Another big motivator is to show your friends that you have so much money that you can afford to throw $200k away on a useless piece of old electronics.
It could be "historicity" and still only worth $300. The only reason it's worth $200000 is because some idiot paid that much, because he's hoping that in a few years he can sell it to a bigger idiot for $250000.
How are you going to share all the resources between two controllers ? What if the primary computer is hogging the comm antenna ? What if your secondary chip is hogging the comm antenna ?
You don't need a scientist for this. You need an engineer. Scientists are people that deal with spherical cows in circular orbits. Engineers know not to send a cow in space.
I love how 1 MB of RAM is 1048576 bytes but 1 MB of storage is now 1000000 bytes of storage
Makes perfect sense. RAM is addressed with a N address lines, giving access to 2^N cells, so base 2 makes sense. For everything else, base 10 makes more sense, especially when you're talking about speeds.
simply because the hard-drive industry decided that they could make more money by using the same term
They didn't make more money because everybody was doing this.
That can be very hard to do in a real-time system, at least on a physical board. Some things, like communication interfaces, or flash write delays, don't let themselves speed up by a factor of 15000.
Well, how do you test it before you're happy ? If the beacon is 40 bytes, and transmitted every 15 seconds, it would take half a year before you fill up 32 MB. That's a long time for testing.
This is the kind of mistake you shouldn't even make in the first place.
If nobody is going there we aren't actually USING that information are we?
We're satisfying our curiosity. I, for one, am still waiting for discovery of (ancient) life forms on Mars, or some evidence that rules that out. On top of that, unmanned rovers also result in spin-off technology.
When do we get someone up there with a shovel to look beneath the sun-sterilized surface?
Rovers can do that better.
When do we get actual permanent habitats anywhere outside of Earth?
Because it's both insanely expensive as well as utterly pointless.
I don't suppose you even looked at the author of the article you linked?
Yes I have. I don't suppose you've even looked at the contents ?
ALL his methods systematically underestimate recent warming.
That has been well known for a long time.
If you notice the trend, of Manns peers and Mann himself is to repeatedly republishing more and more moderated versions of his original extreme results as his original work is put in check.
The results from the 2013 PAGES 2k Consortium research still look very much the same as the original Mann graph. http://www.nature.com/ngeo/jou...
His whole hockey stick temperature reconstruction has been thoroughly rebuked by The Annals of Applied Statistics [projecteuclid.org]
Of course, others disagree with that sentiment. http://www.realclimate.org/ind... And of course, after the original Mann hockeystick paper, a few dozen more studies have been done that have agreed with his graph.
Climate science is probably the most scrutinized field of science right now. And despite people saying the whole field is a crock, nothing of substance is found wrong.
An easy example of this is when climate scientists refuse to make their raw data available to those that wish to challenge their findings.
Pretty much all raw data is available now. Much more so than in other fields of science. Besides, if you really wanted to challenge their findings, wouldn't you want to go out and collect your own raw data ?
Other notable issues arise when things like the famous hockeystick graph which clearly showed temperatures rising in advance of rising CO2
Slashdot Mirror
Another big motivator is to show your friends that you have so much money that you can afford to throw $200k away on a useless piece of old electronics.
It could be "historicity" and still only worth $300. The only reason it's worth $200000 is because some idiot paid that much, because he's hoping that in a few years he can sell it to a bigger idiot for $250000.
News is what you click on
You don't have to click on it. It just shows up on the front page.
Compiler bugs are news ?
Umm... no. Frankly, I'd rather pay someone just because then, at least there is a chance, that it is an honest deal.
Because dishonest tricksters never take money...
Good thing this is only used for photos, and not anything critical.
Sorry, I'd rather live in a world where people around me are not in a constant state of fear and stress.
We all do, but there aren't enough resources to provide luxuries for 6 billion people.
Really... You do realize that disk sectors, file systems, etc. are all Base-2?
Maybe one sector equals a power of two, but the total number of sectors can be anything that the physical disk holds.
