These images are much lower-resolution than the Mars images taken buy Spirit/Opportunity. What's up with that? Granted, the Cassini technology was a few years older... but it also cost four times as much money.
Check out the last two times Consumer Reports magazine reviewed HDTVs. Both times, CRT models scored higher on picture quality than LCD or plasma.
You might find this surprising, because LCD computer monitors have sharper images than CRT computer monitors. But HD televisions are a different animal. For now, CRTs are still better at rendering a natural-looking image from standard or HD television signals.
So I'm not racing to be the first person on the block with an LCD or plasma TV. I'd rather save a thousand or more bucks, and stick with the superior images of CRT.
I'll agree that LCD monitors are easier on the eyes, but not because of superior contrast. Look at the specs, and you'll see that the average CRT has a higher contrast ratio than the average LCD.
LCDs reduce eyestrain because the image is sharper and flicker-free.
waiting for the economy to suddenly 'create' millions of new jobs that can be better filled by humans - yeah right
This sarcastic comment is pessimistic and ignorant. The automotive industry employs millions more people than the horse-and-buggy industry ever did. The jet aircraft industry employs millions more people than the hot-air balloon industry ever did. The computer industry employs millions more people than the mechanical calulator industry ever did. Why do you think the robotics industry will be any different? It's not necessary to tax the rich at confiscatory rates to improve the lot of the average citizen. A rising tide really does lift all boats.
The current standard workweek in the United States -- 40 hours -- is much shorter than the standard workweek 100 years ago or even 60 years ago. That's because power tools and automation have drastically raised the productivity of the average worker. The greater productivity, in turn, has resulted in the highest standard of living in history, despite the shorter workweek. We are having our cake and eating it too.
This trend of increasing productivity is not slowing down -- it's accelerating. Which means that as long as this magnificent growth engine called capitalism isn't interfered with by major terrorist attacks, we're all gonna be living like kings in about 30 years.
We're in no danger of running out of iron, aluminum, nickel, or magnesium. (Asteroid mining would be great, though, for obtaining large quantities of really rare stuff like platinum.) The real limiting factor on our ability to bring everyone out of third-world status is energy. There are only two safe, practical non-greenhouse-gas-emitting energy sources: nuclear fission and space solar power. So please join me, everyone, in calling for the construction of lots of nuclear power facilities and extraterrestrial solar collectors!
Shouldn't we concentrate on making robots do the assigned tasks right, instead of trying to design robots that can decide what are the right things to do.
Suppose you had an employee who needed to be given low-level instructions on how to complete every little task. (Instead of simply telling him "build a house," you had to say "...drive the 517th nail. Move eight inches to the right. Drive the 518th nail...") Such an employee would be worthless because he had no autonomy. Lack of autonomy also currently makes robots useless except in the most repetitive assembly-line type jobs.
Instead of making 98% of customers buy more PCI slots than they'll ever need, a better solution is for the 2% who need 5-6 slots to get a PCI expansion chassis: www.magma.com
I thought so too. Although I know almost nothing about it. I was a heavy Mac OS 9 user but I never used it. I think you accessed the CLI by pressing the Mac's "Programmer's switch" (?)
If anyone cares to chime in with more info, I'm interested in learning how the CLI worked in older Mac OSes.
People will do one of two things with their money: spend it, or invest it. Either of those things is good for the economy.
If the government taxes your money away from you, it will also spend it. The difference is, private individuals tend to spend money far more efficiently than government. Private spending is a much bigger economic stimulus than government spending.
For example, a private individual, given $1500 to dispose of, will tend to do something like this:
*Buy a 2.8 GHz PC on eBay for $400. *Spend $60 on the iTunes music store. *Buy $80 worth of stocks. *Buy $200 worth of food. *Make a $350 payment on his auto loan. *Buy $20 worth of miscellaneous stuff at his neighbor's garage sale. *Give $40 to a homeless shelter. *Buy his family a $70 meal at Olive Garden. *Put aside $280 towards his next mortgage payment.
The government, given the same $1500 to spend, tends to do something like this:
*Buy a 2.8 GHz PC off the GSA schedule for $1500.
