The high end cards drive the low end market. ATI and Nvidia duke it out for ratings at the top end to create the buzz which drives people to (perhaps incorrectly) project the performance of these top-of-the-line parts onto the more reasonable and budget offering from the companies.
Also the folks who shell out for these kinds of parts will be sure to tell all their friends how great their respective graphics chip company's kit is. You don't usually drop a G on hardware and then tell everyone how bad it is.
I think that they already have released a product (AirTunes) that uses Rendezvous on platforms other than Apple's own. The Windows version of iTunes works with AirTunes, and I bet its discovery implementation uses the Windows version of the Rendezvous SDK. I think this is Apple just doing the smart thing with code they largely already have, rather than prepping for some Big New Thing.
NASA will be barred from doing any more R&D in new launch systems. Re-usable launch vehicles, X-plane program, space plane research, the SCRAMJET stuff that was tested recently, are all going to be the domain of government [defense] contractors.
The space program is going to be run like a Pentagon defense project, and the big defense contractors are going to get a large slice of the space budget pie.
This is funding that will be cut from Universities and other similar institutions. There are many people doing research at Universities around the country, many not in aerospace engineering, that are supported by grants from NASA.
I think the answer to anyone who says we should stop sending people into space should be, "Well, when people stop wanting to go, we'll stop sending them." I mean, I'd be the first one to volunteer to go to Mars.
You have missed the point. The point is opportunity cost. People have pointed out that NASA's current budget won't support this new manned space exploration agenda. Even with the budget increases planned, what programs will be cut to finance human exploration?
The question you should be asking is, "What other NASA science programs will we be giving up?" You can't just compare a human vs. robotic mission to Mars. You have to look at all of the science missions you'll have to give up to send humans to Mars, then ask yourself if it's worth it.
Surprisingly, it's Microsoft who has the most compatible-with-them devices, and also is the only one who has multiple compatible-with-them digital music stores. Microsoft the champion of consumer choice? Who let that happen?
I dunno about you, but I blame our friggin' "free market economy". They're not dominating this market right now, and are showing off their consumer-friendly moral high-ground.
In my opinion, the damage that Microsoft has done, showing that the legal system can't stop companies that abuse their monopolies at will, is bound to spread elsewhere. Apple? They're not gonna be giving it up easy. Got a monopoly? Use it.
I'm not sure how much room (if any) would be left over in a 747 with one of these babies fitted
The answer is about -50%. The GAO has stated that the present design with 6 laser modules (weighing 6,000lbs each) weighs more (180,000lbs) than the production design envisioned with 14 modules (175,000lbs). This would lead to a power less than half that of the original design. GAO report is here [gao.gov]. (PDF)
I'm glad the poster above found my paper interesting, but I would point him to more detailed analysis of the ABL in the APS study. The ABL parts are Sections 8, 9.2 and Part. D.
However, I suspect that the "hundreds of kilometers" range given by the AF is greater than the range of the SAMs, but those of us without clearances and the need to know just don't know at this point.
I agree that the range of the ABL against liquid fueled rockets may be greater than that of the SAMs that North Korea currently has. However, the missile launch site, the SAM site, and the optimum location where the missile will be intercepted by the laser can be quite far from each other. It is likely that the missile launch site will be interior to the country, while the SAM site will be near it's border. Moreover, the optimum missile intercept point will be well north (an further inland from) the Korean peninsula if you assume an ICBM attack on the U.S. (which would go over the North Pole). Thus the SAM site will be much closer to the ABL than the missile intercept location.
The APS study concludes that the ABL, using a longer rather than shorter firing time, could have sufficient range to destroy a liquid-fueled missile and be stationed out of SAM range. It concludes that this would not be possible for solid propellant missiles.
I don't know enough (and doubt he does) about the ABL's laser and the requirements to rupture the skin of a solid fueled rocket to comment intelligently on this matter.
This is a straw-man attack. The paper written by me, and linked to above, is not based on my personal expertise in the field. It's a research paper with sources that can be verified. You don't need to take my word, please check those sources. The assumptions and conclusions presented in them are very well documented.
Some supporting info:
The resulting maximum effective range of the ABL given the parameters of this study were 600km for a liquid propellant missile and 300km for a solid propellant missile. This a assumes a 3MW oxygen-iodine "kill" laser (a 30kw version was demonstrated by the AF in 1997). This power output may be optimistic as the GAO has stated that the present design with 6 laser modules (weighing 6,000lbs each) weighs more than the production design envisioned with 14 modules. This would lead to a power less than half that of the original design. GAO report is here. (PDF)
Here is an excerpt from Section 9.2.1 of the APS study regarding SAMs:
A major weakness of the ABL is its vulnerability to attack by enemy aircraft or by SAMs. Escort fighters could defend the ABL against enemy aircraft; however, the very long times on station would make such defense difficult, unless absolute air superiority had been established or some warning mechanism could scramble fighters to respond to an attack on the ABL. Siberian Airlines Flight 1812 was accidentally shot down on 4 October 2001 by a S-200 SAM missile at a range of about 250 km. The maximum range of a S-200 is 250-300 km [1].