If you take a chocolate bar and make it 10% smaller but charge the same price then your margins and profits go up
This has nothing to do with base 2 or base 10. You can just as easily sell a 360GB disk, or any other arbitrary amount.
How are you going to share all the resources between two controllers ? What if the primary computer is hogging the comm antenna ? What if your secondary chip is hogging the comm antenna ?
You don't need a scientist for this. You need an engineer. Scientists are people that deal with spherical cows in circular orbits. Engineers know not to send a cow in space.
I love how 1 MB of RAM is 1048576 bytes but 1 MB of storage is now 1000000 bytes of storage
Makes perfect sense. RAM is addressed with a N address lines, giving access to 2^N cells, so base 2 makes sense. For everything else, base 10 makes more sense, especially when you're talking about speeds.
simply because the hard-drive industry decided that they could make more money by using the same term
They didn't make more money because everybody was doing this.
You write your test so that it sends the 40 bytes to the csv file every 10 milliseconds instead of every 15 seconds.
The moment that you think of doing that, is the moment that you realize that the file will grow too big.
That can be very hard to do in a real-time system, at least on a physical board. Some things, like communication interfaces, or flash write delays, don't let themselves speed up by a factor of 15000.
Their current plan is to wait charged particles to affect electronics so that it forces a reboot.
Watchdogs are for wimps. Real designers use supernovas in a distant galaxy to reset their boards.
Well, how do you test it before you're happy ? If the beacon is 40 bytes, and transmitted every 15 seconds, it would take half a year before you fill up 32 MB. That's a long time for testing.
This is the kind of mistake you shouldn't even make in the first place.
Sounds more like someone forgot to put their thinking cap on.
The drone doesn't actually have to transmit anything. It can also be made to just have a receiver.
And what would be the benefit over staying in a lava tube on earth ?
If nobody is going there we aren't actually USING that information are we?
We're satisfying our curiosity. I, for one, am still waiting for discovery of (ancient) life forms on Mars, or some evidence that rules that out. On top of that, unmanned rovers also result in spin-off technology.
When do we get someone up there with a shovel to look beneath the sun-sterilized surface?
Rovers can do that better.
When do we get actual permanent habitats anywhere outside of Earth?
Because it's both insanely expensive as well as utterly pointless.
I don't suppose you even looked at the author of the article you linked?
Yes I have. I don't suppose you've even looked at the contents ?
ALL his methods systematically underestimate recent warming.
That has been well known for a long time.
If you notice the trend, of Manns peers and Mann himself is to repeatedly republishing more and more moderated versions of his original extreme results as his original work is put in check.
The results from the 2013 PAGES 2k Consortium research still look very much the same as the original Mann graph.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/jou...
His whole hockey stick temperature reconstruction has been thoroughly rebuked by The Annals of Applied Statistics [projecteuclid.org]
Of course, others disagree with that sentiment. http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
And of course, after the original Mann hockeystick paper, a few dozen more studies have been done that have agreed with his graph.
You are mixing "things" and "things of substance".
Climate science is probably the most scrutinized field of science right now. And despite people saying the whole field is a crock, nothing of substance is found wrong.
An easy example of this is when climate scientists refuse to make their raw data available to those that wish to challenge their findings.
Pretty much all raw data is available now. Much more so than in other fields of science. Besides, if you really wanted to challenge their findings, wouldn't you want to go out and collect your own raw data ?
Other notable issues arise when things like the famous hockeystick graph which clearly showed temperatures rising in advance of rising CO2
Not true. CO2 started to climb around 1800. Temperatures started to go up around 1900. https://futilitymonster.files....
Or when dire predictions are made (No polar ice by 2015!)
That was never consensus. Maybe a handful of scientists had that date as the earliest of a range.
Consensus is not part of science. Consensus is what people outside science look for when deciding how to write school books or determine policy.
I was taught that the scientific method welcomed challenges to accepted beliefs
People do like challenges, and even if the first reactions are doubtful, the challenger will be successful if he brings enough evidence.