Dontcha see how the more efficient private spending has a much greater economic "multiplier" than government spending? When you're watching your dollars as only private individuals tend to do, you can obtain the same functionality (a 2.8 GHz PC, in this example) for much less than the government can, then use the money that's left over to buy a lot of other stuff.
If you think that spending $1500 is better for the economy than spending $400 and obtaining the same functionality, take your reasoning to even greater extremes and you'll soon see how it's flawed. Why, it would be better still if the government paid $6000 for every PC it bought. Or $12,000. Or $24,000! Ooh, the economy would really take off if the government spent $48,000 for each PC!!
Sorry. That kind of inefficiency totally wastes society's capital, which is wholly created by the private sector. Government never creates wealth -- although a minimally intrusive goverment can optimize the rate at which the private sector creates wealth.
One time I bought a set of cell phones for my Air Force squadron. I started questioning the saleperson's recommendations, asking if a less expensive model wouldn't meet our needs just as well. The salesperson, who was used to dealing with government customers, looked at me as though I had three heads.
Such is the way government spends your money, folks!
From the article: Transhab would be inflated with attached air tanks... NASA could put a module the size of Skylab into space with just one launch.
Umm... NASA did put a module the size of Skylab into space with just one launch... namely, Skylab. Back when we had real heavy-lift capability, the Saturn V.
Incidentally, the interior volume of single-launch Skylab was something like three times as large as the International Space Station will have when its many assembly missions are complete.
You sure as hell better be giving some of it back to help people who aren't able to pull the big bucks in through their jobs.
I'm a middle class person, and I do give a sizable percentage of my income to charities. I'd be able to give a hell of a lot more if I weren't being taxed at confiscatory rates. Moreover, I'm very selective about the charities I give to; they must have an efficiency of at least 90% (i.e., at least 90 cents of every dollar actually reaches the needy beneficiaries, and less than 10 cents goes toward administrative overhead or fundraising). Government "entitlement" programs are notoriously inefficient: less than 10% reaches the persons the programs were designed to help.
An example of how it would work: a government program for homeless persons has its budget cut by $1000. We'll be generous and say that results in an actual reduction of benefits to homeless persons of $100. That $1000 is refunded to me. I keep $800 for myself, and donate the other $200 to a private charity that helps the homeless. Due to its 90% efficiency, that results in a $180 increase in benefits to homeless persons -- a net increase of $80.
I'm better off and so are the homeless. The only loser is the inefficient government bureaucracy that never deserved the money in the first place.
I'm better off spiritually, too. True acts of charity are voluntary -- unlike the contributions I am forced to make to government "entitlement" programs.
It's fascinating to read Bearden's views. He claims that what we know as Maxwell's Equations are actually gross oversimplifications, made by Heaviside, of the real Maxwell's Equations -- and that a lot of amazing physics would be possible if we would go back and exploit all the possibilities in the real Maxwell's Equations. Heaviside's "arbitrary crippling" of Maxwell is basically the reason we haven't yet colonized Alpha Centauri.
I like *BIG* monitors. (21 inches or bigger.) Last year I bought a nice used 21" CRT for only $120 at PC expo! Now I'm not stupid... I recognize that LCD monitors are better, and I'd be willing to pay a premium of about $250 for LCD over CRT. But so far the best deal I've seen on a *BIG* LCD monitor is $1025 -- that's a $905 premium!! I suspect I'm going to be using analog CRTs for four or five more years, and I hope the video cards continue to support them!
Slashdot Mirror
These images are much lower-resolution than the Mars images taken buy Spirit/Opportunity. What's up with that? Granted, the Cassini technology was a few years older... but it also cost four times as much money.
Only the U.S. Government could take the most exciting subject ever -- space exploration -- and make it boring!
http://www.vonwentzel.net/ABS/Configuration/OSXExt reme/Airport/
Why do you choose to run at less than full power? Are you concerned about the amount of radiation passing through your body?
Check out the last two times Consumer Reports magazine reviewed HDTVs. Both times, CRT models scored higher on picture quality than LCD or plasma.
You might find this surprising, because LCD computer monitors have sharper images than CRT computer monitors. But HD televisions are a different animal. For now, CRTs are still better at rendering a natural-looking image from standard or HD television signals.
