistic but well thought out test program for the Dragon/Falcon 9.
Of all the the idiotic posts on Slashdot yours has managed to really tick me off.
Take a look at yourself in the mirror. You don't refute a single thing in my post and then claim I have a second log in!
Your post had not facts and a lot of emotional baiting.
Simple solution. You think I have two accounts then report me to CmdrTaco or shut up. Put up or shut up as they say. Heck I can not even find this mythical post that you claim I have made.
As too caring if people agree with me? I really don't life is too short and I am too old to care about what the kiddies on Slashdot think.
I don't have an iPhone but your way offf base.
The iPhone does a great job as a media player and as a mobile computer. I do have an iPod Touch and I can tell you that the UI is really good as is a lot of the software. I tend to surf the web more with my iPod than I do my PC because I have it with me all the time.
My next phone will be a smartphone. It will probably be an HTC Magic, InstinctQ or a Pre. I have has Sprint for years and really like their service and price but I would love it if they offered an iPhone.
I only have a single log in. Maybe you shouldn't accuse people without any proof. The far more likely cause is this is so obvious that more than one person posted it.
Troll? Maybe but Verizon pretty much does trash features on their phones and has stated in the past that it removed bluetooth profiles and wifi for "security" and "stability" reasons.
If Verizon really wanted a Android phone then why don't they have one? T-Mobile has had them for a while now and Sprint has announced at least one is coming.
So where are they?
Actually Engadget seems to really like it. I hear that it will be "free" on T-Mobile with a two year contract.
This really good be a great phone. Motorola phones are well made and usually have great call quality. The only thing wrong with them right now is that they tend to be boring.
Um Verizon could have them.
If Verizon gets them they will.
1. Limit BlueTooth functions.
2. Put their own UI on them.
3. Remove wifi.
4. Force you to use the new Verizon app store.
5. have some really creepy guy always following around.
Sprint has the Pre and the new Pixie from Palm. My wife has a Pre and loves it. PS we get really good service and Sprint has never crippled their phones.
Sprint is getting the HTC Hero with Android and the Samsung InstinctQ with Android.
TMobile has a bunch of Android phones.
And I hear AT&T is getting some Android phones and they already have the Nokia E71 for the S60 fans and the of course the iPhone.
If you really like Verizon just wait a bit. I hear they are going to get the Pre around May....
"I am sure the families of Chernobyl victims are with you on that one."
Yes and I am sure the families of the Titanic still think that cruise ships are unsafe as well.....
"The problem is your thinking (as most Americans always do) about yourself, and your country, and not the global picture. Yes American run and owned nuclear plants (without Homer Simpson in them) are run nicely, but other countries have their own "guidelines" for running things, and do not always comply with "American" standards."
Wow so we Americans are wrong to think that Germany is capable of running a nuclear power plant as well as we can. How closed minded of us to think of other nations as being our equal! Please we are talking about Germany here. I could be wrong but I do think that Germany is democratic enough and educated enough that they could run a nuclear power plant just as safely as we do in the US.
Actually the US and Canada have large reserves of Uranium and Thorium. And the US has not claimed that the oil in Iraq is ours.
So you sprinkle your post with a Chernobyl reference that is nothing but a mindless emotional ploy.
You make an anti US rant about how people in the US shouldn't assume that people in other nations are capable of running a nuclear power plant as the US is.
And sprinkle the end with an "Evil US warmonger" ploy.
Nice and silly, thanks for the amusement.
Actually I have read that in the EU that a lot of home heating is electric vs natural gas in the US. Also Germany is a lot farther north than most of the US so they probably don't have a lot of AC even in summer. I would bet Germany's power use per season is closer to Maine than say Southern California.
They also didn't specify any catalyst. The fuel sources could be anything from grain alcohol to lighter fluid and you could get a big enough bang to kill several people and blow a hole in an airplane. The fuels would be common and very easy to get anywhere so tracking them or even purchasing them would be trivial.
I really wouldn't be knocking others education in Chemistry at this point when your seems to be limited to reading a Wikipedia article and not understanding it.
How about "Bacteria Used to make Poisonous Heavy Metals insoluble".
Not according to this. http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/117/
But I could be wrong since it has been a long time since I took Chem.
Funny but c2h6o sounds like one to me.
There are but you stated that you could not make a bomb using H2O2.
Alcohol, gas, and other hydrocarbons really have a high energy content. The bang you would get is bigger that you think.
Mix high concentration H202 with a hydrocarbon and detonate at a distance. Alcohol will do very well as the hydrocarbon.