This poster is entirely correct, except for one part.
imagine flying over Japan and watching North Korea
In truth, very detailed studies have found that the laser weapon the ABL uses, though flying in the stratosphere (above most weather) would be ineffective even though the thin clouds that sometimes form at that elevation. Even on a clear day, the range of the laser is quite limited, necessitating that the airplane fly within surface-to-air (SAM) missile range of North Korea to even hope of hitting any missiles. Iran was the other test case for this system, unfortunately Iran is much larger than North Korea, and the plane would have to be flying over Iran itself to be within range of interior missile sites.
This project is pretty much a handout to the defense industry and vestige of the beam weapon dreams held over from the Star Wars heydey under Reagan.
I happen to have written a semester essay (PDF) precisely on this topic. I wrote the essay for an excillent course that deals with nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, missile defense, and arms control. The course website contains a host of up-to-date information and links, and is the longest running course of it's kind.
For a much broader and in depth view of boost phase missile defense, please see this APS study on the subject. I reccommend the brief, but informative executive summary. (PDF)
Check this quote from the article by a Real spokesperson:
"We want support for all media formats," Chiemingo said, "and it makes sense for us to make the most consistent experience for consumers so they can move their content to whatever device they want."
As others have said. There is absolutely nothing in this deal for Apple. Nada. They make their money off of iPods, not licensing IP.
As for Steve's remarks, why would a company currently dominating the market want to play nice with a company like Real? To seem "benevolent" so as to play on pity if Apple is ever in a tight spot in the future? Do you really think that would work?!? Business is war, this is nothing spectacular.
Human Exploration is legitimate science. This is the claim of the Bush administration. In fact, with the plan that they've put forward, programs relating to human exploration of space will the only thing that the government will be funding.
Space telescopes? Look what's happened to Hubble. It's too dangerous to risk a Shuttle flight to service it, yet the only reason the Shuttle won't be decommissioned until 2010 is becasue it'll be used to put up pieces of the International Space Station, which the U.S. will stop using before 2015. Sure there's the James Webb telescope coming along, bigger and better than Hubble. But the only thing that could put it into orbit, the Space Shuttle, will have been decommisioned by then.
This is a bit of a rant, I know. However ther are University space science programs unrelated to exploration that have already been shut down given that no funding will be available from here on out.
Human exploration is an important aspect of our space program, but one must remember everything has an opportunity cost. Before blindly shouting, "YAY! More astronauts!", we should look carefully at what we'll be giving up too. And we'll be giving up quite a lot.
We can never build a foolproof system. The technical hurdles involved are immense and expensive, while the countermeasures are relatively simple and inexpensive.
How much money will it take to convince you that you're safe? Why don't we buy North Korea if we're willing to spend billions of dollars a year on safety? Im sure the people in North Korea wouldn't mind not starving.
My 19 year old younger sister, in addition to a 20GB iPod (lucky devil) and music, was given a 1300 page hardback book on the one and only female former Prime Minister of the UK, by my loving Aunt. Even my dad (my Aunt's brother) was stunned and bemused. =)
If MS is writing of the $109 for every copy of this software they give away, but are not in fact giving away the part of the software (license) that's worth the $109, wouldn't that be fraud?
Because of the inaccessability of AirPort cards in Apple's laptops it's difficult to attach an external antenna to the cards. Without an external antenna one tends to be much more conspicuous sniffing a network as you've got to be in the thick of it.
IMHO this release is a good thing, as people mostly want to scout out their own networks to help set up coverage, monitor interference, etc. and Kistmet is an excellent program for doing so.
All of the 22Mbps 802.11 hardware coming out is based on the Texas Instruments ACX100 chip. TI was proffering this (their own) standard to become 802.11g, but lost out in the end. The chip is indeed fully backwards compatible with 802.11b.
There are going to be others putting out HW based on the ACX100 as well, Linksys for one. So well see how many people jump on the the bandwagon before 802.llg gets into the market.
The operating range for HW based on this chip will be larger. This is because the device can get a full 11Mbps signal with a signal to noise ratio half that of current HW. This means that at 11Mbps the range will be significantly larger. However at 22Mbps the range should be about the same as, perhaps slightly better than, current 802.11b systems.