So I'm not racing to be the first person on the block with an LCD or plasma TV. I'd rather save a thousand or more bucks, and stick with the superior images of CRT.
I'll agree that LCD monitors are easier on the eyes, but not because of superior contrast. Look at the specs, and you'll see that the average CRT has a higher contrast ratio than the average LCD.
LCDs reduce eyestrain because the image is sharper and flicker-free.
Hughes comsats used ion thrusters for stationkeeping years before DS1.
n/t What does "n/t" mean, anyway?
fewer drivers for recent HBAs
Please clue me in on what an HBA is.
waiting for the economy to suddenly 'create' millions of new jobs that can be better filled by humans - yeah right
This sarcastic comment is pessimistic and ignorant.
The automotive industry employs millions more people than the horse-and-buggy industry ever did.
The jet aircraft industry employs millions more people than the hot-air balloon industry ever did.
The computer industry employs millions more people than the mechanical calulator industry ever did.
Why do you think the robotics industry will be any different?
It's not necessary to tax the rich at confiscatory rates to improve the lot of the average citizen. A rising tide really does lift all boats.
The current standard workweek in the United States -- 40 hours -- is much shorter than the standard workweek 100 years ago or even 60 years ago. That's because power tools and automation have drastically raised the productivity of the average worker. The greater productivity, in turn, has resulted in the highest standard of living in history, despite the shorter workweek. We are having our cake and eating it too.
This trend of increasing productivity is not slowing down -- it's accelerating. Which means that as long as this magnificent growth engine called capitalism isn't interfered with by major terrorist attacks, we're all gonna be living like kings in about 30 years.
We're in no danger of running out of iron, aluminum, nickel, or magnesium. (Asteroid mining would be great, though, for obtaining large quantities of really rare stuff like platinum.) The real limiting factor on our ability to bring everyone out of third-world status is energy. There are only two safe, practical non-greenhouse-gas-emitting energy sources: nuclear fission and space solar power. So please join me, everyone, in calling for the construction of lots of nuclear power facilities and extraterrestrial solar collectors!
Shouldn't we concentrate on making robots do the assigned tasks right, instead of trying to design robots that can decide what are the right things to do.
Suppose you had an employee who needed to be given low-level instructions on how to complete every little task. (Instead of simply telling him "build a house," you had to say "...drive the 517th nail. Move eight inches to the right. Drive the 518th nail...") Such an employee would be worthless because he had no autonomy. Lack of autonomy also currently makes robots useless except in the most repetitive assembly-line type jobs.
Instead of making 98% of customers buy more PCI slots than they'll ever need, a better solution is for the 2% who need 5-6 slots to get a PCI expansion chassis: www.magma.com
OS 9 *did* have a command-line interface
I thought so too. Although I know almost nothing about it. I was a heavy Mac OS 9 user but I never used it. I think you accessed the CLI by pressing the Mac's "Programmer's switch" (?)
If anyone cares to chime in with more info, I'm interested in learning how the CLI worked in older Mac OSes.
The logic of your sig is flawed.
People will do one of two things with their money: spend it, or invest it. Either of those things is good for the economy.
If the government taxes your money away from you, it will also spend it. The difference is, private individuals tend to spend money far more efficiently than government. Private spending is a much bigger economic stimulus than government spending.
For example, a private individual, given $1500 to dispose of, will tend to do something like this:
*Buy a 2.8 GHz PC on eBay for $400. *Spend $60 on the iTunes music store. *Buy $80 worth of stocks. *Buy $200 worth of food. *Make a $350 payment on his auto loan. *Buy $20 worth of miscellaneous stuff at his neighbor's garage sale. *Give $40 to a homeless shelter. *Buy his family a $70 meal at Olive Garden. *Put aside $280 towards his next mortgage payment.
The government, given the same $1500 to spend, tends to do something like this:
*Buy a 2.8 GHz PC off the GSA schedule for $1500.
Dontcha see how the more efficient private spending has a much greater economic "multiplier" than government spending? When you're watching your dollars as only private individuals tend to do, you can obtain the same functionality (a 2.8 GHz PC, in this example) for much less than the government can, then use the money that's left over to buy a lot of other stuff.
