I agree but they need to build it using the Tegra. They will also need Flash that uses the GPU for playback. I feel there is one other part that is missing that they will need. I for one see Netbooks being more like the iPhone/iPod Touch then the traditional PC. Linux needs and App store. I feel that Developers need a way to make money. I know that a lot of FOSS purists will get bent but some way for developers to sell their software would do Linux a world of good. Before anyone bothers yes the iTunes Appstore has a lot of crappy software as well as the good. So does any Liunx distro repository you would care to mention. Yes Flash is closed but everybody still uses it. Get a GPU accelerated Theora on netbooks as well as Flash and you will get more people using that. You get a netbook with a good App store going and yes people will use it. Honestly that is why I am betting that the first ARM netbooks will be running Android.
I find that an unbalanced view. If a movie has too much violence it will get an R. If it has too much Sex it will get an R. I don't see them being treated all that different in a movie. Take a look at some EU countries. They will ban video games just because they involve WWII.
Kind of makes me nuts. People saying that a game shouldn't be published isn't censorship. It is free speech. A company not publishing a game because they don't want to bad PR isn't censorship it is a choice. Now if the US government passed a lay banning the game then you would have censorship. That isn't happening. And as too not publishing RapeLay in the US... Good. I don't like games like GTA to start with so I don't buy them. A company deciding that there isn't enough people in the US that would like to play a game where the goal is rape makes me very happy.
And Windows copied Mac and Mac copied the Xerox Star. I don't think we will really see an innovative UI on a PC machine again. We will see evolutionary changes from now on. Multitouch is interesting but I am still not convinced that I want it on my notebook or desktop.
Not as much as you might think. First of all you will have modify the design. Old suppliers are gone. The standardized parts may have changed so you will have to do some redesign for that. And the big problem is that odds are pretty good that they Hubble design isn't available in SolidWorks, AutoCad, ProE or even IGES format. So it will probably have to be redrawn on a modern CAD system. You will want to completely update all the electronics so those will be different as well. About the one only thing you would want to keep unchanged would be the basic structure and maybe the optics. Everything else you would want to update just because it would be cheaper than than trying to rebuild 20 to 30 year old parts. The replacement for the Hubble has a much larger collecting mirror and will really out preform the Hubble. http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/
Even if you did then you left with problems 2,3, and 4. Not to mention that the Hubble would probably be damaged by the trip home. Plus I am not sure that the Shuttle can get the Hubble to the ISS's orbit. It is at a much greater incline than the Hubble's orbit so it takes more fuel. I think it is lower so it may be possible but I would have too look up a lot of stuff to be sure.
1. It is in a very different orbit. You just can't call AAA and tow it to the ISS. The shuttle doesn't have the capability to do. No current system has the ability to do it. We would have to build a space tug. 2. The orbit the ISS is in isn't as good as the one the Hubble is in for doing Astronomy. 3. You don't want to attach the Hubble to anything since even the motion of people moving around will throw off it's aim. 4. You don't want all the stuff that comes off and out of the ISS near Hubble. Like the exhaust from it's thrusters.
Yes. It is all custom parts it would take years to build a new one so yes it can take that long to build a new one. By that time the Hubble replacement will be ready to launch and the current Hubble will long since be dead. Also it would take a good % of what the Hubble replacement will cost and will not be as good.
"I was just commenting that it wasn't the only _possible_ way. It is absolutely the simplest, cheapest and most reliable method, I just don't agree that it is the only one.:)" I never said it was the only only way. Just that it was probably the best way. And frankly the only way that will not cut massively drive up the cost of launching deep space probes.
All I can say is that Slashdot has more people that believe in miraculous events than any Church I have seen. If I see one more person claiming Moore's law can be applied to rockets I will puke.
Still uses Pu 238, it is still an RTG, it is more complex since it uses a sterling engine with moving parts.
It is a slightly more efficient RTG but still would use Pu238. So nope not a new energy source and has the same problem as the current RTGs which is a shortage of fuel.
Holy freaking Hanna! Okay lets take a look at what this "New energy source" has to do. 1. Supply several hundred watts for at least a decade without refueling. RTGs from the 70s are still working and the probes that use them still sending data. 2. Work in a vacuum. 3. Work in the Dark. 4. Work in the extreme cold of the outer solar system. 5. Be light An RTG has a mass of under 60 kg. 6. Dependable. Must work for decades with nobody to fix it.
