The entire ISS might be overkill. But, if we really want ongoing consistent humanned trips between the earth and moon and eventually Mars or Jupiter's moons I think an orbital way station around both the Earth and the moon is needed.
Currently, to get to the moon you have to launch the spacecraft, lander, enough fuel and supplies to get to the moon and back from earth every single time and the spacecraft has to be designed for earth re-entry.
What if we have the ISS around earth and a small station around the moon that is pretty much just a dock. Launch a craft to the ISS that is just the ferry between the moon and Earth it can use ion engines. A lander or landers is sent to the moon station on the first couple trips and left docked at the station.
Trips to the moon then become a matter of launching supplies and people for the ferry to LEO these can be in separate launches, the people launch can be in an austere capsule to minimize weight because they are only going to be there for long enough to dock with the ISS. The people and supplies are put on the ferry and it makes the trip to the moon way station. The people then can transfer to the lander and go to the surface.
The advantages are that each lander is launched one time and used many times, the ship designed for multi-day(week?) trips between the earth and moon is only launched one time and used many times. Supplies can be launched in relatively cheap craft where there is no weight used for life support and other things that people need. The people can launch in austere craft with just enough space and supplies to get to the ISS.
The feasibility of this strategy is completely dependent on how many times the ferry and landers can be reused. Because it has higher up front launch costs, but much lower ongoing launch costs.
The number 1 cost and difficulty in putting stuff into space is getting it from the earth to orbit. The less stuff that needs to be moved to orbit the better. One of the main mission objectives of ongoing trips to the moon would be to figure out what things can be resupplied using materials on the moon since it takes less fuel to get something off the moon than the earth. Can lunar soil be made suitable for growing plants? Is there anything on the moon suitable as reaction mass for an ion engine or fuel for lifting off of the moon? Is there water, oxygen, and/or hydrogen bound to minerals on the moon or buried beneath the surface?
Actually, explicitly authorizing in a legal letter would count as protecting the trademark. They do not even have to get any money for the authorization. There are a couple cases of this method being used, that I cannot track down at this time.
In the US, Europe and other developed countries where fresh vaccine is widely available thimerosal removal is not that big of a deal. Where the removal of thimerosal has a huge impact is in developing countries where it might be days to weeks without refrigeration to get a vaccine where it is needed. In such a situation the benefits of the vaccine far outweigh the tiny risk of issues due to the tiny amount of thimerosal.
Kind of weird that it applies to all sports at all levels. Although I guess you don't really need a press credential to get into a DIII swim meet between Claremont-Mudd-Scripps and CalTech.
Just seems kind of silly to apply the rules to events that do not get live press coverage anyways where perhaps having live bloggers might generate additional interest, and be good for those schools to get good more interest from good students.
The math is 248 dimensional but the Universe described by the math has 3 space and 1 time dimension. Better than String Theory which requires extra real dimensions.
No, 222 particles which he takes to 240 because the math has places for those extra particles, it is more complex to try to explain why there are places that should have particles that do not.
I like end of the paper though where, to paraphrase, because he predicts those particles there are only two options. Success or spectacular failure.
I used to have both. A trackball at home and a mouse at work. i was perfectly happy with either one, but the theory I went with was that by using different devices I might avoid repetitive motion injury.
Also, consider many of the Big Oil companies are working on Hydrogen fuel cells so they can continue to provide fuel (hydrogen) and it looks like a gallium-aluminum mixture reacting with water is a very promising means of getting hydrogen. An argument could be made that Big Oil is working on a car that runs on water right now.
It depends entirely on the plant and the location. Plants are simply solar collectors that store sunlight as chemical energy in the form of carbohydrates, fats, and proteins (amino acids). I agree that plants for energy should probably not displace plants for food, but there are a lot of places unsuitable for food plants that may be suitable for fuel plants.
Secondly, even if biofuels were to require more energy to grow than you could get out of them there may still be an argument for them as a portable energy storage medium. This would depend entirely on the source of the excess energy. Say it takes 50% of the energy in a biofuel to grow the fuel and 55% of the energy in a biofuel to refine the fuel. If the refinery energy came from solar then the biofuel could be a decent portable energy storage medium. Possibly better than hydrogen.
But, do you know with a high degree of certainty that every model of cell phone, laptop, PDA, pager, Blackberry, or other personal electronic device absolutely will NOT interfere with any aircraft system in such a way as to cause a failure of the aircraft?