The system uses the same channels as 802.11b and AFAIK doesn't use up more channels than 802.11b (ie 3 orthogonal channels in the US).
The chip is also all CMOS so power consumption should be somewhat better than todays 802.11 stuff as well.
That's all I know, hope this illuminates the issue...
Slashdot Mirror
The high end cards drive the low end market. ATI and Nvidia duke it out for ratings at the top end to create the buzz which drives people to (perhaps incorrectly) project the performance of these top-of-the-line parts onto the more reasonable and budget offering from the companies.
Also the folks who shell out for these kinds of parts will be sure to tell all their friends how great their respective graphics chip company's kit is. You don't usually drop a G on hardware and then tell everyone how bad it is.
It's all just a game...
I think that they already have released a product (AirTunes) that uses Rendezvous on platforms other than Apple's own. The Windows version of iTunes works with AirTunes, and I bet its discovery implementation uses the Windows version of the Rendezvous SDK. I think this is Apple just doing the smart thing with code they largely already have, rather than prepping for some Big New Thing.
NASA will be barred from doing any more R&D in new launch systems. Re-usable launch vehicles, X-plane program, space plane research, the SCRAMJET stuff that was tested recently, are all going to be the domain of government [defense] contractors.
The space program is going to be run like a Pentagon defense project, and the big defense contractors are going to get a large slice of the space budget pie.
This is funding that will be cut from Universities and other similar institutions. There are many people doing research at Universities around the country, many not in aerospace engineering, that are supported by grants from NASA.
I think the answer to anyone who says we should stop sending people into space should be, "Well, when people stop wanting to go, we'll stop sending them." I mean, I'd be the first one to volunteer to go to Mars.
You have missed the point. The point is opportunity cost. People have pointed out that NASA's current budget won't support this new manned space exploration agenda. Even with the budget increases planned, what programs will be cut to finance human exploration?
The question you should be asking is, "What other NASA science programs will we be giving up?" You can't just compare a human vs. robotic mission to Mars. You have to look at all of the science missions you'll have to give up to send humans to Mars, then ask yourself if it's worth it.
Surprisingly, it's Microsoft who has the most compatible-with-them devices, and also is the only one who has multiple compatible-with-them digital music stores. Microsoft the champion of consumer choice? Who let that happen?
I dunno about you, but I blame our friggin' "free market economy". They're not dominating this market right now, and are showing off their consumer-friendly moral high-ground.
In my opinion, the damage that Microsoft has done, showing that the legal system can't stop companies that abuse their monopolies at will, is bound to spread elsewhere. Apple? They're not gonna be giving it up easy. Got a monopoly? Use it.
I'm not sure how much room (if any) would be left over in a 747 with one of these babies fitted
The answer is about -50%. The GAO has stated that the present design with 6 laser modules (weighing 6,000lbs each) weighs more (180,000lbs) than the production design envisioned with 14 modules (175,000lbs). This would lead to a power less than half that of the original design. GAO report is here [gao.gov]. (PDF)
However, I suspect that the "hundreds of kilometers" range given by the AF is greater than the range of the SAMs, but those of us without clearances and the need to know just don't know at this point.
I agree that the range of the ABL against liquid fueled rockets may be greater than that of the SAMs that North Korea currently has. However, the missile launch site, the SAM site, and the optimum location where the missile will be intercepted by the laser can be quite far from each other. It is likely that the missile launch site will be interior to the country, while the SAM site will be near it's border. Moreover, the optimum missile intercept point will be well north (an further inland from) the Korean peninsula if you assume an ICBM attack on the U.S. (which would go over the North Pole). Thus the SAM site will be much closer to the ABL than the missile intercept location.
The APS study concludes that the ABL, using a longer rather than shorter firing time, could have sufficient range to destroy a liquid-fueled missile and be stationed out of SAM range. It concludes that this would not be possible for solid propellant missiles.
I don't know enough (and doubt he does) about the ABL's laser and the requirements to rupture the skin of a solid fueled rocket to comment intelligently on this matter.
This is a straw-man attack. The paper written by me, and linked to above, is not based on my personal expertise in the field. It's a research paper with sources that can be verified. You don't need to take my word, please check those sources. The assumptions and conclusions presented in them are very well documented.