Just what the heck do you think can do that that isn't an RTG? We don't have working fusion so we are left with reactors but they are not as light or as simple as RTGs. More mass means a bigger launch vehicle. That means a lot more money and fewer missions.
I love the way people on Slashdot are so willing to make comments like "They just need to find a replacment". Doesn't anybody ever consider that fact that this is the best solution there is without some massive technical leap? And that technical leap may be many decades away if it ever comes!
Actually they have been trying to get funding to get PU 238 production started again for about 5 years. This isn't a last minute thing. Also NASA has no control over Pu 238 that is under the AEC and NASA has been asking them for more for several years. The buying it from Russia was their solution. The thing is that there is NOTHING really better than an RTG powered by Pu 238. As far as snide the original post was made with both a massive influx of arrogance and ignorance. Pu238 is as close to a perfect fuel for an RTG as you can get. 1. It is an Alpha emitter. That means it is easy to shield and the shielding actually converts the alpha emissions to heat. 2. It has a very high energy density. Nothing else comes close. The solution is to start making more Pu 238 the problem is NASA can't. Yes finding a solution is part of their job but the current answer will be fewer space probes. There isn't some super cool new tech that can work as well or better than an RTG and to spout off about how they should find on is the height of arrogance.
Uhh.. No your wrong. Really RTGs are actually simple, cheap, and effective. Solar will not work well past the orbit of Mars, Reactors are more expensive, complex, and weigh more. So sparky you tell me what can produce power for years without much light, heat, or air, and has a mass of less then 60 kgs? Oh and "I am sure they can think of something" is not an answer.
They did and this is it. 1. Solar will not work for deep space probes. That thing called the inverse square law really comes into play out past Mars. 2. No gas stations and no air so forget about burning anything. 3. You could use a reactor but it would be a lot more complex than an RTG. It would be more expensive to build and to launch.
"Borland's tools are really kewl, but they've never gained serious mindshare" Wrong. Borland had more mindshare than Microsoft in development tools. Turbo Pascal, Turbo C, Borland Pascal, Borland C and C++ where all more popular than Microsoft's tools. One reason was the cost. You could buy Turbo Pascal for around 10th the cost of a compiler from Microsoft. It also came with an IDE. Before that a lot of programmers used Wordstar to edit their code! Borland lost mindshare and didn't do all that well during the migration to Windows. Frankly that is what really did in a lot of companies and Microsoft replaced them all! Lotus, Ashton-Tate, WordPerfect, and Borland all did very well until Microsoft pretty much killed them all. And yes a good part of it was caused by their failure to produce good Windows products.
"This compiler was, weirdly enough, written in COBOL. Somebody once explained to me why this made sense, but I've forgotten the explanation." It is called bootstrapping. The logic is this. If you make improvements in the compiler then you make improvements in your own product. Let's say you create a better code generator. When you recompile your own compiler it will run faster since it is being compiled with that improved code generator. It also helps you find bugs since you are using your own compiler everyday to write your compiler.
It could change but it will not. Nobody wants to loose access to US markets. Users outside the US don't want to loose access to US suppliers and or sites. It isn't in the US's interest to mess up ICANN and it isn't in the US's interest to give up control over it. It isn't in anybodies interest to do more than crab a little since ICANN works well for everyone.
No incentive and no penalty == no reason to change a thing. The current system does work pretty well and there is no reason to believe that a new system would work any better.
The Internet was created by the US defense department. They also funded the research that created TCP/IP. So yes the Internet was created by the US and that is why it "controls" ICANN. As too the current Internet is is pretty well distributed but I was talking about the origin and I did mention CERN and HTTP. But your right this is just silly posturing on the EUs part been their and done that. ICANN works pretty well and there is no reason to replace it.
You see to make it possible you must build the transmitter out of Unicorn poop and Fairy farts. No really it is impossible to do long distance none direction broadcasting of power with any efficiency. Maxwell's equations pretty much prove that. Even using a laser you conversion steps that drop the efficiency. BTW microwaves are much better but you don't want to be in the beam. Imagine it sure. Build it? Nope and Telsla couldn't make work because it couldn't work they way he though it could. Now over short distances you can use magnetic induction but again that is very limited in range.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree but they need to build it using the Tegra.
They will also need Flash that uses the GPU for playback.
I feel there is one other part that is missing that they will need.
I for one see Netbooks being more like the iPhone/iPod Touch then the traditional PC. Linux needs and App store. I feel that Developers need a way to make money. I know that a lot of FOSS purists will get bent but some way for developers to sell their software would do Linux a world of good.