Do you know that under a typical maintenance regimen that the there is a sufficiently low probability of a component being in state that while perfectly fine with no electronic device operating might fail catastrophically with a particular electronic device in operation?
Given the rate of development of new electronic devices who is going to do the testing to verify new devices do not interfere?
Would you be willing to be the guy who was executed (given you likely do not have the kind of money it would take to pay off the lawsuits) if any aircraft crashed due to interference with an electronic device?
if it was done right, it would have all the fun of swing a lightsaber around without the frustration of being reminded that you're not a Jedi.
Although, that could be hilarious as body parts started falling off the character in the game. Especially, if they took a page out of Monty Python. What is never mentioned, in the movies at least, is just how dangerous a lightsaber can be. I mean a device that will remove body parts with nearly no resistance. Amputations galor!
This is something I was trying to figure out with the survey.. They looked at how many people had spent $400 for their phone. my question would have been how many have spent $400 on their phone and their MP3 player at a minimum. If the PDA style capabilities are really their, then you also want to ask how many spent $400 on their phone, MP3 player, and PDA. And, don't forget to subtract the $150discoutn you typically get for the phone when you sign up for 2 year or whatever with most plans.
No, copyright takes away freedom. The GPL gives some of it back. Oh be, nit picky. So, translate to GPL gives less freedom to first tier compared to the BSD license in exchange for making sure those below the first tier have the same freedoms as the first tier.
Pretty much all x86 processors are RISC processors with a x86 decode front end these days. That is what that decoder thing is on every block diagram you see of an x86 processor since the Pentium Pro. The P4 demonstrated this in spades by caching decoded x86 instructions rather than just the original x86 instruction allowing the processor to skip the decode stage in loops and branches sometimes.
The decoder is really the only place of any significant difference between a RISC and x86 processor these days. An x86 decoder is more complicated due to the larger instruction set and the fact that any of those instructions map to multiple internal instructions while in RISC there are fewer instructions to decode and proportionally more map to single internal instructions. Any other differences are more related to design choices that are more or less independent of the instruction set.
What I learned was true americans did not want the jobs,
No, you couldn't get quality Americans to want the jobs at $6.00 per hour because they went off and got jobs that paid more. The ones left were the stupid and lazy. So, instead of actually competing with other businesses for good employees you imported them from another country.
Of course Intel has something like 6 processro FABs all over the world that are likely larger than AMDs. Doesn't take much R&D just to build more capacity especially when you are the 800lb gorilla.
Uh...doesn't take much R&D??? How do you suppose that Intel gets to the next process step a full 1 year ahead of everyone else on the planet? Magic?
I meant their capacity is not necessarily a direct function of R&D. Of course it takes R&D to develop processes.
As I said I do not think it is as simple a matter as Intel is huge and spends, so much more money on R&D therefore AMD is hosed.
Oh and. IBM had 65nm ASICs in June 2005 6 months ahead of Intel.
It really is not 1 year. This is the strange thing about Intel having so many more Fabs. They get the first chips out, but that is not every Fab putting out 65nm. It is most likely one Fab, which would be the smart thing to do, it would be incredibly stupid to switch all production to 65nm at the saem time. So, it is very likely that Intel will be 100% 65nm at about the same time AMD is. It is hard to make an real solid comparison. ANd, given that AMD does not have 4 cutting edge Fabs I think a good argument could be made that AMD is behaving correctly, even if Intel gains some advantage. You do not want production problems caused by a transition when you only have 1.5 Fabs. I just do not think it is as clear cut or as significant an advantage for Intel as it may seem on its face. Advantage: Yes. Big Advantage: ???
Yep, that huge technological lead of a few months. This is the first time since really K5 that AMD has had production issues. And, the production issues described in the article are really the good kind. The early ones were the bad kind where the chip design itself caused the production problems. The good kind is where yields are good, speeds are good and the design is manufacturable. Your only issue is figuring out how to push more die through the line.
Fab 36 will be online soon with 300mm wafers and 65nm. Just going to 300mm wafers pretty much doubles capacity. Going to 65nm gets you another say 50% (anyone got a confirmed number). Getting FAB 36 and FAB 30 going doubles capacity again. So, by my calculations that is 2 x 2 x 1.5 or 6x cpacity increase for AMD in the next couple of months.