If you think that spending $1500 is better for the economy than spending $400 and obtaining the same functionality, take your reasoning to even greater extremes and you'll soon see how it's flawed. Why, it would be better still if the government paid $6000 for every PC it bought. Or $12,000. Or $24,000! Ooh, the economy would really take off if the government spent $48,000 for each PC!!
Sorry. That kind of inefficiency totally wastes society's capital, which is wholly created by the private sector. Government never creates wealth -- although a minimally intrusive goverment can optimize the rate at which the private sector creates wealth.
One time I bought a set of cell phones for my Air Force squadron. I started questioning the saleperson's recommendations, asking if a less expensive model wouldn't meet our needs just as well. The salesperson, who was used to dealing with government customers, looked at me as though I had three heads.
Such is the way government spends your money, folks!
From the article: Transhab would be inflated with attached air tanks... NASA could put a module the size of Skylab into space with just one launch.
Umm... NASA did put a module the size of Skylab into space with just one launch... namely, Skylab. Back when we had real heavy-lift capability, the Saturn V.
Incidentally, the interior volume of single-launch Skylab was something like three times as large as the International Space Station will have when its many assembly missions are complete.
You sure as hell better be giving some of it back to help people who aren't able to pull the big bucks in through their jobs.
I'm a middle class person, and I do give a sizable percentage of my income to charities. I'd be able to give a hell of a lot more if I weren't being taxed at confiscatory rates. Moreover, I'm very selective about the charities I give to; they must have an efficiency of at least 90% (i.e., at least 90 cents of every dollar actually reaches the needy beneficiaries, and less than 10 cents goes toward administrative overhead or fundraising). Government "entitlement" programs are notoriously inefficient: less than 10% reaches the persons the programs were designed to help.
An example of how it would work: a government program for homeless persons has its budget cut by $1000. We'll be generous and say that results in an actual reduction of benefits to homeless persons of $100. That $1000 is refunded to me. I keep $800 for myself, and donate the other $200 to a private charity that helps the homeless. Due to its 90% efficiency, that results in a $180 increase in benefits to homeless persons -- a net increase of $80.
I'm better off and so are the homeless. The only loser is the inefficient government bureaucracy that never deserved the money in the first place.
I'm better off spiritually, too. True acts of charity are voluntary -- unlike the contributions I am forced to make to government "entitlement" programs.
something weird happened on Iapetus, but it wasn't dust from little Phoebe.
Maybe it was dust from Monica or Rachel?
What's the point? If the translator is good enough, you'd never notice a difference anyways.
The point is, you could eliminate the cost, weight, and power requirements of the unnecessary translator, if you had a native FireWire drive.
This thing has a native Serial ATA interface... will we ever see a drive with a native FireWire interface?
n/t
(What does n/t stand for, anyway?)
Lt Col Tom Bearden (US Army, retired) has been predicting this since 1995.
It's fascinating to read Bearden's views. He claims that what we know as Maxwell's Equations are actually gross oversimplifications, made by Heaviside, of the real Maxwell's Equations -- and that a lot of amazing physics would be possible if we would go back and exploit all the possibilities in the real Maxwell's Equations. Heaviside's "arbitrary crippling" of Maxwell is basically the reason we haven't yet colonized Alpha Centauri.
There is a lot of overlap between Kohei Minato's research and Bearden's. Bearden made quite recent comments about Minato's motor.
By the way, Minato's invention is called the "MagMotor." Does anybody know whether this is related to the Magmotor Corp. of Massachusetts?
I like *BIG* monitors. (21 inches or bigger.) Last year I bought a nice used 21" CRT for only $120 at PC expo! Now I'm not stupid... I recognize that LCD monitors are better, and I'd be willing to pay a premium of about $250 for LCD over CRT. But so far the best deal I've seen on a *BIG* LCD monitor is $1025 -- that's a $905 premium!! I suspect I'm going to be using analog CRTs for four or five more years, and I hope the video cards continue to support them!
Why are you spelling it with an upper-case "M"?
id Software doesn't spell it that way.