Before anyone bothers yes the iTunes Appstore has a lot of crappy software as well as the good. So does any Liunx distro repository you would care to mention.
Yes Flash is closed but everybody still uses it. Get a GPU accelerated Theora on netbooks as well as Flash and you will get more people using that.
You get a netbook with a good App store going and yes people will use it.
Honestly that is why I am betting that the first ARM netbooks will be running Android.
I find that an unbalanced view.
If a movie has too much violence it will get an R. If it has too much Sex it will get an R.
I don't see them being treated all that different in a movie.
Take a look at some EU countries. They will ban video games just because they involve WWII.
Kind of makes me nuts. People saying that a game shouldn't be published isn't censorship. It is free speech. A company not publishing a game because they don't want to bad PR isn't censorship it is a choice.
Now if the US government passed a lay banning the game then you would have censorship. That isn't happening.
And as too not publishing RapeLay in the US... Good.
I don't like games like GTA to start with so I don't buy them. A company deciding that there isn't enough people in the US that would like to play a game where the goal is rape makes me very happy.
And Windows copied Mac and Mac copied the Xerox Star.
I don't think we will really see an innovative UI on a PC machine again. We will see evolutionary changes from now on.
Multitouch is interesting but I am still not convinced that I want it on my notebook or desktop.
But doesn't Microsoft hold a patent on that Ribbon UI?
Right or not to add that to a FOSS project may just be a lawyers dream.
Not as much as you might think. First of all you will have modify the design. Old suppliers are gone. The standardized parts may have changed so you will have to do some redesign for that. And the big problem is that odds are pretty good that they Hubble design isn't available in SolidWorks, AutoCad, ProE or even IGES format. So it will probably have to be redrawn on a modern CAD system. You will want to completely update all the electronics so those will be different as well.
About the one only thing you would want to keep unchanged would be the basic structure and maybe the optics. Everything else you would want to update just because it would be cheaper than than trying to rebuild 20 to 30 year old parts.
The replacement for the Hubble has a much larger collecting mirror and will really out preform the Hubble. http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/
Even if you did then you left with problems 2,3, and 4. Not to mention that the Hubble would probably be damaged by the trip home. Plus I am not sure that the Shuttle can get the Hubble to the ISS's orbit. It is at a much greater incline than the Hubble's orbit so it takes more fuel. I think it is lower so it may be possible but I would have too look up a lot of stuff to be sure.
1. It is in a very different orbit. You just can't call AAA and tow it to the ISS. The shuttle doesn't have the capability to do. No current system has the ability to do it. We would have to build a space tug.
2. The orbit the ISS is in isn't as good as the one the Hubble is in for doing Astronomy.
3. You don't want to attach the Hubble to anything since even the motion of people moving around will throw off it's aim.
4. You don't want all the stuff that comes off and out of the ISS near Hubble. Like the exhaust from it's thrusters.
Yes.
It is all custom parts it would take years to build a new one so yes it can take that long to build a new one. By that time the Hubble replacement will be ready to launch and the current Hubble will long since be dead. Also it would take a good % of what the Hubble replacement will cost and will not be as good.
"I was just commenting that it wasn't the only _possible_ way. It is absolutely the simplest, cheapest and most reliable method, I just don't agree that it is the only one. :)"
I never said it was the only only way. Just that it was probably the best way.
And frankly the only way that will not cut massively drive up the cost of launching deep space probes.
All I can say is that Slashdot has more people that believe in miraculous events than any Church I have seen.
If I see one more person claiming Moore's law can be applied to rockets I will puke.
Still uses Pu 238, it is still an RTG, it is more complex since it uses a sterling engine with moving parts.
It is a slightly more efficient RTG but still would use Pu238. So nope not a new energy source and has the same problem as the current RTGs which is a shortage of fuel.
Holy freaking Hanna!
Okay lets take a look at what this "New energy source" has to do.
1. Supply several hundred watts for at least a decade without refueling. RTGs from the 70s are still working and the probes that use them still sending data.
2. Work in a vacuum.
3. Work in the Dark.
4. Work in the extreme cold of the outer solar system.
5. Be light An RTG has a mass of under 60 kg.
6. Dependable. Must work for decades with nobody to fix it.
Just what the heck do you think can do that that isn't an RTG?
We don't have working fusion so we are left with reactors but they are not as light or as simple as RTGs.
More mass means a bigger launch vehicle. That means a lot more money and fewer missions.