Did Intel switch to 65nm and 300mm sooner than AMD? Yes. Did they switch to copper and low-K dieelectric before AMD? No. Did their 90nm production even work quite right for Intel ever? Not sure. When the 90nm P4s used more power than their 130nm brethren you have to wonder.
Of course Intel has something like 6 processro FABs all over the world that are likely larger than AMDs. Doesn't take much R&D just to build more capacity especially when you are the 800lb gorilla.
Basically, Intel and AMD, at this time, are quality processor maufacturing operations. Intel tends to make technology switches before AMD, but they also get to deal with first adopter issues. And, when they both buy there equipment form the same semiconductor equipment manufacturers like Applied Materials, Novellus, and others. How much is AMD benefitting from Intel working out the bugs.
What is the difference between something in the mind and a neurological problem?
If it is not the result of physical injury to the brain at what point is something psychological vs neurological is it really jus tthe difference in the amount of time and effort it takes for the brain to rewire around the problem?
We throw drugs and psychotherapy at various mental problems, but in the end are we really just nudging (or kicking) the brain to rewire and hoping it is a good thing.
Mr Adams made an excellent connection in realizing all the physical things must be working, since he could speak in other contexts, and that barring injury (and sometime even when injured) the brain is constantly creating and destroying connection, and if you try long enough you might get lucky and get the brain to reconnect around a problem.
Unfortunately, we don't have a really good model of the brain to allow for more precise nudging to get results in psychotherapy or neurological problems. And, so we continue to guess and check and hopefully come up with some things that work most of the time.
What you describe is mostly caused by disk speed. You could try 4 disks in RAID 0. Just back up the stuff you care about because now you have 4 devices that can cause loss of all data instead of one.
MRAM may ulitmately result in unnoticeable load times depending on what you can fit on them. But, I suspect disks will continue to be the price leader. givne th echoice of 1TB of hard disk vs 1GB of MRAM you will ikely still be using the hard disk and maybe have the MRAM hold the OS>
Slashdot Mirror
The entire ISS might be overkill. But, if we really want ongoing consistent humanned trips between the earth and moon and eventually Mars or Jupiter's moons I think an orbital way station around both the Earth and the moon is needed.
Currently, to get to the moon you have to launch the spacecraft, lander, enough fuel and supplies to get to the moon and back from earth every single time and the spacecraft has to be designed for earth re-entry.
What if we have the ISS around earth and a small station around the moon that is pretty much just a dock. Launch a craft to the ISS that is just the ferry between the moon and Earth it can use ion engines. A lander or landers is sent to the moon station on the first couple trips and left docked at the station.
Trips to the moon then become a matter of launching supplies and people for the ferry to LEO these can be in separate launches, the people launch can be in an austere capsule to minimize weight because they are only going to be there for long enough to dock with the ISS. The people and supplies are put on the ferry and it makes the trip to the moon way station. The people then can transfer to the lander and go to the surface.
The advantages are that each lander is launched one time and used many times, the ship designed for multi-day(week?) trips between the earth and moon is only launched one time and used many times. Supplies can be launched in relatively cheap craft where there is no weight used for life support and other things that people need. The people can launch in austere craft with just enough space and supplies to get to the ISS.
The feasibility of this strategy is completely dependent on how many times the ferry and landers can be reused. Because it has higher up front launch costs, but much lower ongoing launch costs.
The number 1 cost and difficulty in putting stuff into space is getting it from the earth to orbit. The less stuff that needs to be moved to orbit the better. One of the main mission objectives of ongoing trips to the moon would be to figure out what things can be resupplied using materials on the moon since it takes less fuel to get something off the moon than the earth. Can lunar soil be made suitable for growing plants? Is there anything on the moon suitable as reaction mass for an ion engine or fuel for lifting off of the moon? Is there water, oxygen, and/or hydrogen bound to minerals on the moon or buried beneath the surface?
Don't forget, the Sun, Pulsars, Quasars, black holes, every other star in the galaxy, Cosmic Microwave Background radiation.
Actually, explicitly authorizing in a legal letter would count as protecting the trademark. They do not even have to get any money for the authorization. There are a couple cases of this method being used, that I cannot track down at this time.
In the US, Europe and other developed countries where fresh vaccine is widely available thimerosal removal is not that big of a deal. Where the removal of thimerosal has a huge impact is in developing countries where it might be days to weeks without refrigeration to get a vaccine where it is needed. In such a situation the benefits of the vaccine far outweigh the tiny risk of issues due to the tiny amount of thimerosal.