Some supporting info:
The resulting maximum effective range of the ABL given the parameters of this study were 600km for a liquid propellant missile and 300km for a solid propellant missile. This a assumes a 3MW oxygen-iodine "kill" laser (a 30kw version was demonstrated by the AF in 1997). This power output may be optimistic as the GAO has stated that the present design with 6 laser modules (weighing 6,000lbs each) weighs more than the production design envisioned with 14 modules. This would lead to a power less than half that of the original design. GAO report is here. (PDF)
Here is an excerpt from Section 9.2.1 of the APS study regarding SAMs:
This poster is entirely correct, except for one part.
imagine flying over Japan and watching North Korea
In truth, very detailed studies have found that the laser weapon the ABL uses, though flying in the stratosphere (above most weather) would be ineffective even though the thin clouds that sometimes form at that elevation. Even on a clear day, the range of the laser is quite limited, necessitating that the airplane fly within surface-to-air (SAM) missile range of North Korea to even hope of hitting any missiles. Iran was the other test case for this system, unfortunately Iran is much larger than North Korea, and the plane would have to be flying over Iran itself to be within range of interior missile sites.
This project is pretty much a handout to the defense industry and vestige of the beam weapon dreams held over from the Star Wars heydey under Reagan.
I happen to have written a semester essay (PDF) precisely on this topic. I wrote the essay for an excillent course that deals with nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, missile defense, and arms control. The course website contains a host of up-to-date information and links, and is the longest running course of it's kind.
For a much broader and in depth view of boost phase missile defense, please see this APS study on the subject. I reccommend the brief, but informative executive summary. (PDF)
Check this quote from the article by a Real spokesperson:
"We want support for all media formats," Chiemingo said, "and it makes sense for us to make the most consistent experience for consumers so they can move their content to whatever device they want."
As others have said. There is absolutely nothing in this deal for Apple. Nada. They make their money off of iPods, not licensing IP.
As for Steve's remarks, why would a company currently dominating the market want to play nice with a company like Real? To seem "benevolent" so as to play on pity if Apple is ever in a tight spot in the future? Do you really think that would work?!? Business is war, this is nothing spectacular.
Human Exploration is legitimate science. This is the claim of the Bush administration. In fact, with the plan that they've put forward, programs relating to human exploration of space will the only thing that the government will be funding.
Space telescopes? Look what's happened to Hubble. It's too dangerous to risk a Shuttle flight to service it, yet the only reason the Shuttle won't be decommissioned until 2010 is becasue it'll be used to put up pieces of the International Space Station, which the U.S. will stop using before 2015. Sure there's the James Webb telescope coming along, bigger and better than Hubble. But the only thing that could put it into orbit, the Space Shuttle, will have been decommisioned by then.
This is a bit of a rant, I know. However ther are University space science programs unrelated to exploration that have already been shut down given that no funding will be available from here on out.
Human exploration is an important aspect of our space program, but one must remember everything has an opportunity cost. Before blindly shouting, "YAY! More astronauts!", we should look carefully at what we'll be giving up too. And we'll be giving up quite a lot.
Foreign Missile Developmentsand the Ballistic Missile Threat Through 2015
APS Study Group on Boost-Phase Intercept Systems for National Missile Defense
We can never build a foolproof system. The technical hurdles involved are immense and expensive, while the countermeasures are relatively simple and inexpensive.
How much money will it take to convince you that you're safe?
Why don't we buy North Korea if we're willing to spend billions of dollars a year on safety? Im sure the people in North Korea wouldn't mind not starving.
Anyway, there has to be some sort of technology availile today that can be used in developing some kind of missile sheild?
My sources say: No.
My 19 year old younger sister, in addition to a 20GB iPod (lucky devil) and music, was given a 1300 page hardback book on the one and only female former Prime Minister of the UK, by my loving Aunt. Even my dad (my Aunt's brother) was stunned and bemused. =)
If MS is writing of the $109 for every copy of this software they give away, but are not in fact giving away the part of the software (license) that's worth the $109, wouldn't that be fraud?
This 22Mbps stuff is Half-Duplex just like 802.11b so you might get 8Mbps max real transfer speed without WEP.
Also the 22Mbit SNR is 8.5dB for anyone who cares...
All of the 22Mbps 802.11 hardware coming out is based on the Texas Instruments ACX100 chip. TI was proffering this (their own) standard to become 802.11g, but lost out in the end. The chip is indeed fully backwards compatible with 802.11b.
There are going to be others putting out HW based on the ACX100 as well, Linksys for one. So well see how many people jump on the the bandwagon before 802.llg gets into the market.
The operating range for HW based on this chip will be larger. This is because the device can get a full 11Mbps signal with a signal to noise ratio half that of current HW. This means that at 11Mbps the range will be significantly larger. However at 22Mbps the range should be about the same as, perhaps slightly better than, current 802.11b systems.
The system uses the same channels as 802.11b and AFAIK doesn't use up more channels than 802.11b (ie 3 orthogonal channels in the US).
The chip is also all CMOS so power consumption should be somewhat better than todays 802.11 stuff as well.
That's all I know, hope this illuminates the issue...