I love the way people on Slashdot are so willing to make comments like "They just need to find a replacment". Doesn't anybody ever consider that fact that this is the best solution there is without some massive technical leap? And that technical leap may be many decades away if it ever comes!
Yes.
Start producing Pu 238.
That is the answer. There is nothing better than an RTG for this problem and probably never will be.
Actually they have been trying to get funding to get PU 238 production started again for about 5 years. This isn't a last minute thing. Also NASA has no control over Pu 238 that is under the AEC and NASA has been asking them for more for several years. The buying it from Russia was their solution.
The thing is that there is NOTHING really better than an RTG powered by Pu 238.
As far as snide the original post was made with both a massive influx of arrogance and ignorance.
Pu238 is as close to a perfect fuel for an RTG as you can get.
1. It is an Alpha emitter. That means it is easy to shield and the shielding actually converts the alpha emissions to heat.
2. It has a very high energy density.
Nothing else comes close.
The solution is to start making more Pu 238 the problem is NASA can't.
Yes finding a solution is part of their job but the current answer will be fewer space probes. There isn't some super cool new tech that can work as well or better than an RTG and to spout off about how they should find on is the height of arrogance.
Uhh.. No your wrong.
Really RTGs are actually simple, cheap, and effective. Solar will not work well past the orbit of Mars, Reactors are more expensive, complex, and weigh more.
So sparky you tell me what can produce power for years without much light, heat, or air, and has a mass of less then 60 kgs?
Oh and "I am sure they can think of something" is not an answer.
They did and this is it.
1. Solar will not work for deep space probes. That thing called the inverse square law really comes into play out past Mars.
2. No gas stations and no air so forget about burning anything.
3. You could use a reactor but it would be a lot more complex than an RTG. It would be more expensive to build and to launch.
And VB has been killed by .net as well so what did you gain?
Java is still doing great so you bet wrong.
or check this out http://www.amazon.com/LeapFrog-Turbo-Extreme/dp/B000246LXE
If they had a Z-80 card they could have run the CP/M version of it.
Odd but possible.
I learned Pascal on a SuperPet in 83... Good times.
"Borland's tools are really kewl, but they've never gained serious mindshare"
Wrong. Borland had more mindshare than Microsoft in development tools.
Turbo Pascal, Turbo C, Borland Pascal, Borland C and C++ where all more popular than Microsoft's tools. One reason was the cost. You could buy Turbo Pascal for around 10th the cost of a compiler from Microsoft. It also came with an IDE. Before that a lot of programmers used Wordstar to edit their code!
Borland lost mindshare and didn't do all that well during the migration to Windows. Frankly that is what really did in a lot of companies and Microsoft replaced them all! Lotus, Ashton-Tate, WordPerfect, and Borland all did very well until Microsoft pretty much killed them all. And yes a good part of it was caused by their failure to produce good Windows products.
"This compiler was, weirdly enough, written in COBOL. Somebody once explained to me why this made sense, but I've forgotten the explanation."
It is called bootstrapping.
The logic is this. If you make improvements in the compiler then you make improvements in your own product.
Let's say you create a better code generator. When you recompile your own compiler it will run faster since it is being compiled with that improved code generator.
It also helps you find bugs since you are using your own compiler everyday to write your compiler.
All I want is for $foo[0] and $foo["0"] to not be the same reference.
It could change but it will not. Nobody wants to loose access to US markets. Users outside the US don't want to loose access to US suppliers and or sites. It isn't in the US's interest to mess up ICANN and it isn't in the US's interest to give up control over it. It isn't in anybodies interest to do more than crab a little since ICANN works well for everyone.
No incentive and no penalty == no reason to change a thing. The current system does work pretty well and there is no reason to believe that a new system would work any better.
The Internet was created by the US defense department. They also funded the research that created TCP/IP. So yes the Internet was created by the US and that is why it "controls" ICANN.
As too the current Internet is is pretty well distributed but I was talking about the origin and I did mention CERN and HTTP.
But your right this is just silly posturing on the EUs part been their and done that. ICANN works pretty well and there is no reason to replace it.
You see to make it possible you must build the transmitter out of Unicorn poop and Fairy farts.
No really it is impossible to do long distance none direction broadcasting of power with any efficiency. Maxwell's equations pretty much prove that. Even using a laser you conversion steps that drop the efficiency. BTW microwaves are much better but you don't want to be in the beam.
Imagine it sure. Build it? Nope and Telsla couldn't make work because it couldn't work they way he though it could.
Now over short distances you can use magnetic induction but again that is very limited in range.