Kind of weird that it applies to all sports at all levels. Although I guess you don't really need a press credential to get into a DIII swim meet between Claremont-Mudd-Scripps and CalTech.
Just seems kind of silly to apply the rules to events that do not get live press coverage anyways where perhaps having live bloggers might generate additional interest, and be good for those schools to get good more interest from good students.
I did not even realize I had a 4 digit number nor, that it signified anything until I read your post. So, here I am.
The math is 248 dimensional but the Universe described by the math has 3 space and 1 time dimension. Better than String Theory which requires extra real dimensions.
No, 222 particles which he takes to 240 because the math has places for those extra particles, it is more complex to try to explain why there are places that should have particles that do not.
I like end of the paper though where, to paraphrase, because he predicts those particles there are only two options. Success or spectacular failure.
I used to have both. A trackball at home and a mouse at work. i was perfectly happy with either one, but the theory I went with was that by using different devices I might avoid repetitive motion injury.
Also, consider many of the Big Oil companies are working on Hydrogen fuel cells so they can continue to provide fuel (hydrogen) and it looks like a gallium-aluminum mixture reacting with water is a very promising means of getting hydrogen. An argument could be made that Big Oil is working on a car that runs on water right now.
Not necessarily...
It depends entirely on the plant and the location. Plants are simply solar collectors that store sunlight as chemical energy in the form of carbohydrates, fats, and proteins (amino acids). I agree that plants for energy should probably not displace plants for food, but there are a lot of places unsuitable for food plants that may be suitable for fuel plants.
Secondly, even if biofuels were to require more energy to grow than you could get out of them there may still be an argument for them as a portable energy storage medium. This would depend entirely on the source of the excess energy. Say it takes 50% of the energy in a biofuel to grow the fuel and 55% of the energy in a biofuel to refine the fuel. If the refinery energy came from solar then the biofuel could be a decent portable energy storage medium. Possibly better than hydrogen.
But, do you know with a high degree of certainty that every model of cell phone, laptop, PDA, pager, Blackberry, or other personal electronic device absolutely will NOT interfere with any aircraft system in such a way as to cause a failure of the aircraft?
Do you know that under a typical maintenance regimen that the there is a sufficiently low probability of a component being in state that while perfectly fine with no electronic device operating might fail catastrophically with a particular electronic device in operation?
Given the rate of development of new electronic devices who is going to do the testing to verify new devices do not interfere?
Would you be willing to be the guy who was executed (given you likely do not have the kind of money it would take to pay off the lawsuits) if any aircraft crashed due to interference with an electronic device?
if it was done right, it would have all the fun of swing a lightsaber around without the frustration of being reminded that you're not a Jedi.
Although, that could be hilarious as body parts started falling off the character in the game. Especially, if they took a page out of Monty Python. What is never mentioned, in the movies at least, is just how dangerous a lightsaber can be. I mean a device that will remove body parts with nearly no resistance. Amputations galor!
And, once of those security experts is Polish researcher Michael Zalewski, who has found many exploits in the last month and reported them.
If the code is hard to write it should be hard to read. :-)
- science can be proven and disproven (and mostly be proven to be accurate enough for some scope), and
One modification is absolutely necessary to your definition.
Science can only be disproven.
Science cannot prove to you that General Relativity is true everywhere all the time.
"God did it" is not science because it cannot be disproven.
This is something I was trying to figure out with the survey.. They looked at how many people had spent $400 for their phone. my question would have been how many have spent $400 on their phone and their MP3 player at a minimum. If the PDA style capabilities are really their, then you also want to ask how many spent $400 on their phone, MP3 player, and PDA. And, don't forget to subtract the $150discoutn you typically get for the phone when you sign up for 2 year or whatever with most plans.
Pretty much all x86 processors are RISC processors with a x86 decode front end these days. That is what that decoder thing is on every block diagram you see of an x86 processor since the Pentium Pro. The P4 demonstrated this in spades by caching decoded x86 instructions rather than just the original x86 instruction allowing the processor to skip the decode stage in loops and branches sometimes.
The decoder is really the only place of any significant difference between a RISC and x86 processor these days. An x86 decoder is more complicated due to the larger instruction set and the fact that any of those instructions map to multiple internal instructions while in RISC there are fewer instructions to decode and proportionally more map to single internal instructions. Any other differences are more related to design choices that are more or less independent of the instruction set.
What I learned was true americans did not want the jobs,
No, you couldn't get quality Americans to want the jobs at $6.00 per hour because they went off and got jobs that paid more. The ones left were the stupid and lazy. So, instead of actually competing with other businesses for good employees you imported them from another country.
Hate replying twice.
Of course Intel has something like 6 processro FABs all over the world that are likely larger than AMDs. Doesn't take much R&D just to build more capacity especially when you are the 800lb gorilla.
Uh...doesn't take much R&D???
How do you suppose that Intel gets to the next process step a full 1 year ahead of everyone else on the planet? Magic?
I meant their capacity is not necessarily a direct function of R&D. Of course it takes R&D to develop processes.
As I said I do not think it is as simple a matter as Intel is huge and spends, so much more money on R&D therefore AMD is hosed.
Oh and. IBM had 65nm ASICs in June 2005 6 months ahead of Intel.
It really is not 1 year. This is the strange thing about Intel having so many more Fabs. They get the first chips out, but that is not every Fab putting out 65nm. It is most likely one Fab, which would be the smart thing to do, it would be incredibly stupid to switch all production to 65nm at the saem time. So, it is very likely that Intel will be 100% 65nm at about the same time AMD is. It is hard to make an real solid comparison. ANd, given that AMD does not have 4 cutting edge Fabs I think a good argument could be made that AMD is behaving correctly, even if Intel gains some advantage. You do not want production problems caused by a transition when you only have 1.5 Fabs. I just do not think it is as clear cut or as significant an advantage for Intel as it may seem on its face. Advantage: Yes. Big Advantage: ???
Yep, that huge technological lead of a few months. This is the first time since really K5 that AMD has had production issues. And, the production issues described in the article are really the good kind. The early ones were the bad kind where the chip design itself caused the production problems. The good kind is where yields are good, speeds are good and the design is manufacturable. Your only issue is figuring out how to push more die through the line.
Fab 36 will be online soon with 300mm wafers and 65nm. Just going to 300mm wafers pretty much doubles capacity. Going to 65nm gets you another say 50% (anyone got a confirmed number). Getting FAB 36 and FAB 30 going doubles capacity again. So, by my calculations that is 2 x 2 x 1.5 or 6x cpacity increase for AMD in the next couple of months.
Did Intel switch to 65nm and 300mm sooner than AMD? Yes. Did they switch to copper and low-K dieelectric before AMD? No. Did their 90nm production even work quite right for Intel ever? Not sure. When the 90nm P4s used more power than their 130nm brethren you have to wonder.
Of course Intel has something like 6 processro FABs all over the world that are likely larger than AMDs. Doesn't take much R&D just to build more capacity especially when you are the 800lb gorilla.
Basically, Intel and AMD, at this time, are quality processor maufacturing operations. Intel tends to make technology switches before AMD, but they also get to deal with first adopter issues. And, when they both buy there equipment form the same semiconductor equipment manufacturers like Applied Materials, Novellus, and others. How much is AMD benefitting from Intel working out the bugs.
What is the difference between something in the mind and a neurological problem?
If it is not the result of physical injury to the brain at what point is something psychological vs neurological is it really jus tthe difference in the amount of time and effort it takes for the brain to rewire around the problem?
We throw drugs and psychotherapy at various mental problems, but in the end are we really just nudging (or kicking) the brain to rewire and hoping it is a good thing.
Mr Adams made an excellent connection in realizing all the physical things must be working, since he could speak in other contexts, and that barring injury (and sometime even when injured) the brain is constantly creating and destroying connection, and if you try long enough you might get lucky and get the brain to reconnect around a problem.
Unfortunately, we don't have a really good model of the brain to allow for more precise nudging to get results in psychotherapy or neurological problems. And, so we continue to guess and check and hopefully come up with some things that work most of the time.
What you describe is mostly caused by disk speed. You could try 4 disks in RAID 0. Just back up the stuff you care about because now you have 4 devices that can cause loss of all data instead of one.
MRAM may ulitmately result in unnoticeable load times depending on what you can fit on them. But, I suspect disks will continue to be the price leader. givne th echoice of 1TB of hard disk vs 1GB of MRAM you will ikely still be using the hard disk and maybe have the MRAM hold the OS>